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

[BobTheCoward]

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.

I'm asking because I don't know and it isn't easy to find an answer.

Based on my collected experience, I'm 99% sure that the threshold isn't zero. The DoJ cannot draw a name out of a hat and choose to look at that person for bank fraud.

 

[jeffas69]

I'm asking because I don't know and it isn't easy to find an answer.

Based on my collected experience, I'm 99% sure that the threshold isn't zero. The DoJ cannot draw a name out of a hat and choose to look at that person for bank fraud.

I would say that the Attorney General has to conduct a preliminary investigation within 90 days of receiving "information sufficient to constitute grounds to investigate" whether a covered person had committed a serious federal crime. Or the Judiciary committees of congress can request the DOJ to invoke the act.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I would say that the Attorney General has to conduct a preliminary investigation within 90 days of receiving "information sufficient to constitute grounds to investigate" whether a covered person had committed a serious federal crime. Or the Judiciary committees of congress can request the DOJ to invoke the act.

But what is the bar for information sufficient to constitute grounds to investigate?

 

[zorro99]

If no one is presenting evidence of a crime has occurred, then there isn't any evidence out there. I'm not going to pretend there is.

Candidate Trump encouraged the Russians to hack Hillary's emails. Perhaps they took him up on his offer, which would be a crime, and should be investigated.

 

[BobTheCoward]

But what is the bar for information sufficient to constitute grounds to investigate?

This is what I have

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/just-what-fbi-investigation-fact-sheet

 

[jeffas69]

But what is the bar for information sufficient to constitute grounds to investigate?

I did not see any such bar in the Act. It seemed to be up to the Attorney General or the Judiciary Committees of Congress. Sounds like they would have to at least define the "serious crime" that was "suspected" to have been committed.

http://www.lecs-center.org/index.ph...ecial-prosecutors-usa&catid=44:events&lang=en

 

[BobTheCoward]

Candidate Trump encouraged the Russians to hack Hillary's emails. Perhaps they took him up on his offer, which would be a crime, and should be investigated.

Let's apply the Brandenburg test

"Standard established in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969), to determine when inflammatory speech intending to advocate illegal action can be restricted. The standard developed determined that speech advocating the use of force or crime could only be proscribed where two conditions were satisfied: (1) the advocacy is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” and (2) the advocacy is also “likely to incite or produce such action.”"

Without even touching one, it doesn't touch 2. All the stuff we think was hacked happened before that speech. There was also no effort to hack Clinton's emails at that stage.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm asking because I don't know and it isn't easy to find an answer.

Based on my collected experience, I'm 99% sure that the threshold isn't zero. The DoJ cannot draw a name out of a hat and choose to look at that person for bank fraud.

And I'm 100% sure 'zero' does not describe the amount of evidence we know about, even if you don't count the evidence we don't.

Flynn did not resign to 'spend more time with the family'.

 

[jeffas69]

Candidate Trump encouraged the Russians to hack find Hillary's missing emails. Perhaps they took him up on his offer, which would not be a crime, and should not be investigated.

FTFY.

 

[BobTheCoward]

And I'm 100% sure 'zero' does not describe the amount of evidence we know about, even if you don't count the evidence we don't.

Flynn did not resign to 'spend more time with the family'.

Which is irrelevant to my question. Seriously, why is it so hard to take questions at face value?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Who was it that appointed Ken Starr? Who requested a special prosecutor be appointed?

It really doesn't matter because after him they repealed the entire law about using them to investigate the president. His position no longer exists, the law he served under no longer exists.

 

[jeffas69]

And I'm 100% sure 'zero' does not describe the amount of evidence we know about, even if you don't count the evidence we don't.

Flynn did not resign to 'spend more time with the family'.

Why did he say he resigned? If you are asked to resign by your boss for lying about something is that automatically evidence of a "crime". So what "evidence" of a crime are you talking about.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Which is irrelevant to my question. Seriously, why is it so hard to take questions at face value?

What makes you think I was answering your question?

You claimed zero evidence was not enough and I said, good, because there is more than zero evidence.

 

[BobTheCoward]

What makes you think I was answering your question?

You claimed zero evidence was not enough and I said, good, because there is more than zero evidence.

Why would that be good?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Why did he say he resigned? If you are asked to resign by your boss for lying about something is that automatically evidence of a "crime". So what "evidence" of a crime are you talking about.

Exactly it is like when Scooter lied, it was outrageous anyone took that as a crime. Lying to the FBI is what republicans do.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why did he say he resigned? If you are asked to resign by your boss for lying about something is that automatically evidence of a "crime". So what "evidence" of a crime are you talking about.

Those apologetics certainly took a lot of contorting there.

First off, it's already been made clear dozens of times that non-criminal yet still critical investigations occur.

Second, you are ignoring the fact the NSA has transcripts of Flynn's discussions with the Russian ambassador and that is what led to the obvious, his conversations with the ambassador were incriminating.

 

[phiwum]

Candidate Trump encouraged the Russians to hack Hillary's emails. Perhaps they took him up on his offer, which would be a crime, and should be investigated.

To be fair, there's no evidence that I've heard of suggesting that the Russians engaged in more hacking after Trump's suggestion.

I don't think this is the best reason for an investigation. The claims that Trump surrogates were in contact with Russians during the campaign are a better reason, but even these claims do not thus far include claims of explicit collusion. Nonetheless, worth looking into.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Those apologetics certainly took a lot of contorting there.

First off, it's already been made clear dozens of times that non-criminal yet still critical investigations occur.

Second, you are ignoring the fact the NSA has transcripts of Flynn's discussions with the Russian ambassador and that is what led to the obvious, his conversations with the ambassador were incriminating.

The middle part still seems up in the air. Are we still talking DoJ or prosecutor? It looks like even their lowest level it must be trying to build to something criminal. They don't seem to be allowed to put in an inquiry on the veracity of evolution.

 

[jeffas69]

Exactly it is like when Scooter lied, it was outrageous anyone took that as a crime. Lying to the FBI is what republicans do.

Except that lying under oath is not the same thing. I have also never seen concrete evidence that Scooter lied. Did you hear the comments that the jurists made after he was convicted? They didn't seem so sure themselves.

 

[jeffas69]

It really doesn't matter because after him they repealed the entire law about using them to investigate the president. His position no longer exists, the law he served under no longer exists.

Ok. So what are the new rules for appointing a special prosecutor? And why did you bring it up to begin with if it didn't matter?