masochistYou keep making that claim without evidence. I don't need to google it since I have a downloaded copy. It took me 8 hours to read the 400+ page report, a couple of evenings and a Saturday afternoon.
all of America now knows putin is on team trump
unlike last election
masochistYou keep making that claim without evidence. I don't need to google it since I have a downloaded copy. It took me 8 hours to read the 400+ page report, a couple of evenings and a Saturday afternoon.
Mueller will say the Steele dossier wasn't in the scope of his far ranging investigation..more dodge.
We can only hope that a Presidential election where a foreign entity helped someone get elected ends up being an historical oddity. It certainly won't be thrown on the dustbin of history. It will be studied quite a bit.
As to the Mueller "show", it could be a very interesting day. If Mueller just reads his responses from his written report it could be an enlightening experience for a lot of people. Evidence of a lot of links between Russians and people around Trump. Trump's evasiveness in his written answers. Trump's refusal to answer any more questions. Mueller's decision that he had enough evidence and didn't need to subpoena Trump to get more answers. A clear statement that Russia interfered in the election and the Trump campaign was more than willing to accept that help. There are lots of things that could open the eyes of people in the middle who haven't been paying attention. When presented with facts many people are willing to actually look at the facts. (Think the Trump supporter on Manafort's jury who voted to convict based on seeing the evidence.)
"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."
"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."
only by Russian propaganda through fox the NRA and right wing radio
they are owned by russia
It wasn't. Mueller was commissioned to investigate any links between the Russian government and individuals in the Trump campaign. Where does the Steele dossier come into that? Has anyone produced a scrap of evidence that agents of the Russian state had any input into the Steele dossier?
Abortion has no relevancy to the exposure of Presidents to legal actions. Unless a President is trying to change abortion law by executive order. All of that is totally off topic relative to a President’s exposure to be indicted of a crime.
Again, there’s zero constitutional power of a Justice Department to make law. “CONGRESS SHALL MAKE “ALL” LAWS NECESSARY AND PROPER.” (Article One Section Eight United States Constitution)
Post court case that has made the DOJ law “no sitting President can be indicted of a crime” Please.Your name calling rant doesn't change those facts. Courts have held that department regulations that are created by those departments are legal and binding.
Well then if that’s your belief you should be able to enlighten me with some facts that prove Hillary cannot & should not have been indicted for reckless endangering the United States Of America by using an unauthorized secret email server transmitting classified and even secret government information & allowing access to same by members of her staff without classified and secret clearances, while at the same time a young sailor was convicted and jailed for taking a few pictures of the inside of his submarine, right? I’ll look forward to your superior jurist prudence knowledge & factual reply!I find it funny that you think Hillary got a get out of jail free card. I'll bet you have no more knowledge of the laws concerning her server than you do the regulations of the DoJ or what is actually in the Mueller report.
Then what’s Mueller’s problem with indicting Trump for all of his crimes you and he know about?Regulations are not laws.
Dictionary Dot Com says an impeachment is anLegal rulings are not laws. Legal findings are not laws. They are all interpretations of the laws and are used to clarify how laws are to be carried out. Many laws specifically state that a department is to create regulations in order to carry out the law. The Constitution says nothing about whether it allows a President to be indicted. It does say a President can be impeached.
1. allegation arraignment bill charge citation detention prosecution
Dictionary Dot com says an indictment is,
1. allegation arraignment bill charge citation detention impeachment prosecution
Whom may I ask is the OIC?Since the Constitution says nothing about whether a President can or cannot be indicted it relies on interpretations of other parts of the Constitution. That is what the OIC did when they decided that the standard under the Constitution was that a sitting President couldn't be indicted because it interfered with the separation of powers. It is those separation of powers that prevents many things. The Constitution also says nothing about executive privilege but we have rulings on what that involves to keep the powers separated.
Too bad you weren't the one writing the OIC ruling because then Donald J Trump would be under indictment based on the evidence uncovered by Robert Mueller. Unfortunately, the OIC did write that a sitting president can't be indicted and Mueller followed that ruling.
"Government is force by definition and corruption by nature. The bigger the government, the greater the force and the greater the corruption."
I do believe it's settled evidence that Steel received his dossier from a Russian operative. Stand by, that evidence will sure as hell raise its ugly head again soon in the Obama DOJ & Intel prosecutions of Comey, Brennan & Clapper & others! Get your popcorn ready!
"Government is force by definition and corruption by nature. The bigger the government, the greater the force and the greater the corruption."
evince (07-03-2019)
Something doesn't have to specifically be in the Constitution before it can or can't be done legally in the US. This is some pretty simple stuff.
In order to indict someone 3 things are required. 1.) a law that results in a criminal penalty. 2.) An act that the person committed that broke the law 3.) Evidence of that act that can convince a judge or jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the law was broken.
You can't even cite which law you think is broken let alone evidence to support an indictment. Your argument is made up gobblydegook.
The sailor was convicted of taking pictures in a classified area. It met all 3 requirements for the conviction. It is impossible to NOT know you are taking pictures so the intent was easy to prove and since he worked on the submarine he would clearly know it is a classified area. The pictures were taken on his phone and not sent to him so he is pretty much the only one that could have committed the act.
"unauthorized secret email server" - There is no law preventing anyone from having a server. (There is now a regulation about this but no law. You will notice that in this instance you are arguing that a regulation has some legal power where you just argued that in the case of Mueller, it didn't have any power. The regulation carries no criminal penalty but only an administrative one since Departments can't write laws.) The simple fact is having a server is not a crime and never has been a crime. The transmission of classified information can be a crime under certain circumstances. In order for the transmission of classified information to be a crime it requires "intent to transfer". Having a server that someone sends classified information to that you don't know is classified is not a criminal act by the person having the server since "intent" requires actual knowledge. If the person that sent it knew it was classified they could be charged. Since no one was even charged with the original emails, the criminal aspect of this is not likely to be proven. You have no law to charge Hillary with and no evidence to show she actually broke any law that would have a criminal element to it. The only possible law she might have possibly broken is one that allows for her to be reprimanded or fired.
Regulations are not laws but employees of the Federal government can be fired for not following those regulations. It restricts the actions Mueller can take and still remain an employee.
The English language has no 2 words that mean exactly the same thing. Using a synonym is not the same thing as the original word. Dictionarydotcom is not a legal reference.
OIC - Typo It is the OLC. Office of Legal Counsel.
"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."
You fail to understand how the law and indictments work. You have to have a law that could have been broken. What law do you think was broken when Steele got information from a Russian operative?
You might want to actually read the Mueller report to get a better understanding of this. It lays out why Donald Jr's meeting with Russians may have violated the law. It cites the law and then lays out the evidence including the reason for not charging those at the meeting since the law requires "intent". Basically, he excuses Donald Jr from a crime because Donald Jr didn't know it might be a crime thus intent would have been unlikely to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."
Bookmarks