Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who goes to jail as the result of the Trump-Russia collusion fraud?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    Correct, they are investigating an event. Not a crime.
    They are not investigating a community looking for evidence that a child may have gone missing.

    They are assisting local police in a search for a child that has gone missing.
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
      Nonresponsive. What specific crime(s) was Mueller tasked to investigate? Jurisdiction is not a specific crime. The special counsel statute is not a specific crime.

      Specific crimes would have statute numbers and titles.
      Again, from my reading, it doesn't seem like he has to be investigating a specific crime. He's given something to investigate and allowed a deal of autonomy when looking into it. Does it state somewhere that a Special Counsel has to only look into a specific crime?

      Comment


      • We'll have to wait and see what evidence was used for the search warrant of Manafort's home, and that's assuming the indictment was derived from evidence found during that raid.

        If the evidence for the warrant was independent of the special investigation, then I guess Manafort's case can be thrown out?

        But what if the evidence for the warrant was based on something relevant? What evidence did Mueller have that Manfort or any one in Trump's campaign team was colluding with Russians? Easy-the dirty "dossier."
        "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

        "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

        Comment


        • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
          What double standard?
          The ones of never criticizing the decision of the republicans to appoint a prosecutor with broad authorities to investigate Bill Clinton while criticizing Rosenstein for doing the same thing with Trump...
          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
            Again, from my reading, it doesn't seem like he has to be investigating a specific crime. He's given something to investigate and allowed a deal of autonomy when looking into it. Does it state somewhere that a Special Counsel has to only look into a specific crime?
            Actually, yes, in several places.

            A special Counsel is charged with conducting an investigation into, and the prosecution thereof should offenses be discovered, involving a specific alleged event.

            It is not a blank check to become an investigating agency.

            Special prosecutors who exceed their writ are subject to civil redress for misappropriated funds and criminal prosecution for prosecutorial misconduct, among other charges.

            In the USA, the Federal government may not investigate citizens without a clearly defined authority to do so.
            Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
              Again, from my reading, it doesn't seem like he has to be investigating a specific crime. He's given something to investigate and allowed a deal of autonomy when looking into it. Does it state somewhere that a Special Counsel has to only look into a specific crime?
              Mueller’s Marching Orders

              Under the law granting him legal authority (28 CFR 600), a special counsel is charged with investigating crimes. Only crimes. Nothing else. He has limited jurisdiction. Any other wrongdoing uncovered in the investigation which does not rise to the level of a criminal offense cannot even be made public by the special counsel. That is the law.

              So what crime is Mueller instructed to investigate? Let take a look.

              In his order appointing Mueller as special counsel (Order No. 3915-2017), Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein directed him to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump”.

              But wait. If Mueller is supposed to look for evidence of a crime that is not, by legal definition, a crime…then isn’t the special counsel being asked to do something that is manifestly unattainable? Doesn’t the impossibility of his assignment render the exercise futile? The answer is yes. ]
              http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/...not-crime.html
              § 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.
              The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted...
              https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.1

              What specific crime was Mueller tasked to investigate?
              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by American87 View Post
                We'll have to wait and see what evidence was used for the search warrant of Manafort's home, and that's assuming the indictment was derived from evidence found during that raid.

                If the evidence for the warrant was independent of the special investigation, then I guess Manafort's case can be thrown out?

                But what if the evidence for the warrant was based on something relevant? What evidence did Mueller have that Manfort or any one in Trump's campaign team was colluding with Russians? Easy-the dirty "dossier."
                You do not need evidence for a search warrant, merely probably cause.

                This appears to be nothing more than political drama.
                Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by pamak View Post
                  The ones of never criticizing the decision of the republicans to appoint a prosecutor with broad authorities to investigate Bill Clinton while criticizing Rosenstein for doing the same thing with Trump...
                  A panel of Federal judges appointed Ken Starr.
                  Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                  Comment


                  • The Doctor,

                    I think I can shed some light on this debate.
                    Mueller might not be investigating people out of thin air. The self-described "roadmap" to his investigation is the discredited dirty "dossier," which said Trump aides were collaborting with Russian operatives.
                    "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

                    "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by American87 View Post
                      The Doctor,

                      I think I can shed some light on this debate.
                      Mueller might not be investigating people out of thin air. The self-described "roadmap" to his investigation is the discredited dirty "dossier," which said Trump aides were collaborting with Russian operatives.
                      The dossier is probably not driving Mueller's investigation, but it may have been used to obtain FISA warrants.
                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by American87 View Post
                        We'll have to wait and see what evidence was used for the search warrant of Manafort's home, and that's assuming the indictment was derived from evidence found during that raid.

                        If the evidence for the warrant was independent of the special investigation, then I guess Manafort's case can be thrown out?

                        But what if the evidence for the warrant was based on something relevant? What evidence did Mueller have that Manfort or any one in Trump's campaign team was colluding with Russians? Easy-the dirty "dossier."
                        Easy?

                        Your dates do not hold. Manaford had been under surveillance before any Steele file, and it was known that he had contacts with Russian oligarchs close to Putin. His appointment as campaign manager together with information received from US agencies independent from any Steel file about Russian attempts to approach Trump can easily justify FBI's actions...
                        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                          A panel of Federal judges appointed Ken Starr.
                          And a person chosen by Trump appointed Mueller. Your point?
                          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                            Actually, yes, in several places.

                            A special Counsel is charged with conducting an investigation into, and the prosecution thereof should offenses be discovered, involving a specific alleged event.

                            It is not a blank check to become an investigating agency.

                            Special prosecutors who exceed their writ are subject to civil redress for misappropriated funds and criminal prosecution for prosecutorial misconduct, among other charges.

                            In the USA, the Federal government may not investigate citizens without a clearly defined authority to do so.
                            But he has clearly defined authority to do so, does he not? He is looking into:
                            (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
                            (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
                            (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

                            That's not "look for anything Trump or his people ever did wrong, ever".

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                              Actually, yes, in several places.

                              A special Counsel is charged with conducting an investigation into, and the prosecution thereof should offenses be discovered, involving a specific alleged event.

                              It is not a blank check to become an investigating agency.


                              Special prosecutors who exceed their writ are subject to civil redress for misappropriated funds and criminal prosecution for prosecutorial misconduct, among other charges.

                              In the USA, the Federal government may not investigate citizens without a clearly defined authority to do so.
                              Where did you see a blank check?

                              When Manaford is known for his ties to people close to Putin

                              and when the Russians ARE behind the DNC hacking according to all US intelligence agencies

                              and when there is information (not from Steele's file) that the Russians WERE trying to use third persons to approach Trump and influence his policies

                              why should not a special prosecutor take a special interest in Manaford and why should not prosecute him after finding that he was basically laundering Russia mafia money?
                              My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                                The dossier is probably not driving Mueller's investigation, but it may have been used to obtain FISA warrants.
                                Fox News and GOP talking point. Fakenews. Nothing even to imply it.
                                “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                                “To talk of many things:
                                Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                                Of cabbages—and kings—
                                And why the sea is boiling hot—
                                And whether pigs have wings.”
                                ― Lewis Carroll

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X