• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

ponderingturtle said:
But bribing prosecutors who are investigating your totally legit university is also not a crime. Just like taking gifts of money from russia wouldn't be a crime for the president.
Click to expand...

I'm actually pretty sure the university case would not be a crime. As long as there was no communication between the two of a quid pro quo, it would be a legal political donation. Cops also shouldn't be allowed to look into it unless it meets some minimum level of suspicion that a crime took place.
 
sunmaster14 said:
First I've heard of this. Do tell.
Click to expand...

You don't get out much? You haven't heard the various reports?

You did note the word "possibly", didn't you? There are enough smoking guns there to merit an investigation. Period. All this "show me the crime" is nonsense. As a whole lot of people were saying just ten months ago, "Hey, if there's nothing there, she they will be exonerated!" Amirite?
 
Foolmewunz said:
There are enough smoking guns there to merit an investigation.
Click to expand...

Do you mean criminal investigation? I know this is a hard request but can anyone prove this? What is the minimum threshold to warrant an investigation? What have the courts rules on this?
 
sunmaster14 said:
The FBI is part of the DOJ, just FYI.
Click to expand...

Weally? Gosh, thanks perfesser. (The DoJ also has other departments reporting to it. Or were you not aware of that?)

Also, where was all of this concern about impartiality and conflict of interest during the Obama administration? This Russia stuff is a tempest in a teapot compared to Hillary emails, covering up the lying about Benghazi, IRS targeting of conservative groups, Fast and Furious, and a host of other scandals. So far nobody here has even been able to come up with a plausible story of criminal wrongdoing on the part of the Trump administration, other than perhaps vague claims of obstruction of justice (which would seem awfully premature to me, given that the so-called scandal is about six weeks old).
Click to expand...

Obama! You'll still be running the '16 election for the next four years rather than face up to the reprehensible turdblossom and his reprehensible turdblossom kleptocrats that are now running the country. Could you direct me to my posts saying that the emails shouldn't be investigated? I'd love to see 'em. Or my posts on Fast & Furious, which I don't think I ever commented on. (I'll give you a break: My comments on Emailgate all along were that the issue had to be investigated from a point of view of security but that, speaking of weather phenomena in serving vessels, OMG Benghazi!! was political bull feces from the outset prior to the 2012 election. That opinion hasn't changed. Nor has my opinion that the handling of emails, the classification, the responsible parties and the rules should be reviewed and brought into the 21st century. Never, though, did I say that there should be no investigation.


And what would you have said if something like this had been proposed to investigate Hillary's exclusive use of a private email server while serving as Secretary of State? Don't bother answering. It's a rhetorical question because everybody here already knows the answer.
Click to expand...

Why do you make up crap that can be falsified so easily? You have a problem with fairness? I don't. No one I can recall ever suggested a neutral panel. I'd have been for it. Why do you assume I wouldn't? Did you catch a bit of logger-osis on your holiday and feel the need to disagree with everyone on the other side(s) of the aisle?
 
BobTheCoward said:
I'm actually pretty sure the university case would not be a crime. As long as there was no communication between the two of a quid pro quo, it would be a legal political donation. Cops also shouldn't be allowed to look into it unless it meets some minimum level of suspicion that a crime took place.
Click to expand...

Yep there is nothing wrong with buying off prosecutors to stop them from investigating your crimes, that is capitalism at work.

That is why there really is no such thing as political corruption.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Weally? Gosh, thanks perfesser. (The DoJ also has other departments reporting to it. Or were you not aware of that?)



Obama! You'll still be running the '16 election for the next four years rather than face up to the reprehensible turdblossom and his reprehensible turdblossom kleptocrats that are now running the country. Could you direct me to my posts saying that the emails shouldn't be investigated? I'd love to see 'em. Or my posts on Fast & Furious, which I don't think I ever commented on. (I'll give you a break: My comments on Emailgate all along were that the issue had to be investigated from a point of view of security but that, speaking of weather phenomena in serving vessels, OMG Benghazi!! was political bull feces from the outset prior to the 2012 election. That opinion hasn't changed. Nor has my opinion that the handling of emails, the classification, the responsible parties and the rules should be reviewed and brought into the 21st century. Never, though, did I say that there should be no investigation.




Why do you make up crap that can be falsified so easily? You have a problem with fairness? I don't. No one I can recall ever suggested a neutral panel. I'd have been for it. Why do you assume I wouldn't? Did you catch a bit of logger-osis on your holiday and feel the need to disagree with everyone on the other side(s) of the aisle?
Click to expand...

I take it Sunmaster is actually pushing for an investigation into the email practices of the Trump administration, as from what I hear, they are every bit as bad as Hillary's. Good for Sunmaster, leaving partisanship by the wayside like that.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Do you mean criminal investigation? I know this is a hard request but can anyone prove this? What is the minimum threshold to warrant an investigation? What have the courts rules on this?
Click to expand...

Ever dawn on you there are more kinds of investigations besides 'criminal' which are nonetheless important functions of the justice department including special prosecutor functions? For example, a SP might investigate matters of national security regardless of the criminal aspects of it.
 
Foolmewunz said:
You don't get out much? You haven't heard the various reports?

You did note the word "possibly", didn't you? There are enough smoking guns there to merit an investigation. Period. All this "show me the crime" is nonsense. As a whole lot of people were saying just ten months ago, "Hey, if there's nothing there, she they will be exonerated!" Amirite?
Click to expand...

The incoming national security adviser (literally scheduled to take office in 25 days) talked to the Russian ambassador? Gosh, what a smoking gun. And sanctions were discussed? What a shock. Did you expect them simply to exchange pleasantries? Incoming foreign policy officials have substantive discussions with foreign officials during the transition phase. That's par for the course. Maybe Flynn said something inappropriate, maybe not. Maybe he talked about grabbing some Russian pussy last time he was in Moscow. Who the hell knows? Actually, we do know who knows. The NSA and the FBI know because they have the *********** recording of the phone call. It will come out in due time, even the classified portions will probably be in the public domain by the summer. Where's the basis for an independent investigatory committee, let alone a special prosecutor?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Ever dawn on you there are more kinds of investigations besides 'criminal' which are nonetheless important functions of the justice department including special prosecutor functions? For example, a SP might investigate matters of national security regardless of the criminal aspects of it.
Click to expand...

Which is why I asked if criminal was meant.
 
Foolmewunz said:
<snip>

Why do you make up crap that can be falsified so easily? You have a problem with fairness? I don't. No one I can recall ever suggested a neutral panel. I'd have been for it. Why do you assume I wouldn't? Did you catch a bit of logger-osis on your holiday and feel the need to disagree with everyone on the other side(s) of the aisle?
Click to expand...

Falsified? How are you going to falsify a prediction like that without being able to show where you advocated for a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary's email scandal (which I'm pretty sure you didn't)? Or even advocating that the DOJ empanel a grand jury to investigate it (which they didn't do)?

The Obama administration was literally the worst administration since Nixon's (and probably ever) when it came to allowing an independent investigation into its various and sundry "peccadillos." How many did it allow? If you answered "1" you would be overestimating by at least 1. And you were certainly among the Obama administration's biggest defenders in the various scandal threads, although hardly one of the most unreasonable ones (which is not exactly high praise, by the way).
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Asked who and when? You've been posting non-stop about criminal prosecutions and nothing else.
Click to expand...

It is literally the first line in the post you quoted.

I'm focusing on criminal investigation, because a lot of people here are debating if it warrants a criminal investigation and that is the part that most interests me. I would talk about non criminal investigation into the matter I support, but it isn't interesting to me.
 
logger said:
Who might this person be who did the illegal behavior. It couldn't have been Flynn, there is no evidence he did anything illegal. ;)


What evidence?
Click to expand...

I am assuming they are talking about the corruption in our own process that the "Russians" exposed. Any investigation that happens should be thoroughly looking in to that end of it.
 
jeffas69 said:
Who was it that appointed Ken Starr? Who requested a special prosecutor be appointed?
Click to expand...

Janet Reno, who was Clinton's attorney general, appointed the special prosecutor to investigate Whitewater and Vince Foster's death. Ken Starr was later appointed (by a three-judge panel) to replace the special prosecutor after Clinton signed the Independent Counsel Act of 1994.
 
BobTheCoward said:
What is the minimum standard for "evidence of criminal activity?" Further, just because a person commits a crime, does not mean you can pursue their associates without evidence. If Flynn broke the law, that isn't obvious to suspect colluders.
Click to expand...

You keep *********** saying that so why don't you provide a definition? It gets tiresome and fast. Both you and sunmaster keep parading this ******** around like it means something.

"minimum standard, minimum standard". So post the definition of what "minimum standard" is because as far as I can tell it's requesting information from other people with an undefined requirement. What do YOU think the minimum standard is? What would meet it in your definition? Just saying that and handwaving everything else away, while claiming you're a skeptic isn't skepticism at all, by any definition.

sunmaster14 said:
Ah, the sound of crickets. Isn't there somebody here with the imagination to weave a halfway interesting story of criminal activity on the part of the Trump team?
Click to expand...

You mean that you two won't handwave away under the umbrella of this mystical "minimum standard" goalpost move? Provide something, anything that says there's a minimum standard, what it is, and what would be considered as enough to overcome it. Other than that, you're just trotting out tired ass tu quoque nonsense that you tried to argue against when Bush was brought up in the Hillary thread. Now it's "but...but...what about Obama?!"

He's out, Trump's in. Get over it, and quit whining about Obama.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom