Put Up or Shut Up Time for Mueller
- Thread starter hvilleherb
- Start date
I doubt any of them will, remember, deep state, corrupted investigation.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Phantasmal,
But of course!
For those hopelessly entrenched in the Trump Bubble, the news is fake. They will run with whatever conspiracy theory supports what they WANT to believe.
It should be very nice, making up your own 'alternative facts.' And it might be if there wasn't this nagging reality thing that keeps popping up.
You know, even after our nation has dispensed with Trump, and rid itself of the worst President ever, Bubbleers will still believe Trump never lied, that he is the greatest. This is all part of the price we pay for free speech. We have to let these people spread their nonsense as the cost of having a free nation.
Right wing nut job pundits make really big money pumping up people's worst fears. They don't ever seem to consider the damage they do to our nation. The hatred they amplify is dangerous to our democracy. But if you have nothing else, and you can make big money stoking fear, I'm sure they find a way to justify what they do.
But of course!
For those hopelessly entrenched in the Trump Bubble, the news is fake. They will run with whatever conspiracy theory supports what they WANT to believe.
It should be very nice, making up your own 'alternative facts.' And it might be if there wasn't this nagging reality thing that keeps popping up.
You know, even after our nation has dispensed with Trump, and rid itself of the worst President ever, Bubbleers will still believe Trump never lied, that he is the greatest. This is all part of the price we pay for free speech. We have to let these people spread their nonsense as the cost of having a free nation.
Right wing nut job pundits make really big money pumping up people's worst fears. They don't ever seem to consider the damage they do to our nation. The hatred they amplify is dangerous to our democracy. But if you have nothing else, and you can make big money stoking fear, I'm sure they find a way to justify what they do.
Bubblers, I like that term, it made me smile.
It holds a different meaning for me being a toker.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Not.
You can not like it all you want, but whoever the AG is, they have the authority to hire—and to fire—an SP. They can order Mullet to do his report any time they want. The AG can even whittle Mullet’s mandate back down to ‘Russian collusion and ONLY Russian collusion’ and not be guilty of—anything.
Again, there is not a separate branch of government called the Mullet Investigation.
reagansghost
eternal
Trump and his horde of slackjaws better be careful what they wish for
Mueller's about to fuck em up good
Mueller's about to fuck em up good
Actually, under current law and regulations, they can not fire a special prosecutor at will. A Special Prosecutor can only be fired for cause. That cause has to be supplied in writing to the Special Counsel. Congress must be informed in writing as well with an explanation of the action by the AG and the reason for doing so.
Any attempt to change the mandate of a special counsel requires that Congress be informed of that action. Any attempt to restrict an action by a special counsel requires that Congress be notified.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.7
So, the President can't fire a special counsel. He can order his AG to fire them but that requires that there be good cause and Congress be informed of that cause. Because the President thinks it is a "witch hunt" is not good cause. Any AG that fires a special counsel is going to have several days sitting in front of Congressional committees explaining what the cause was in public sessions.
The AG can order a special counsel to do his report but if the special counsel feels the investigation is not yet over the AG has to tell Congress that fact. If the AG overrules any action the special counsel wants to take Congress must be informed.
Firing or interfering in the investigation of a special counsel is not a simple thing. Any attempt to do so will quickly become public and create a Congressional investigation that can bring anything and everything to light since there is no longer an ongoing criminal investigation.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
You set up a clumsy straw man lol.
Why don’t I respect Mullet? Because he’s obviously too conflicted to run the investigation. Not only is he a close associate with a principle witness [James Comey] but Mullet was turned down for the FBI Director job *by the very man he is investigating* the DAY BEFORE HE WAS APPOINTED SP by Rod Rosenstein.
And you’ll slough that off as if it means nothing and call Mullet a fine upstanding Boy Scout.
All lefties do, in fact.
Mueller’s Hit Squad
https://dailycaller.com/2017/12/06/...-for-clinton-and-persecutes-trump-associates/
We learn more every day that Mueller’s team consists of corrupt Clinton cronies, donors, and sycophants; the poster boy for prosecutorial misconduct — Andrew Weissmann, former Clinton lawyer Jeanie Rhee, and “never-Trumpers” whose blatant biases have tainted this investigation — “investigation” — from its inception. Their own conflicts of interest are so palpable, the prosecution so selective, and the process so corrupt, that all charges brought to date should be dismissed and the debacle ended.
Mueller had a hand in placing Mr. Weissmann on the Enron Task Force, allowing him to run rough-shod over most of Houston, destroy Arthur Andersen LLP and 85,000 jobs, and send four innocent Merrill executives to prison on indictments for crimes he made up while he and his team hid the evidence that showed they were innocent.
Then Mueller brought Weissmann into the FBI, ultimately as General Counsel and Deputy Director. All four men have thrived in the swamp for thirty years or more. None have ever been elected to office.
Yesterday, we confirmed that Andrew Weissmann is part of the “resistance.”
In addition to having destroyed Arthur Andersen and its 85,000 jobs only to be reversed three years later by a unanimous Supreme Court—Mr. Weissmann was an opponent of President Trump’s extreme vetting policy for persons from countries known for their security failures and terrorism
. An email obtained through the efforts of Judicial Watch revealed his applause for former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and her refusal to enforce President’s Trump’s efforts to protect this country.
Mueller’s hit squad epitomizes the swamp that President Trump was elected to drain. Its charges are irreparably tainted by its members’ biases, corrupted evidence, and intolerable conflicts of interest.
hvilleherb
Verified User
Democrats are cheering as Trump is being persecuted by the Deep State. Democrats are not even concerned about the FISA abuse.
Deep State Determined to Undermine Trump Using Mueller Indictments
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3671578/posts
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Oh, there is so much that needs brought to light in front of Congress lol.
Good luck with it.
hvilleherb
Verified User
I don't think you know what a straw man argument is.
The problem is that courts require facts. Simply because you claim he is conflicted doesn't make it factual. You need some actual evidence.
Comey is a witness of what? Trump collusion with Russia? The only thing Comey could be a tangential witness to is obstruction of justice. By claiming he is a witness you first have to admit that Trump likely committed obstruction. If you don't admit that then Comey isn't a witness. When Mueller files obstruction charges against Trump, you can make the argument in court. Until then you are simply blowing smoke out of your rear end.
Do you have evidence that Mueller wanted the FBI director job? For that matter, Mueller was named Special Counsel the day after he allegedly met with Trump. Hardly evidence of Mueller being turned down by Trump so he would hold a grudge. Mueller may have already known he was being appointed SP when he met with Trump.
This isn't a right/left thing. This is about actual facts. The courts require you to have some to allege someone has a conflict. Speculation because Mueller met with Trump about FBI director job is not evidence of a conflict of interest. If anything, it would show lack of conflict since he was being considered for such a job.
The courts have been pretty clear in saying the opposite in their rulings. I suggest you go read some of them.
The charges are not only substantial, the judge in the Flynn sentencing felt Flynn was getting off too easy by having some of the charges dropped.
You can whine and wave your hands all you want, courts still rely on facts.
If you can't argue the facts, argue the law, if you can't argue the law then attack the prosecution for being biased.
I think we can see where this is going. You have no facts on your side. You don't have the law on your side. You can only whine and moan about how unfairly people are being treated. If it was truly unfair, the courts would be seeing that in the facts and the law. The courts are finding the facts and the law pretty persuasive in the prosecutions.
As long as the investigation is ongoing, the investigators won't talk to Congress about their findings. Close down the investigation and they have no reason not to reveal what they have found.
But I notice you failed to respond to how Mueller could actually be fired as opposed to the made up crap about he could be fired at any time. There has to be cause before he can be fired. That means an actual investigation of Mueller and actual evidence of his wrong doing. Opinion pieces in the Daily Caller don't count as evidence in the real world.
The courts have not been holding trials -simply accepting plea agreements to self generated process crimes in most cases.
there are no"prosecutions" except for that 1 case about the Internet Security Agency.
The Flynn judge did not say anything like that-in fact he apologized for the treason accusation
Flynn was waylaid by Comey and Mccabe where they told him he didn't need a lawyer
and masked their intentions as being about "training"
Manafort had a trial and was convicted.
Those accepting plea agreements have to agree that they actually committed the crime.
The court has to look at the charge, the facts presented and make sure the defendant admits they committed those acts before accepting any plea.
If the plea agreements didn't have the facts and the law on their side, no judge would accept them.
The treason statement was over the top. But perhaps you should read the rest of the transcript.
I suppose Comey and McCabe told Flynn he had to lie to the FBI agents as well. Your argument about entrapment is completely bogus. Read the judge's take on your bullshit argument. The judge specifically questioned Flynn on it. All Flynn had to do was tell the truth and he would not have been charged with lying to the FBI.
When interviewed several have admitted guilt. They have been charged and punished. Indictments and plea deals by the gross.https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/20/17031772/mueller-indictments-grand-jury