Mueller investigation close to being Finished.

Rasselas

Former Staff
Feb 2010
68,480
44,118
valid location
And you prefer a partisan investigation where only Trump and his associates are investigated.
That's a lie. First, you don't know what I want--I've never said. Second, you only assume I'm as partisan and rigid as you are. I'm interested in an investigation that leads wherever the evidence leads. Politics be damned.
It's as though Obama and the in-bred intelligence agencies weren't even responsible for protecting the country from Russian Meddling during an election cycle when Trump had no power to influence anything or stop anything. In fact elements of the FBI and the Justice department wanted to stop Trump.
First, the intelligence agencies include over 50K people, most of whom are career employees. They have very little to do with Obama, who got to choose only a select few, all of whom could be fired by Trump. So your post here is just ignorant. And your judgment of the FBI and the DOJ is based on what? Three texts and a vivid imagination.

Ah Democracy in action. Knight of the long knives redux.
If you see a bunch of political assassinations, with a couple of dozen people dead, your comparison would be accurate. As it is, we only have a lawful investigation of potential lawbreaking. Somehow, you're opposed to that.
 
Likes: boontito

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
32,157
6,283
That's a lie. First, you don't know what I want--I've never said. Second, you only assume I'm as partisan and rigid as you are. I'm interested in an investigation that leads wherever the evidence leads. Politics be damned
Why should there even be an investigation? What's the premise? Tell us what you want.
 

Rasselas

Former Staff
Feb 2010
68,480
44,118
valid location
Imagine if every new President gets the anal exam, including all his present and past associates.
Unlikely. The president can't be indicted, and chances are good that most of his crimes have passed their statute of limitations. But...are you really saying we should ignore the crimes of someone if he's president? Really? It's okay to have a criminal president in your opinion?

How about the NYT report on Trump's father and the ways he funneled money to all his children, often via tax schemes that were probably illegal? That report proves that Trump lied about being a self-made billionaire. Does the public not deserve to know about this? Most or all of the crimes alluded to in the report can't be prosecuted because too much time has passed. Does that mean it's all private information and none of our business?
 
Last edited:
Likes: boontito

Rasselas

Former Staff
Feb 2010
68,480
44,118
valid location
Why should there even be an investigation? What's the premise? Tell us what you want.
The Russians interfered with our elections, and that's illegal. Some would call it an act of war. I want to know what happened and which Americans were involved. And I want any other crimes revealed by that investigation to also be investigated (as is the normal custom of law enforcement).

It's hard to believe you are defensive about "anal exams" (how Limbaughesque of you) or spreading investigations. Whitewater was the investigation of a land deal. That turned out to be perfectly legal, but it led to other stuff. You really think Clinton's other bad deeds should have been ignored?
 

Rasselas

Former Staff
Feb 2010
68,480
44,118
valid location
Exactly like Bill Clinton and it didn't work. Same thing will happen here because the people know what's going on. It is literally a witch hunt or a crimes dragnet .
Looking for crimes is a worthy occupation. It's even more worthy when the (alleged) perpetrators are powerful people. Since when should we investigate only the crimes of the lowly and mean? Sounds awfully...unchristian...of you.
 
Likes: boontito

Rasselas

Former Staff
Feb 2010
68,480
44,118
valid location
Just as a citizen is protected by search and seizure laws so should any politician who is appointed a special prosecutor. No crime defined? You should not be free to look for one.
That's NONSENSE. Our search and seizure laws say that if you have a search warrant for a large statue that's been stolen, it's not right to go rifling through drawers where such a statue is impossible to find. But if you have a search warrant for papers, which you'll find in a drawer, you can still prosecute for the stolen statue you're undoubtedly going to find in the living room on the way to that drawer. No one has suggested that Mueller's prosecutors should strike out on their own in search of crimes unrelated to anything they are authorized to look for, and it's unlikely that Rosenstein or Barr would authorize such a search. But crimes that become likely or obvious as prosecutors look for specific wrongdoing? That's not only a logical move--it's authorized in the Mueller investigation's charging document.
Define the crime? Then prove the crime. Collusion with Russians to pervert an election was the reason for the investigation. The authorization made it about any and all crimes related or unrelated. Bad precedent. And yes, it was bad when Ken Starr did it as well. Whitewater had nothing to do with what got Clinton impeached.
You're wrong on the law AND on the morals of this question. If investigators find illegal activity while looking for something else, it's downright stupid to pretend they should ignore it. You're thinking like a criminal.
 

Devil505

Former Staff
Jan 2008
69,013
27,739
Florida
That's NONSENSE. Our search and seizure laws say that if you have a search warrant for a large statue that's been stolen, it's not right to go rifling through drawers where such a statue is impossible to find. But if you have a search warrant for papers, which you'll find in a drawer, you can still prosecute for the stolen statue you're undoubtedly going to find in the living room on the way to that drawer. No one has suggested that Mueller's prosecutors should strike out on their own in search of crimes unrelated to anything they are authorized to look for, and it's unlikely that Rosenstein or Barr would authorize such a search. But crimes that become likely or obvious as prosecutors look for specific wrongdoing? That's not only a logical move--it's authorized in the Mueller investigation's charging document.
You're wrong on the law AND on the morals of this question. If investigators find illegal activity while looking for something else, it's downright stupid to pretend they should ignore it. You're thinking like a criminal.
Most of the Righties I've read on PH have absolutely no knowledge of our search and seizure laws or the COTUS.
They make shit up and vomit it all over PH.
 
Likes: OldGaffer

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
32,157
6,283
The Russians interfered with our elections, and that's illegal. Some would call it an act of war. I want to know what happened and which Americans were involved. And I want any other crimes revealed by that investigation to also be investigated (as is the normal custom of law enforcement).

It's hard to believe you are defensive about "anal exams" (how Limbaughesque of you) or spreading investigations. Whitewater was the investigation of a land deal. That turned out to be perfectly legal, but it led to other stuff. You really think Clinton's other bad deeds should have been ignored?
Then why don't we have a 911 style commission that looks into the entire matter? Why have a special prosecutor who looks for indictments and not deep answers?
 

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
32,157
6,283
Most of the Righties I've read on PH have absolutely no knowledge of our search and seizure laws or the COTUS.
They make shit up and vomit it all over PH.
Any time you want to enter the conversation and answer some of my many questions, please do so.

It is bad precedent to burden new Presidents with open ended searches for crimes. It is becoming SOP to do so. Do you think this is good for the country?