correct it is a fishing expedition as now they have leaked they are looking into Jared Kushner's business dealings... again a dead end, whats next?HokieFanDC wrote:That's not the whole point of the special prosecutor. He wasnt brought in to investigate Trump's firing Comey at all.cwtcr hokie wrote:That is the whole point of the special prosecutor, Comey in open testimony said he nor the FBI was affected by anything Trump did or said, the other officials that Trump supposedly per the Wa Po pressured into making waves on the Flynn investigation have also testified that they were never pressured at all by anyone. Comey and ALL AGREE that Trump could fire Comey for any reason at any time, the dems wanted him fired months and months ago!!!HokieFanDC wrote:I didn't "admit" that, that's a bizarre way to put it, but Trump certainly has the authority to do so.USN_Hokie wrote:Did you or did you not admit in another thread that Trump had the right to fire Comey? If so, the entire premise of this purse fight is moot.HokieFanDC wrote:Who, and what cases?awesome guy wrote: They withheld evidence in a previous case.
Not sure how that is meaningful.
So what is the special prosecutor for? The collusion that has already been debunked and Sessions destroyed during his testimony. Do you dems think that all these people are suddenly going to do a 180 and throw Trump under the bus? Nobody is that dumb
So Mueller is investigating for obstruction on a premise
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: So Mueller is investigating for obstruction on a premise
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: So Mueller is investigating for obstruction on a premise
BREAK WHAT LAW???? he can fire him cuz he did not like his tie. This is soooooo stupidHokieFanDC wrote:Being within his powers doesn't mean that the intent behind the firing doesn't break the law.USN_Hokie wrote:Great. THEN WHY are you arguing that this is anything but a partisan witch hunt? The entire premise for you arguing in this thread is illogical if you agree Trump was within his powers to fire Comey.HokieFanDC wrote:I didn't "admit" that, that's a bizarre way to put it, but Trump certainly has the authority to do so.USN_Hokie wrote:Did you or did you not admit in another thread that Trump had the right to fire Comey? If so, the entire premise of this purse fight is moot.HokieFanDC wrote:Who, and what cases?awesome guy wrote: They withheld evidence in a previous case.
Not sure how that is meaningful.
never mind if Hillary won she would have fired him in 3 seconds and Lynch actually did obstruct justice for Hillary, but who gives a crap, right?
- RiverguyVT
- Posts: 30297
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:30 pm
Re: So Mueller is investigating for obstruction on a premise
HokieFanDC wrote:Being within his powers doesn't mean that the intent behind the firing doesn't break the law.USN_Hokie wrote:Great. THEN WHY are you arguing that this is anything but a partisan witch hunt? The entire premise for you arguing in this thread is illogical if you agree Trump was within his powers to fire Comey.HokieFanDC wrote:I didn't "admit" that, that's a bizarre way to put it, but Trump certainly has the authority to do so.USN_Hokie wrote:Did you or did you not admit in another thread that Trump had the right to fire Comey? If so, the entire premise of this purse fight is moot.HokieFanDC wrote:Who, and what cases?awesome guy wrote: They withheld evidence in a previous case.
Not sure how that is meaningful.
LOL
Dude. Please. You're usually rational.
Cmon.
Paraphrasing you:
What he did was legal, and did not break the law. Like me driving 55 on the interstate, not breaking the law. BUT (TDS follows) if his intent was to be illegal in his actions, his mindset nefarious, that is illegal. Just like me driving 55, but wishing I could go 90. I should be ticketed just for wanting to go fast.
2 sets of laws:
Hillary!'s actions don't matter. Only Hillary!'s intent (which was wholly innocent) does. She acted illegally, but didn't intend to, so all is okay (at least, this is Comey's position). She's driving 120 mph on back roads, but didn't intend to go over 35.
Trump. Does nothing illegal. But his intent is nefarious. Hang the bastard!!!
Seriously. Put the bong down.
So I put (the dead dog) on her doorstep!
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
-
- Posts: 11220
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am
Re: So Mueller is investigating for obstruction on a premise
Given Comey discussed his senate testimony with Mueller in advance of giving it then, yes, he should recuse himself. He's close friends with, a mentor to, and advised the man that Trump fired to initiate the whole "investigation" mess. Ya think!HokieFanDC wrote:The evidence is weak. There are now 6 people known to be on the team. 2 have donated solely to Dems. 1 has donated to both parties. 3 have not made donations to any party. All are respected attorneys. Mueller's staff is not a reason for him to go.USN_Hokie wrote:That's a lazy, sophist argument. Let me translate: "Ignore all the evidence presented in this thread that he's disreputable...because he's reputable." Also, I don't even need to point out the strawman you threw in there. Good job.HokieFanDC wrote:
Mueller has been around long enough, and has been reputable, respected, and distinguished for a long time, that it should take more than Newt bitching, to get rid of him.
This is usually the part of the thread where you say the words instead of framing a legitimate argument.
You can argue that his relationship with Comey is reason to take him off the case, but that's opinion, not fact. I lean toward it being enough that he should recuse himself, but it's not black and white.
-
- Posts: 18547
- Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm
Re: So Mueller is investigating for obstruction on a premise
RiverguyVT wrote:HokieFanDC wrote:Being within his powers doesn't mean that the intent behind the firing doesn't break the law.USN_Hokie wrote:Great. THEN WHY are you arguing that this is anything but a partisan witch hunt? The entire premise for you arguing in this thread is illogical if you agree Trump was within his powers to fire Comey.HokieFanDC wrote:I didn't "admit" that, that's a bizarre way to put it, but Trump certainly has the authority to do so.USN_Hokie wrote:
Did you or did you not admit in another thread that Trump had the right to fire Comey? If so, the entire premise of this purse fight is moot.
Not sure how that is meaningful.
LOL
Dude. Please. You're usually rational.
Cmon.
Paraphrasing you:
What he did was legal, and did not break the law. Like me driving 55 on the interstate, not breaking the law. BUT (TDS follows) if his intent was to be illegal in his actions, his mindset nefarious, that is illegal. Just like me driving 55, but wishing I could go 90. I should be ticketed just for wanting to go fast.
2 sets of laws:
Hillary!'s actions don't matter. Only Hillary!'s intent (which was wholly innocent) does. She acted illegally, but didn't intend to, so all is okay (at least, this is Comey's position). She's driving 120 mph on back roads, but didn't intend to go over 35.
Trump. Does nothing illegal. But his intent is nefarious. Hang the bastard!!!
Seriously. Put the bong down.
That's not a valid comparison.
Think of the relationship between a manager and an employee. Now, say the manager had asked the employee out on a date, and the employee says no. A week later, the manager fires the employee. Under normal circumstances, the manager can fire that employee. But, in this case, if the manager fired that employee for saying no, it's illegal. I don't understand how you guys can't understand that.
As for 2 sets of rules, Hillary is guilty of lots of things...so take that argument up with someone who thinks she isn't a criminal.
But, I get your point, it all hinges on intent, and I think it is going to be hard to tie intent to Trump's firing of Comey.
Re: So Mueller is investigating for obstruction on a premise
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... isions.php
MUELLER’S DISTURBING STAFFING DECISIONS
When people in Washington talk on the record about Robert Mueller, they gush. Terms like “straight shooter” and “unquestioned integrity” flow freely.
Of course, the same was once true of Mueller’s friend, James Comey.
When I talk off the record to people I trust who know Mueller, there’s less gushing, but no expression of alarm. One former prosecutor who knew him at the Justice Department says: “My sense is that he’s independent, but doesn’t make a fetish of it, as I’m afraid Comey does.”
Yet, there may be cause for concern. In my view, Mueller’s friendship with Comey is one. Some of Mueller’s key staffing decisions are another.
Mueller has selected Deputy solicitor general Michael Dreeben as one of his advisers. Dreeben is a premier criminal law expert. However, he’s considered a left-winger by people whose judgment I trust. And Preet Bharara — former US attorney of the Southern District of New York and current Trump adversary — says he’s over-the-moon about Dreeban’s selection.
Dreeben does not owe his selection to investigative prowess. He’s on the team to evaluate whether the fruits of the investigation give rise to a crime.
That’s fine if Dreeben has no agenda. But if he’s anti-Trump, there’s reason to fear he will bend over backwards to spin out a theory through which Trump can be prosecuted.
Mueller has also tapped Jeannie Rhee, formerly a federal prosecutor and high-level Justice Department official. Rhee provided legal services for the Clinton Foundation, a fact the Washington Post omits from its account. In addition, she donated $5,400 to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign PAC “Hillary for America.”
As bitter as the Clintonistas are about losing the election (or rather having it “stolen” by the Russians), it seems unconscionable that Rhee would be on a team that will decide whether to prosecute President Trump at the end of a “Russian interference” investigation. (Dreeben donated $1,000 dollars to Hillary Clinton’s Senate political action committee (PAC) back in the day. This doesn’t strike me as problematic because it doesn’t relate to the 2016 election).
James Quarles, who served as an assistant special prosecutor on the Watergate Special Prosecution Force, is also on Mueller’s team. He donated to “Hillary for America” in 2016.
Andrew Weissmann, who serves in a top post within the Justice Department’s fraud practice, is a key member of Mueller’s team. He served as the FBI’s general counsel and the assistant director to Mueller when the special counsel was FBI director, so it’s natural that Mueller turned to him.
Weissmann was a contributor to Obama campaigns, but not, as far as I can tell, to Clinton’s. Again, I see no problem here. I doubt that any prosecutor could assemble a team that included no one who has donated to Democrats.
Jared Kushner’s New York Observer ran a series of scathing stories depicting Weissmann as a strong-arm prosecutor who “ran roughshod” over defendants’ rights during the Enron investigation. Kushner’s conduct will be part of the Mueller investigation, so this might be a matter of concern. Indeed, if Weissmann is the kind of prosecutor Kushner’s newspaper depicted that too would be concerning (I don’t know one way or the other whether the New York Observer’s portrait is accurate.)
To summarize, Mueller’s selection of Rhee is alarming. To put a Clintonista on his team suggests either poor judgment or anti-Trump bias. It also suggests that Mueller sees himself as “bullet proof.”
Mueller’s selection of Dreeben is also alarming, if what I’m hearing about the guy is accurate. Indeed, it may be even more alarming than the selection of Rhee. Dreeben, after all, will likely play the key role at “crunch time” — the time when Mueller must decide whether the evidence supports bringing criminal charges against the President of the United States.
Weissmann’s selection is alarming if the New York Observer’s portrait is accurate. It is concerning for Jared Kushner, in any case. Quarles’ selection seems less than ideal.
Add it all up, and throw in the Mueller’s friendship with Comey, and I think you have a recipe for unfairness and, quite possibly, abuse.
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
- RiverguyVT
- Posts: 30297
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:30 pm
Re: So Mueller is investigating for obstruction on a premise
No. Just no...HokieFanDC wrote:RiverguyVT wrote:HokieFanDC wrote:Being within his powers doesn't mean that the intent behind the firing doesn't break the law.USN_Hokie wrote:Great. THEN WHY are you arguing that this is anything but a partisan witch hunt? The entire premise for you arguing in this thread is illogical if you agree Trump was within his powers to fire Comey.HokieFanDC wrote:I didn't "admit" that, that's a bizarre way to put it, but Trump certainly has the authority to do so.USN_Hokie wrote:
Did you or did you not admit in another thread that Trump had the right to fire Comey? If so, the entire premise of this purse fight is moot.
Not sure how that is meaningful.
LOL
Dude. Please. You're usually rational.
Cmon.
Paraphrasing you:
What he did was legal, and did not break the law. Like me driving 55 on the interstate, not breaking the law. BUT (TDS follows) if his intent was to be illegal in his actions, his mindset nefarious, that is illegal. Just like me driving 55, but wishing I could go 90. I should be ticketed just for wanting to go fast.
2 sets of laws:
Hillary!'s actions don't matter. Only Hillary!'s intent (which was wholly innocent) does. She acted illegally, but didn't intend to, so all is okay (at least, this is Comey's position). She's driving 120 mph on back roads, but didn't intend to go over 35.
Trump. Does nothing illegal. But his intent is nefarious. Hang the bastard!!!
Seriously. Put the bong down.
That's not a valid comparison.
Think of the relationship between a manager and an employee. Now, say the manager had asked the employee out on a date, and the employee says no. A week later, the manager fires the employee. Under normal circumstances, the manager can fire that employee. But, in this case, if the manager fired that employee for saying no, it's illegal. I don't understand how you guys can't understand that.
As for 2 sets of rules, Hillary is guilty of lots of things...so take that argument up with someone who thinks she isn't a criminal.
But, I get your point, it all hinges on intent, and I think it is going to be hard to tie intent to Trump's firing of Comey.
So I put (the dead dog) on her doorstep!
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
-
- Posts: 11220
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am
Re: So Mueller is investigating for obstruction on a premise
So what did Comey say no to? He already told Trump 3 times he wasn't under investigation? Trump fired him because he was willing to open up to the public about the Hillary investigation but was mum about Trump, leaving the public to think he was under scrutiny when he wasn't.HokieFanDC wrote:RiverguyVT wrote:HokieFanDC wrote:Being within his powers doesn't mean that the intent behind the firing doesn't break the law.USN_Hokie wrote:Great. THEN WHY are you arguing that this is anything but a partisan witch hunt? The entire premise for you arguing in this thread is illogical if you agree Trump was within his powers to fire Comey.HokieFanDC wrote:I didn't "admit" that, that's a bizarre way to put it, but Trump certainly has the authority to do so.USN_Hokie wrote:
Did you or did you not admit in another thread that Trump had the right to fire Comey? If so, the entire premise of this purse fight is moot.
Not sure how that is meaningful.
LOL
Dude. Please. You're usually rational.
Cmon.
Paraphrasing you:
What he did was legal, and did not break the law. Like me driving 55 on the interstate, not breaking the law. BUT (TDS follows) if his intent was to be illegal in his actions, his mindset nefarious, that is illegal. Just like me driving 55, but wishing I could go 90. I should be ticketed just for wanting to go fast.
2 sets of laws:
Hillary!'s actions don't matter. Only Hillary!'s intent (which was wholly innocent) does. She acted illegally, but didn't intend to, so all is okay (at least, this is Comey's position). She's driving 120 mph on back roads, but didn't intend to go over 35.
Trump. Does nothing illegal. But his intent is nefarious. Hang the bastard!!!
Seriously. Put the bong down.
That's not a valid comparison.
Think of the relationship between a manager and an employee. Now, say the manager had asked the employee out on a date, and the employee says no. A week later, the manager fires the employee. Under normal circumstances, the manager can fire that employee. But, in this case, if the manager fired that employee for saying no, it's illegal. I don't understand how you guys can't understand that.
As for 2 sets of rules, Hillary is guilty of lots of things...so take that argument up with someone who thinks she isn't a criminal.
But, I get your point, it all hinges on intent, and I think it is going to be hard to tie intent to Trump's firing of Comey.
Re: So Mueller is investigating for obstruction on a premise
HokieFanDC wrote:awesome guy wrote:Dude, they're all uber libs. No balance in the office, you should be all over that as it's not Noah's Ark.HokieFanDC wrote:The first one may be valid.RiverguyVT wrote:Comey essentially picked him by creating this situation.HokieFanDC wrote:RiverguyVT wrote:Mueller needs to go
Why??
His conflicts of interest where Comey is involved.
His hires so far are just the opposite of impartial.
The second one is valid.
The third one is whiney nonsense. Anyone he picks is going to have some political affiliation. They are professionals, though.
What about all of them, makes them uber libs?
2 of them have donated solely to Dem candidates.
1 of them has donated to both Dems and Pubs.
1 of them has not made any donations.
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: So Mueller is investigating for obstruction on a premise
The democrats are a criminal enterprise, total corruption.USN_Hokie wrote:HokieFanDC wrote:awesome guy wrote:Dude, they're all uber libs. No balance in the office, you should be all over that as it's not Noah's Ark.HokieFanDC wrote:The first one may be valid.RiverguyVT wrote:Comey essentially picked him by creating this situation.HokieFanDC wrote:
Why??
His conflicts of interest where Comey is involved.
His hires so far are just the opposite of impartial.
The second one is valid.
The third one is whiney nonsense. Anyone he picks is going to have some political affiliation. They are professionals, though.
What about all of them, makes them uber libs?
2 of them have donated solely to Dem candidates.
1 of them has donated to both Dems and Pubs.
1 of them has not made any donations.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
Re: So Mueller is investigating for obstruction on a premise
Oh look, another one.USN_Hokie wrote:HokieFanDC wrote:awesome guy wrote:Dude, they're all uber libs. No balance in the office, you should be all over that as it's not Noah's Ark.HokieFanDC wrote:The first one may be valid.RiverguyVT wrote:Comey essentially picked him by creating this situation.HokieFanDC wrote:
Why??
His conflicts of interest where Comey is involved.
His hires so far are just the opposite of impartial.
The second one is valid.
The third one is whiney nonsense. Anyone he picks is going to have some political affiliation. They are professionals, though.
What about all of them, makes them uber libs?
2 of them have donated solely to Dem candidates.
1 of them has donated to both Dems and Pubs.
1 of them has not made any donations.
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: So Mueller is investigating for obstruction on a premise
Obama politicized the entire intelligence apparatus.USN_Hokie wrote:Oh look, another one.USN_Hokie wrote:HokieFanDC wrote:awesome guy wrote:Dude, they're all uber libs. No balance in the office, you should be all over that as it's not Noah's Ark.HokieFanDC wrote:The first one may be valid.RiverguyVT wrote: Comey essentially picked him by creating this situation.
His conflicts of interest where Comey is involved.
His hires so far are just the opposite of impartial.
The second one is valid.
The third one is whiney nonsense. Anyone he picks is going to have some political affiliation. They are professionals, though.
What about all of them, makes them uber libs?
2 of them have donated solely to Dem candidates.
1 of them has donated to both Dems and Pubs.
1 of them has not made any donations.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
-
- Posts: 11220
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am
Re: So Mueller is investigating for obstruction on a premise
Obama had 8 years to seed the DOJ, the FBI and the Courts with hard left liberals. Nothing wrong with that per se as every administration appoints people to high places with favorable viewpoints to their own. Where this has gone off the rails is Obama, thru his minions, taking the next giant step forward and using these agencies to covertly and overtly undermine, attack, generally do harm to those that disagree politically. It's third world in nature.
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: So Mueller is investigating for obstruction on a premise
Don't forget the IRS, DOL,OSHA, etc. It's all a political weapon now, banana republic stuff.133743Hokie wrote:Obama had 8 years to seed the DOJ, the FBI and the Courts with hard left liberals. Nothing wrong with that per se as every administration appoints people to high places with favorable viewpoints to their own. Where this has gone off the rails is Obama, thru his minions, taking the next giant step forward and using these agencies to covertly and overtly undermine, attack, generally do harm to those that disagree politically. It's third world in nature.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
Re: So Mueller is investigating for obstruction on a premise
133743Hokie wrote:Obama had 8 years to seed the DOJ, the FBI and the Courts with hard left liberals. Nothing wrong with that per se as every administration appoints people to high places with favorable viewpoints to their own. Where this has gone off the rails is Obama, thru his minions, taking the next giant step forward and using these agencies to covertly and overtly undermine, attack, generally do harm to those that disagree politically. It's third world in nature.
The people he seeded these agencies with are hard left ideologues who ALWAYS put party before the Constitution or the country. Most people hired while Odumbo was in office needs to be fired via 'budget cuts'.
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson