That is your own argument, taken to its logical conclusion.
If you don't like where it ends up, maybe you should rethink your argument.
Charter Member
That is your own argument, taken to its logical conclusion.
If you don't like where it ends up, maybe you should rethink your argument.
Charter Member
Until this appointment other Special Counsel and Special Prosecutors have been engaged with direction to investigate specific crimes. Mueller was given unspecified credentials to go forth and investigate to see if there were political activities, specifically: “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump...” Note: links or coordination of the type are not crimes. Then, after sending his friend and former boss on a political mission, Rosenstein empowered him to hunt for any crimes of interest. Sure enough, Mueller has found some including “Misleading the FBI,” and “defrauding the United States,” which has never before been recognized by any court as an offense.Originally Posted by Kevin
I assume you are talking about me in this thread, but have trouble understanding your twisting of this thread. If you read the OP, and I assume you did being Kevin, then you understand my point of view. I am not only a lawyer, I am a former prosecutor and have intimate knowledge of the two kinds of prosecutors of which the author made a distinction. The evidence (cited well in the article) points heavily to the conclusion that Mueller and his team of prosecutors are markedly of the kind seeking scalps with no stops. Trump is fully justified and would be wise to join the fight imposed upon him and take full advantage of the law in his favor, as Mueller will surely take full advantage of the law to Trump’s disadvantage.
The open ended authority given Mueller should work both ways in his investigation to seek out and find actionable criminal activity in relation to the Russia probe. In a fair minded investigation that would include Mueller’s team taking dead aim at numerous individuals in both the FBI & Justice Dept. so well exposed in what we see in the press, yet there is no hint of such. Why? Sessions should not be assigning his own prosecutors from Utah to do Mueller’s job.
If you really thinks Trump should suffer the death of a thousand cuts you so obviously favor and lay prostrate while it happens, perhaps you could give us a clue as to what crime you think he committed and some evidence to back your beliefs. Is your understandable prejudice in favor of the federal bureaucracy so unbalanced that you cannot smell that something is rotten in Denmark, err, Washington?
...............
“You can vote your way into socialism, but you have to shoot your way out.” — Too fundamental to have an attribution
Charter Member
I'll take the reply in two parts.
The first is easy - is the Mueller probe operating within the parameters of the law? If so, then what is the problem here? Links and coordination are not crimes and if that is all he finds, dandy. You are concerned with the outcomes, waco. I'm concerned with the process. Mueller's probe, no matter what he finds, is a part of the checks and balances we have in this country for ensuring everything is on the up and up and as such, is a legitimate action of law enforcement. I'll let you worry about what he finds, if anything, and whether that meets some standard of proof. That conversation is ALSO part of enforcing the law - determining its scope. But the claim that somehow Mueller's probe itself is a violation of the law is just plain silly.
Charter Member
Second part:
I'm not talking about legalities, waco, and that's where you are coming from. I'm talking about the duty anyone who serves the public has to ensure that the public trust they hold is discharged openly and fairly. You are worried about maintaining Trump's legal rights and I agree, he should. However, if maintaining those rights means he cannot provide transparency about the performance of his duties, he has an obligation to the people who have given him this public trust to resign.
It is the same dilemma as Bill Clinton faced. In the face of a unanimous Supreme Court decision to testify, he chose to lie. He violated that public trust and at that moment became a danger to us all. He should have been impeached and removed from office and it is a shame that he was not. What he should have done is realize that there was a conflict between his duty to the public trust he had been given and his own personal needs and resigned.
It isn't about asking Trump to lay prostrate and it isn't really about crime. It is about a conflict between his own interests and the interests of the public. He serves us. He owes us full and transparent access to how he does that job. If he cannot do that, he needs to resign. Stop thinking like a lawyer or a conservative looking to protect your client or your posse. Start thinking about whether the President of the United States of America owes the public he serves full and transparent access to how he performs his job.
And if you say he doesn't, that he should act like Joe Blow before the bar and refuse to cooperate, ask yourself why I as a lowly fed was expected to meet a standard the President was not.
Last thought - all this crap about how Mueller is unfair because he won't go after the FBI is so much whining by conservatives. "You didn't punish Johnny when he did it" is something that stopped impressing my mother when I was pretty young. And it is kind of laughable, actually, since it assumes criminal behavior should be overlooked in the name of whataboutism.
Guest
What has Trump done that is not transparent? Jeez, he has been investigated by every single liberal that can look into his past as well as his present. His admin has been faced with leakings of the internal workings behind closed doors and the media has chased down any and all voices who have even a hint of the Trump name being whispered.
Actually to me, although considered "legal" if the things some of these lawyers are doing, by using the threat of trumped up far reaching powers to imprison and ruin the lives of normal people for just making a wrong comment, that to me would be considered "extortion" if it were done by guys in muscle shirts breaking kneecaps because the payment on the loan from the shark was a day late.
I wonder if you would feel so strongly against Trump if he were gay.
Charter Member
So, it is not Mueller’s “duty and public trust” to investigate and prosecute open and obvious violation of law by his friends and colleagues, while investigating the hell out of someone who has not had any approaching open and obvious? I offer that as proof of Mueller’s bent, and why Trump should not pillar himself before a team which has no intention of playing fair. Let’s mention in passing that until this time Trump has not taken my advice and has done exactly what you suggest — open his office to a rectal exam in every particular imaginable with not one single motion or court action by Mueller or his team otherwise directed at Trump. You forgot to mention that in your finger pointing and scold.
As for Trump, proving a negative - that he did not conspire with “The Russians” to help his campaign - is an impossible task.
I notice you conspicuously did not offer any evidence that he did, which is the real test. As to why I urge no further cooperation, look no further than the Scooter Libby lesson for how to spring a prosecution trap on a political figure when a scalp is needed to justify the exercise.
Btw, have you ever heard of a calling a Special Whatever and not giving him/her (was there ever a her?) a specific crime to investigate? Me neither.
Last edited by wacojoe; 04-03-2018 at 08:46 AM.
...............
“You can vote your way into socialism, but you have to shoot your way out.” — Too fundamental to have an attribution
Guest
I agree Waco, it is up to the prosecution to come up with evidence that makes the person guilty, not just asking for things so they can wander around aimlessly through that persons life. Oh goodness, we found that little Donnie crapped his britches in grade school, he needs to be whipped for that 65 years later,
As we have noticed recently, it is a main weapon of the left to throw something out there and let their rabid fans buy into the idea and make life miserable with all kinds of crap dallied about. WHat ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Seems as though, sadly that right has died a horrible death.
It also seems that the thoughts of the people have now decayed into nothing but a pitchfork wielding mob that falls for rumors and no longer cares to wait for the truth, be it bad or good for ones own side. That in itself leads to more problems with coverup and lying as more and more people are being brought down by the spreading of rumors, even with not a wisp of truth attached.
It also further adds fuel to the fire when obvious violations and blatant laws being broken by the opposing side are ignored and go unpunished. I do not care how petty some feel about it, if you are calling for the rule of law, it should apply to every single instance of laws being manipulated or broken. Making excuses only makes matters worse and inflames the argument. Allowing one side to get a pass and then attacking like a rabid pit bull against the other throws gasoline on an already dangerous fire.
Charter Member
Whether he investigates everyone that needs investigating is a separate issue from whether he should be investigating a specific person, waco. Trump has been very open with the Mueller folks and he should continue to ignore those that are advising him to place his own interests ahead of his duty to the republic. Such as yourself.
I don't ask that Trump prove anything - that burden is on Mueller. I only ask that he cooperate with the investigation in a full and transparent manner.
You are the one that keeps focusing on outcome, as evidenced by your "they haven't found anything yet". I don't think they will because I don't think Trump has enough brains to fill a thimble but he still needs to be expected to maintain the same standards that I as a lowly fed was expected to.
Charter Member
Innocent until proven guilty is for a person, acting in a personal capacity. If Trump has to take the 5th or cannot be open and transparent with Mueller without jeopardizing himself, he needs to resign.
Whining about other laws, other people is just that - whining. It has nothing to do with whether Trump did anything. And is no argument for letting Trump go free if he has. Besides, as you've said yourself, if you aren't guilty, why act it?
Guest
Then why are you whining about Trump? What has he NOT been transparent about is my question? Are you and the MSM saying that because he has not come out and confessed to something they are accusing him of doing?
Maybe he has seen two of the people he had on his team be accused of something not even remotely related to what the original investigation was about, and has decided to just let the biased team do their dirty work without his input. If they are not demanding to talk to him because they have evidence, I would not offer to tell them the time of day. It is called protecting your ass, with that mob, you can never do enough of that.
If they have concrete proof of something, you can bet the farm, they will MAKE him testify. AT this point they want him to come in and catch him in some kind of trap that nobody could get out of and Trump wisely avoids the pitfall. And folks say he is stupid, better rethink that claim.
Charter Member
I'm not whining about Trump. I am trying to disabuse others from giving him advice that tells him his duty to himself is bigger than the duty he owes the people of the United States. It is pretty simple - if he feels he needs to think of his personal needs ahead of his public trust, he needs to resign and see to those personal needs.
And I agree - if they don't call, don't volunteer. But if they do call, answer truthfully, honestly and completely. If you can't, then resign and let someone who CAN perform the duties of the office appropriately do the job. Same as Trump would expect ME to do if I were being investigated. There is no reason why he should be held to a lower standard than I was for 33 years. Don't act like a criminal if you aren't one because part of the way a public trust is fulfilled is by showing one can be trusted.
Guest
What lower standard are you talking about? What crime has he committed to be labeled as a criminal? As far as I know he has not been issued any subpoena to appear nor has he pleaded the fifth or tried to be out of the Country so he can not be found.
Truth be known, the malicious fake charges and things being said about the man are causing more of a job problem than anything. Despite all of the negativity he has plowed forward and gotten things done that he promised the people he would work on.....and all of it for free! He has donated his entire paycheck and not taken one thin dime for all of the BS and abuse you and others are heaping on him. HAS ANY OTHER POTUS EVER DONE THAT???
Working for free for the people of the United States of America seems to me like he has taken on a duty that is so much bigger than himself. He has endured constant BS talk about, not only him, but his family as well. If that is not the example of putting the Country before himself, I truly do not know what is. I fail to see where you even have the resemblance of an argument in this one, you are completely wrong on this point.
Charter Member
I couldn't care less that he donates his paycheck or even if he walks on water and commands the storms to cease. That has zero to do with being open and transparent in the performance of his duties.
Read the thread more fully. What I said was that as a fed, I was expected to administer my duties in a fair and transparent manner and to cooperate fully, honestly and completely with any investigation into those actions. If I could not do that, I was expected to resign and they would get someone who could. That's why I kept my nose clean for 33 years - I always knew someone could be looking over my shoulder.What lower standard are you talking about?
If I was expected to cooperate fully and provide complete transparency in my own actions, with my own public trust, how can anyone ask that Trump not do the same with his far greater trust?
And why are you and waco suggesting that our elected officials not be fully transparent in their actions? It is incredible to see both of you take this position, that an elected official should feel free to stonewall an investigation into that official's actions if it might compromise them personally.
That's a violation of the public trust we've given these people and I can only assume that it is because your tribe is in the crosshairs that you are both flip flopping like a trout on a riverbank. I doubt you'd be telling Hillary to stonewall any request for information.
Charter Member
If you had, say, a sexual harassment charge leveled at you from an agency colleague who was after your job, and the hearing officer assigned to your case was someone you rejected for a job the day before, was dating your accuser and appointed her sister as an assistant, would you bend over and take whatever they dealt you, or would you hire counsel and fight like hell?
...............
“You can vote your way into socialism, but you have to shoot your way out.” — Too fundamental to have an attribution
Charter Member
Of course, none of that hypothetical has any relationship to what is being discussed here.
When did you come to believe that demanding our elected representatives be open and truthful is being a scold?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote