Mueller's investigation of Trump is going too far (CNN)

Nomad said:
If during his investigation of possible collusion, Mueller uncovers financial crimes, he is within his right and his duty, to report any and all findings to Congress and Congress is obligated to release that report to the public.

Whether or not Trump was/is stupid enough to break the law or not, is beside the point.

So far, he hasn't demonstrated a great deal of common sense in that regard anyhow, given the way he personally dictated a bald-faced lie for his son to tell the public.

If Mueller uncovers financial crimes by Trump, the press and the public will find out and it will be discussed over and over and over again, ad infinitum, until every adult, child and family pet will be familiar with the tiniest details.

At that point, the GOP is going to have a problem on its hands.
Click to expand...

In other words, you have nothing.
 
Darth Omar said:
If it's for something besides Russian collusion or obstruction, you won't need to.
Click to expand...

Nah - if it's for anything, because you just called the whole thing "imaginary," and you and anatta have been calling it a "witch hunt" for months.

If it's for anything. And it sounds like you're nervous about that.
 
anatta said:
Last month, when President Donald Trump was asked by The New York Times if special counsel Robert Mueller would be crossing a line if he started investigating the finances of Trump and his family, the President said, "I think that's a violation. Look, this is about Russia."

The President is absolutely correct. Mueller has come up to a red line in the Russia 2016 election-meddling investigation that he is dangerously close to crossing.

According to a CNN article, Mueller's investigators could be looking into financial records relating to the Trump Organization that are unrelated to the 2016 election.
According to these reports, "sources described an investigation that has widened to focus on possible financial crimes, some unconnected to the 2016 election.

" The piece goes on to cite law enforcement sources who say non-Russia-related leads that "involve Trump associates" are being referred to the special counsel "to encourage subjects of the investigation to cooperate."

This information is deeply concerning to me. It does not take a lawyer or even a former federal prosecutor like myself to conclude that investigating Donald Trump's finances or his family's finances falls completely outside of the realm of his 2016 campaign and allegations that the campaign coordinated with the Russian government or anyone else. That goes beyond the scope of the appointment of the special counsel.

In fact, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's letter appointing special counsel Robert Mueller does not give Mueller broad, far-reaching powers in this investigation. He is only authorized to investigate matters that involved any potential links to and coordination between two entities -- the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

People are wrongly pointing to, and taking out of context, the phrase "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation" to characterize special counsel's authority as broad.
The word "investigation" is clearly defined directly preceding it in the same sentence specifically as coordination between individuals associated with the campaign of Donald Trump and Russia. The Trump Organization's business dealings are plainly not within the scope of the investigation, nor should they be.

Indeed, Sunday on Fox News, Rod Rosenstein acknowledged Mueller had limited authority and would need to seek his permission to expand the investigation.
Beyond the legal reading, the broad authority argument defies plain logic: If the special counsel could investigate anything he wants, why would there even need to be a letter spelling out the specific limits of the investigation?

One of the dynamics at play here is that people are conflating this investigation and Kenneth Starr's 1994 investigation into President Bill Clinton. While partly understandable at first glance, the two investigations are not comparable -- not only have more than two decades passed since then, but a completely new law and legal framework governing separate investigations has also passed.

Starr was an independent counsel and Mueller is a special counsel, the two words are different for a reason.
Any investigation into President Trump's finances or the finances of his family would require Mueller to return to Rod Rosenstein for additional authority under Mueller's appointment as special counsel.
If he were to continue to investigate the financial relationships without a broadened scope in his appointment, then this would raise serious concerns that the special counsel's investigation was a mere witch hunt. If Mueller is indeed going down this path, Rosenstein should act to ensure the investigation is within its jurisdiction and within the authority of the original directive.

I've prosecuted several financial crimes at the federal level and I've also defended plenty in my private practice. From this unique vantage point, I can understand how a motivated prosecutor, in a broad investigation into the financial affairs of high-profile individuals, can become overzealous toward the targets of such probes -- with calamitous results.
While no one is above the law, in situations such as this, any seasoned prosecutor must use discretion both judiciously and expertly.
It is time for Rosenstein, who is the acting attorney general for the purposes of this investigation, to order Mueller to limit the scope of his investigation to the four corners of the order appointing him special counsel.
If he doesn't, then Mueller's investigation will eventually start to look like a political fishing expedition. This would not only be out of character for a respected figure like Mueller, but also could be damaging
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/06/opinions/rosenstein-should-curb-mueller-whittaker-opinion/index.html
to the President of the United States and his family -- and by extension, to the country.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Whitaker


Matthew G. Whitaker (born October 29, 1969 in Des Moines, Iowa) is a lawyer and Republican politician. Whitaker is Executive Director of The Foundation for Accountability & Civic Trust (FACT), a conservative, nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting accountability, ethics, and transparency in government. He was the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa. Whitaker was a candidate in the June 3, 2014 primary election for the Republican nomination for United States Senate election in Iowa.




OPINION PIECE
 
white water went from an stupid land deal that lost a young couple money to a cock sucking


the right cheered


crime investigators investigate to see of there is a crime.

If they find a crime are they supposed to give the criminal a pass
 
Thing1 said:
Nah - if it's for anything, because you just called the whole thing "imaginary," and you and anatta have been calling it a "witch hunt" for months.

If it's for anything. And it sounds like you're nervous about that.
Click to expand...

It's kind of obvious collusion was a joke by now, isn't it.

If by some 11th hour miracle Mueller can pull collusion out of his magic hat I'll eat the crow. If it's something else, me and 60 million other voters will be kind of pissed off about it.
 
Darth Omar said:
It's kind of obvious collusion was a joke by now, isn't it.

If by some 11th hour miracle Mueller can pull collusion out of his magic hat I'll eat the crow. If it's something else, me and 60 million other voters will be kind of pissed off about it.
Click to expand...

For starters, we have no idea. Because we don't know what the investigation is turning up.

Next, LOL!!! You'll eat crow if it turns up ANYTHING, because you have called it imaginary & a witch hunt.

Next, LOL AGAIN!!!!!!!! You always think you speak for millions of others. Most of the country isn't a bunch of Trump hacks - sorry.
 
Darth Omar said:
It's kind of obvious collusion was a joke by now, isn't it.

If by some 11th hour miracle Mueller can pull collusion out of his magic hat I'll eat the crow. If it's something else, me and 60 million other voters will be kind of pissed off about it.
Click to expand...

You have ZERO idea what evidence Mueller is looking at right now, yet you talk like you do.
 
Thing1 said:
For starters, we have no idea. Because we don't know what the investigation is turning up.

Next, LOL!!! You'll eat crow if it turns up ANYTHING, because you have called it imaginary & a witch hunt.

Next, LOL AGAIN!!!!!!!! You always think you speak for millions of others. Most of the country isn't a bunch of Trump hacks - sorry.
Click to expand...

For someone who frequents a debate board you're pretty oblivious to how politics works.

I just posted an OP about a prominent liberal law professor who called for Rosenstein to recuse himself.

Let me walk you through the political implications of that: the fact he is a liberal isn't insignificant, because that means independents are going to be seeing it that way as well. You and your liberal buddies opinions don't matter because they could haul Trump before a firing squad tonight, and there wouldn't be a peep out of any of you.

But all those independents, that you need to win elections, are apt to conclude that Trump was railroaded out of office by a corrupt process.

Depending on how it turns out. No need for a crystal ball---just a rudimentary understanding of how politics work.

Apparently, something you lack.
 
Darth Omar said:
For someone who frequents a debate board you're pretty oblivious to how politics works.

I just posted an OP about a prominent liberal law professor who called for Rosenstein to recuse himself.

Let me walk you through the political implications of that: the fact he is a liberal isn't insignificant, because that means independents are going to be seeing it that way as well. You and your liberal buddies opinion don't matter because they could haul Trump before a firing squad tonight, and there wouldn't be a peep out of any of you.

But all those independents, that you need to win elections, are apt to conclude that Trump was railroaded out of office by a corrupt process.

Depending on how it turns out. No need for a crystal ball---just a rudimentary understanding of how politics work.

Apparently, something you lack.
Click to expand...

You didn't know Congress could investigate.

You didn't know that there was a coalition for Libya.

But thanks for the lecture.
 
Darth Omar said:
For someone who frequents a debate board you're pretty oblivious to how politics works.

I just posted an OP about a prominent liberal law professor who called for Rosenstein to recuse himself.

Let me walk you through the political implications of that: the fact he is a liberal isn't insignificant, because that means independents are going to be seeing it that way as well. You and your liberal buddies opinions don't matter because they could haul Trump before a firing squad tonight, and there wouldn't be a peep out of any of you.

But all those independents, that you need to win elections, are apt to conclude that Trump was railroaded out of office by a corrupt process.

Depending on how it turns out. No need for a crystal ball---just a rudimentary understanding of how politics work.

Apparently, something you lack.
Click to expand...

Mueller is a Republican, dolt.

You should walk yourself through the door and off the end of the nearest pier.
 
Nomad said:
You have ZERO idea what evidence Mueller is looking at right now, yet you talk like you do.
Click to expand...

You have zero evidence of collusion after eleven months of looking with as many as nine[!] different investigations lol.

Do you spend a lot of money on the lottery?
 
Darth Omar said:
You have zero evidence of collusion after eleven months of looking with as many as nine[!] different investigations lol.

Do you spend a lot of money on the lottery?
Click to expand...

You are correct about ME having zero evidence.

What you don't seem to understand is that I am not investigating and prosecuting the case against Trump.

Ergo, it doesn't matter whether or not I have evidence of anything.

And I'm not even claiming I do.

You and your fellow Trumptards are the ones talking as if you know things you obviously don't know.

But please, keep on making asses of yourselves.

It's fun to watch.
 
anatta said:
Last month, when President Donald Trump was asked by The New York Times if special counsel Robert Mueller would be crossing a line if he started investigating the finances of Trump and his family, the President said, "I think that's a violation. Look, this is about Russia."

The President is absolutely correct. Mueller has come up to a red line in the Russia 2016 election-meddling investigation that he is dangerously close to crossing.

According to a CNN article, Mueller's investigators could be looking into financial records relating to the Trump Organization that are unrelated to the 2016 election.
According to these reports, "sources described an investigation that has widened to focus on possible financial crimes, some unconnected to the 2016 election.

" The piece goes on to cite law enforcement sources who say non-Russia-related leads that "involve Trump associates" are being referred to the special counsel "to encourage subjects of the investigation to cooperate."

This information is deeply concerning to me. It does not take a lawyer or even a former federal prosecutor like myself to conclude that investigating Donald Trump's finances or his family's finances falls completely outside of the realm of his 2016 campaign and allegations that the campaign coordinated with the Russian government or anyone else. That goes beyond the scope of the appointment of the special counsel.

In fact, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's letter appointing special counsel Robert Mueller does not give Mueller broad, far-reaching powers in this investigation. He is only authorized to investigate matters that involved any potential links to and coordination between two entities -- the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

People are wrongly pointing to, and taking out of context, the phrase "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation" to characterize special counsel's authority as broad.
The word "investigation" is clearly defined directly preceding it in the same sentence specifically as coordination between individuals associated with the campaign of Donald Trump and Russia. The Trump Organization's business dealings are plainly not within the scope of the investigation, nor should they be.

Indeed, Sunday on Fox News, Rod Rosenstein acknowledged Mueller had limited authority and would need to seek his permission to expand the investigation.
Beyond the legal reading, the broad authority argument defies plain logic: If the special counsel could investigate anything he wants, why would there even need to be a letter spelling out the specific limits of the investigation?

One of the dynamics at play here is that people are conflating this investigation and Kenneth Starr's 1994 investigation into President Bill Clinton. While partly understandable at first glance, the two investigations are not comparable -- not only have more than two decades passed since then, but a completely new law and legal framework governing separate investigations has also passed.

Starr was an independent counsel and Mueller is a special counsel, the two words are different for a reason.
Any investigation into President Trump's finances or the finances of his family would require Mueller to return to Rod Rosenstein for additional authority under Mueller's appointment as special counsel.
If he were to continue to investigate the financial relationships without a broadened scope in his appointment, then this would raise serious concerns that the special counsel's investigation was a mere witch hunt. If Mueller is indeed going down this path, Rosenstein should act to ensure the investigation is within its jurisdiction and within the authority of the original directive.

I've prosecuted several financial crimes at the federal level and I've also defended plenty in my private practice. From this unique vantage point, I can understand how a motivated prosecutor, in a broad investigation into the financial affairs of high-profile individuals, can become overzealous toward the targets of such probes -- with calamitous results.
While no one is above the law, in situations such as this, any seasoned prosecutor must use discretion both judiciously and expertly.
It is time for Rosenstein, who is the acting attorney general for the purposes of this investigation, to order Mueller to limit the scope of his investigation to the four corners of the order appointing him special counsel.
If he doesn't, then Mueller's investigation will eventually start to look like a political fishing expedition. This would not only be out of character for a respected figure like Mueller, but also could be damaging
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/06/opinions/rosenstein-should-curb-mueller-whittaker-opinion/index.html
to the President of the United States and his family -- and by extension, to the country.
Click to expand...

Bloody hell, even CNN are saying that Mueller is taking the piss!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top