• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Major GOPer Issa calls for Special Prosecutor!!!!!

BobTheCoward said:
In the capacity the department of Justice investigates. The DoJ cannot just be pointed in a direction starting with zero evidence of wrongdoing.
Click to expand...

There IS evidence of wrongdoing. One of Trump's own administration had to resign because of a blatant connection. While it may have not been illegal (we don't know), it definitely had all of the appearances of some shady ****. I don't know why you insist on repeating this lie when it's so easily refuted.
 
plague311 said:
And you're focusing on a trivial statement to try and sidetrack from the fact that Trump should be investigated. It can be by either Congress, or a Special Prosecutor. As I showed, already, it is in the definition of their job to investigate government officials. Get back on topic.
Click to expand...

No. I don't like sending cops and lawyers after people to try to dig up something criminal when they have nothing to go on. That is some j Edgar hoover stuff.

If there is evidence of wrongdoing that meets the DoJ threshold, prove it.
 
BobTheCoward said:
No. I don't like sending cops and lawyers after people to try to dig up something criminal when they have nothing to go on. That is some j Edgar hoover stuff.

If there is evidence of wrongdoing that meets the DoJ threshold, prove it.
Click to expand...

What the hell? No one is pulling this connection out of thin *********** air. A member of Trump's administration was caught speaking about sanctions, which is a big deal, to Russia. That is a connection that absolutely should be looked into and investigated. That is a starting point, that is something to go on. I have no idea why you insist it isn't.

ETA: Who said anything about cops? What are you talking about? I actually provided evidence that Special Prosecutors investigate government official corruption. You've provided nothing to dispute that other than saying, "nuh uh."
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
No. I don't like sending cops and lawyers after people to try to dig up something criminal when they have nothing to go on. That is some j Edgar hoover stuff.

If there is evidence of wrongdoing that meets the DoJ threshold, prove it.
Click to expand...

It is a Federal crime for private individuals to engage in negotiations with foreign governments.

It violates the Logan Act. Its a crime.
 
plague311 said:
What the hell? No one is pulling this connection out of thin *********** air. A member of Trump's administration was caught speaking about sanctions, which is a big deal, to Russia. That is a connection that absolutely should be looked into and investigated. That is a starting point, that is something to go on. I have no idea why you insist it isn't.
Click to expand...

It that a legitimate starting point? What do you base that on? What is the legal precedent?
 
BobTheCoward said:
It that a legitimate starting point? What do you base that on? What is the legal precedent?
Click to expand...

Stated above, the Logan Act. It was in all of the news papers, even the right wing ones. Yes, it's a legitimate starting point, in every way it can be. I base it on the fact he resigned, and the fact they have evidence confirming that the conversations took place. You know, facts.
 
plague311 said:
What the hell? No one is pulling this connection out of thin *********** air. A member of Trump's administration was caught speaking about sanctions, which is a big deal, to Russia. That is a connection that absolutely should be looked into and investigated. That is a starting point, that is something to go on. I have no idea why you insist it isn't.

ETA: Who said anything about cops? What are you talking about? I actually provided evidence that Special Prosecutors investigate government official corruption. You've provided nothing to dispute that other than saying, "nuh uh."
Click to expand...

You are mixing up an investigation with an inquiry. They investigate independent of the DoJ. But they still have to meet certain standards of the DoJ. They can't be empowered to look into corruption where there is no evidence of corruption. They can't, for example, just start looking at the department of interior for any signs of corruption. Government figures still have certain protections from being arbitrarily investigated for criminal activity.
 
plague311 said:
Stated above, the Logan Act. It was in all of the news papers, even the right wing ones. Yes, it's a legitimate starting point, in every way it can be. I base it on the fact he resigned, and the fact they have evidence confirming that the conversations took place. You know, facts.
Click to expand...

That is an investigation of someone not in the adminstration. We have no evidence that ties his activity to anyone else. You are not allowed to go hunting on a hunch like that.

Beyond that....You have all the constitutional problems with the Logan act.
 
BobTheCoward said:
That is an investigation of someone not in the adminstration. We have no evidence that ties his activity to anyone else.
Click to expand...

We need to find out if Trump knew his personnel were doing such things, and if he didn't know, why he wasn't in control of his ship.
 
BobTheCoward said:
You are mixing up an investigation with an inquiry. They investigate independent of the DoJ.
Click to expand...

I so couldn't possibly give a **** less. Call it whatever you want. From here on out, let's call it Wubba Lubba dub-dub.

BobTheCoward said:
But they still have to meet certain standards of the DoJ.
Click to expand...

Yes, and as I have stated before there is easily more to go on for this Wubba Lubba dub-dub than any of the Wubba Lubba dub-dub's that looked into Benghazi. The standards have been met. Someone has officially resigned because of behavior that can be considered illegal.

BobTheCoward said:
They can't be empowered to look into corruption where there is no evidence of corruption.
Click to expand...

There is evidence of corruption. I have absolutely no idea why you persist in this lie that there isn't any. What are you hoping to gain?

BobTheCoward said:
They can't, for example, just start looking at the department of interior for any signs of corruption. Government figures still have certain protections from being arbitrarily investigated for criminal activity.
Click to expand...

Yes, they do have all of those rights, and investigating an administration that has had confirmed communications with a country that was then proven to have meddled in our election is completely within those boundaries. Also, anyone can be investigated for anything and there would be nothing illegal about it. I can be investigated for murder. I didn't do it, so they wouldn't find anything, but I can still be investigated. Nothing illegal about it. Quit making stuff up.
 
BobTheCoward said:
That is an investigation of someone not in the adminstration. We have no evidence that ties his activity to anyone else. You are not allowed to go hunting on a hunch like that.
Click to expand...

No it wasn't. He was in Trump's administration, and worked for Trump's campaign when it happened. He was in the administration at the time of the illegal communication.

BobTheCoward said:
Beyond that....You have all the constitutional problems with the Logan act.
Click to expand...

More opinion paraded as fact. Shocking.

Beyond that, it's a law. If they don't like it, change it or challenge it. Until that time comes, it's a law he broke.
 
plague311 said:
IAlso, anyone can be investigated for anything and there would be nothing illegal about it. I can be investigated for murder. I didn't do it, so they wouldn't find anything, but I can still be investigated. Nothing illegal about it. Quit making stuff up.
Click to expand...

By a prosecutor? No you cannot.
 
plague311;11733944 More opinion paraded as fact. Shocking. [/QUOTE said:
The issue of Logan act constitutional debate is right there in the Wikipedia article.

Also, what the hell are you talking about? Of course it is an opinion. Any argument about interpretation is an opinion. You are supposed to move past book reports that are just facts in sixth grade and formulate your own opinions based on source material.
Click to expand...
 
plague311 said:
Yes, and as I have stated before there is easily more to go on for this Wubba Lubba dub-dub than any of the Wubba Lubba dub-dub's that looked into Benghazi. The standards have been met. Someone has officially resigned because of behavior that can be considered illegal.
Click to expand...

Who might this person be who did the illegal behavior. It couldn't have been Flynn, there is no evidence he did anything illegal. ;)

There is evidence of corruption. I have absolutely no idea why you persist in this lie that there isn't any. What are you hoping to gain?
Click to expand...
What evidence?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom