Charter Member
People have been walking up and asking Trump stuff for as long as I can remember and he's been in our news since the 1970s.Originally Posted by TxMusky
He lies as easily as breathing. He needs to be under oath in order for anyone to believe anything he says.
Charter Member
Yes, Kevin, I am fully aware of your position. Look no further than my original post opening this thread, which ended, “Of course, he loses in the court of pubic opinion if he stands on his rights and that is the ultimate trap.“ That mimicked your later response. I saw you coming...
What you are missing in your stance, Kevin, is how the system is prone to fail in the hands of zealots or the corrupt, but you seem to have an unjustified faith in your fellow bureaucrats to carry out their duties in an honest and straight forward manner. As a former defense lawyer, prosecutor and bureaucrat myself, I have the benefit of experience to know justice can be twisted beyond recognition by people with near unlimited power and budgets...such as A Mueller or Fitzpatrick.There is ample public evidence to see those clouds boiling in this one. Yet your argument is to give up rights in furtherance of some ode to trust in fair execution by a bent political enemies in the hope they will do right. Not wise.
...............
“You can vote your way into socialism, but you have to shoot your way out.” — Too fundamental to have an attribution
Guest
Well I could show you where it is now becoming the norm and not just a freak accident, but I have already been chided for bringing up the past and lectured about "he did, so it's ok for me to do it".
Too bad these jerks do not have your same sense of pride in doing their job fairly and without prejudice. We could use all of our govt employees to have those good traits.
Since I am not allowed to bring up all of the things in the past, where action was not taken to make my points, I have nothing left to offer. Even today, we have the FBI having people who are doing things that should not be allowed to happen. Andrew McCabe just got fired for his actions in a few different things, but I am not sure if that is too far in the past to bring up or if it meets the requirements for "today's news".
Guest
It should be about legalities, since it looks like those in govt service who wield some power are skirting the edge of lawlessness.
Paul Manfort‘s legal team is fighting in court to get his indictment dismissed based on the legal theory that Mueller doesn’t have authority to prosecute him in the first place. They claim that Mueller’s team overstepped the authority granted to him by indicting Manafort with crimes that were not directly related to Russian election meddling.
Late Monday evening, Mueller’s team fired back with their own response. They pointed to the May 2017 appointment order which says that Mueller can investigate.....
As we pointed out the last part refers to a regulation that says, “The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated.” Mueller contends that he didn’t skirt the regulation here because he did indeed receive a “specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated” from Deputy Attorney Rod Rosenstein. That Rosenstein memo (though heavily redacted) was revealed in a court filing on Monday.
The memo gives Mueller a more specific description of his authority and states that he can investigate Paul Manafort for any “crimes arising out of payments he received from the Ukrainian government before and during the tenure of President Viktor Yanukovych.” And that’s pretty much what Manafort was indicted for.
Here’s the weird part about this: The Rosenstein “secret” memo revealed in this week’s court filing is dated August 2, 2017. According to media reports, Paul Manfort’s home was raided July 26, 2017. So that means Rosenstein’s laid out the more specified scope and definition of authority for the special counsel investigation six days after Manafort’s home had already been raided.
https://lawandcrime.com/legal-analys...naforts-house/
Guest
I would hope that a special investigator that has armed men wake this guy up in his bedroom before dawn after breaking into his home, would have all of the legal documents and abides 100% by the law.
I do not think Rosenstein shares Kev's sense of pride in a job well done. I am waiting for Kev to also put a tag line in his sig about the DOJ and the FBI needing to be more adult as well. Seems like they did not get the correct memo...
Charter Member
Prove that the job that was done was done in an unfair manner before making such a claim, waco. Tainting the results before even seeing the result does nothing but rip down the institutions of our country in order to maintain power and win the next election. What the hippies started in the 1960s, tribalism is completing in the 2000s. Trump is all about destruction, not building. He respects nothing and values nothing beyond himself. Seeking to cast doubt on the entire process, as you are doing, even before the results are known, is continuing the same nihilistic destruction that began in the 60s. Trump and his supporters are nothing more than the conservative version of the Yippies and the Students for a Democratic Society. They didn't respect the institutions of our country any more than you do.
We have met the enemy and he is us.
Charter Member
If they don't have their ducks in apple pie order, then throw them to the dogs. I've spent my life taking pride in the service I have provided to this country and I refuse to see it destroyed by an investigation that was not done by the book.
Charter Member
Trey Gowdy gets it:
Poke here
Absolutely right. Because this isn't just a legal issue - it is an issue relating to public trust in our government."I do think he should meet with Special Counsel Mueller," Gowdy, the chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, told CNN's "New Day" on Wednesday morning. "I think he's uniquely well positioned to answer the questions that, not just special counsel but also the American people have."
Charter Member
I would love to see Trump testify----but I'm not one of his lawyers.
Mr Trump has a long standing record of not doing well with the truth during depositions and trial testimony. In fairness, I'm not certain the man can tell truth from lies---it seems they blend into one with him.
This article offers an excellent historical look at what would be reasonably expected by Trump's legal team.
Speaking from experience, I think the president's attorneys should grab their worry beads. Trump sued me for libel in 2006 for a biography I wrote, "TrumpNation," alleging that the book misrepresented his business record and understated his wealth. Trump lost the suit in 2011, but during the litigation my lawyers deposed him under oath for two days in 2007. We had the opportunity to ask Trump about his business and banking practices, his taxes, his personal finances and his professional relationships.
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity, an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty” ---Sir Winston Churchill
"Political extremism involves two prime ingredients: an excessively simple diagnosis of the world's ills, and a conviction that there are identifiable villains back of it all." ---John W. Gardner
“You can’t go back and change the beginning, but you can start where you are and change the ending.” ---C. S. Lewis
Nov 5, 1946 - Nov 19, 2018Tx,
I guess I missed something somewhere. You are not allowed to say certain things about the past? I guess free speech and being able to speak one's mind is a thing of the past. Liberals are always trying to shut down speech that they do not approve of. It is a sad commentary of the times. I am truly sorry for your loss to speak freely.
Guest
Well the way it was put wannabe, was just because someone else did it does not mean it is right and on that point I agree. What i do not agree with is they then called for justice, well justice was not served when so and so did their dirty deed, so why are you not pissed about the injustice done then and are all worried about it now? That was my point. The I got hit with the lines about something that happened in the past, yada yada because I brought Hilliary and Obama and the admin that did all sorts of illegal things and got away with it.
So I switched to the part where Mueller has said that Trump was not a focus of a criminal act and asked why can't Mueller just walk up and ask Trump the question he wanted to ask him, "Are you going to halt the Russia investigation", face to face in the hallway? I then pointed out another article where the arrest of Manafort might not have been on the up and up, so what makes people think that these slimy people have shown any indication that they are doing things by the book.
So in conclusion I will add, knowing that Rosenstein and Mueller as well as the reputation of Weismann, have been shown to be less than stellar, Mueller has admitted that Trump has committed NO CRIMINAL acts and is not a target, why would any sane person just go sit down in the lions den just to see what they could trump up against him like they have done to the rest of those they interviewed?
All of this started because the NYT published a fake Russian dossier, that was bought and paid for by the Clinton's and the DNC and has rolled like a forest fire. A fake news story caused all of this BS on America. It was initiated by the Dems and the DNC, yet I am not supposed to point out the things she did but because of corruption in the very govt agency that is doing this investigation I should not feel uncomfortable? That about sums it all up and here we are.
Nov 5, 1946 - Nov 19, 2018I was on the road for a few minutes today and heard on a talk show about Mueller saying that Trump was not a subject in the investigation would allow him to freely question Trump without Trump evoking his 5th Adm. right. If president Trump was a subject then he could plead the 5th. In light of the new gag order I should not bring up mistreatment of certain people in the past at the hands of prosecutors so If I were the President I would be very cautious.
Charter Member
There is no gag order on this site that I'm aware of.
What was pointed out was that someone's else's misdeeds don't justify letting another get away with doing wrong. It is a childish argument, one that most people mature out of by about the third grade or so after it fails to impress any actual adult.
But no one said you cannot use a childish argument if you are so inclined.
Last edited by Kevin; 04-04-2018 at 07:05 PM.
Charter Member
It does not matter what started the investigation. The fact is that the Justice Department found enough to warrant a special investigator and here we are. Regarding Clinton's misdeeds, see the post immediately preceding this one.
Asking something informally and asking under oath are two different things. Trump lies as easily and as often as he breathes.
Can you cite any example of supposed corruption in the FBI that led to someone being charged with a crime that should not have been? An example of an actual miscarriage of justice that resulted in someone being falsely accused and something that shows that this false accusation was the result of corruption and not just a mistake. Mistakes happen at times and are the result of human error, not malignity. Can you show that there was a case that rests on malignant intent? And has that case been yet unaddressed in the form of disciplinary actions not taken to ensure the process is still corrupted? And that this is not a case of a rogue agent but somehow endemic to the FBI itself?
If not, you got bupkis. It is easy to throw out a charge, a little harder to back up one's words.
Got anything? Anything, like, say, first hand knowledge of the evidence collected, whether that evidence rises to the level necessary to charge someone, what the discussions were regarding that evidence? Or are you just regurgitating some pundit's opinion, someone who doesn't know squat about anything but wants to sell another column to the credulous?
Last edited by Kevin; 04-04-2018 at 07:12 PM.
Guest
The same DOJ that has now been linked back to the Clinton's I might add with Rob Rosenstein, who had ties with McCabe, who was fired for lying and mishandling things. The special investigator was hired by Rosenstein, who took over because more lies forced Sessions to recuse himself.
As far as the corruption at the FBI, that should be apparent by the firing of Comey, not to mention the lovebird agents who are still being checked out because Stryk was the one who changed the wording of what Comey spoke about the Clinton email investigation. One word gave her a get out of jail free card and Stryk did it. Comey as we all know was the head of the FBI and his boss Lynch, basically let him know that nothing was going to happen to Clinton. Comey then, in a childish fit, leaked FBI documents to a friend of his who went to the media with it.
If any of that is even remotely true, I have a lot more than bupkis and we all have reason to say that our govt is extremely corrupt.
As afr as your comment about "It is easy to throw out a charge, a little harder to back up one's words." boy does that come back to bite everybody who said Trump colluded with the Russians.
As afr as you demanding FIRST hand evidence from me, pot/kettle, you have nothing but opinion either, yet somehow mine is worthless? I find it laughable at best.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote