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

[jeffas69]

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.

Then what was this supposed to insinuate outside of the reason he gave?

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

 

[ponderingturtle]

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?

I don't know, they repealed the law after that not sure what it was replaced with. They decided that he had way to much of an open investigation, I mean imagine if someone had the power to investigate war crimes under Bush like Starr investigated real estate crimes under clinton!

 

[jeffas69]

I don't know, they repealed the law after that not sure what it was replaced with. They decided that he had way to much of an open investigation, I mean imagine if someone had the power to investigate war crimes under Bush like Starr investigated real estate crimes under clinton!

Then we agree no need yet for any special prosecutor in this matter!

 

[Bob001]

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.

The core issue is that Trump has had business and private dealings with the Russians, directly and indirectly, that may have given them influence in the election and on his policies. For starters, why was Paul Manafort associated with the Trump campaign at all? If Trump has sold America out to a foreign power, maybe it would be good to know.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/06/trump-putin-and-the-new-cold-war
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-c...tact-with-russian-intelligence-michael-flynn/
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-03-15/trump-s-long-romance-with-russia

 

[phiwum]

The core issue is that Trump has had business and private dealings with the Russians, directly and indirectly, that may have given them influence in the election and on his policies. For starters, why was Paul Manafort associated with the Trump campaign at all? If Trump has sold America out to a foreign power, maybe it would be good to know.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/06/trump-putin-and-the-new-cold-war
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-c...tact-with-russian-intelligence-michael-flynn/
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-03-15/trump-s-long-romance-with-russia

I agree.

 

[sunmaster14]

The core issue is that Trump has had business and private dealings with the Russians, directly and indirectly, that may have given them influence in the election and on his policies. For starters, why was Paul Manafort associated with the Trump campaign at all? If Trump has sold America out to a foreign power, maybe it would be good to know.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/06/trump-putin-and-the-new-cold-war
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-c...tact-with-russian-intelligence-michael-flynn/
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-03-15/trump-s-long-romance-with-russia

What does that even mean though - to sell America out to a foreign power? Do you think Trump promised the Russians something in exchange for their hacking of the DNC and Podesta? Would he trust the Russians to keep such a quid pro quo quiet? Would the Russians trust him to deliver? Would the Russians require a quid pro quo to do what they perceived to be in their best interests anyway?

I'm sorry, but the accusation doesn't even make sense to me. And I mean that sincerely. That's not just partisanship on my part. I can't really figure out what anti-Trumpers are accusing the Trump team of. Trump's already a dickwad. He's crude and greedy and impulsive and ignorant. Is it really necessary to concoct unbaked (not even half-baked) conspiracy theories from the Russian hacking of the lame DNC and that idiot Podesta (who could have been phished by a prepubescent teenager, given his ignorance of computer security)?

 

[Bob001]

What does that even mean though - to sell America out to a foreign power? Do you think Trump promised the Russians something in exchange for their hacking of the DNC and Podesta? Would he trust the Russians to keep such a quid pro quo quiet? Would the Russians trust him to deliver? Would the Russians require a quid pro quo to do what they perceived to be in their best interests anyway?
.....

Political deals don't work like that, even on Capitol Hill. Nobody says "I'll give you this bucket of money if you do what I want." What's on the market are access and influence. The question is whether Trump's business interests benefit from a closer relationship to Moscow, and whether Moscow actively worked to support Trump, or more accurately, to undercut Clinton, who Putin reportedly hates for supporting the Eastern European expansion of NATO. How much money has Trump borrowed from Russian sources? How much money has he made by helping Russians launder money through real estate deals? Do the Russians have anything that could be used to blackmail him? Etc., etc.

And what would you conservatives have said if Obama had defended Putin thus: "There are a lot of killers. You think our country's so innocent?" You would have been screaming treason. Trump's conduct is suspicious, and it raises questions that deserve to be answered.

 

[sunmaster14]

Political deals don't work like that, even on Capitol Hill. Nobody says "I'll give you this bucket of money if you do what I want." What's on the market are access and influence. The question is whether Trump's business interests benefit from a closer relationship to Moscow, and whether Moscow actively worked to support Trump, or more accurately, to undercut Clinton, who Putin reportedly hates for supporting the Eastern European expansion of NATO. How much money has Trump borrowed from Russian sources?

He claims none. I claim it doesn't matter. Borrowing money from somebody doesn't make you beholden to them. If anything, it's the opposite. As for his business interests in Russia, and around the world, those are clearly conflicts of interest. They're well-known ones, and perhaps people should be skeptical of any concessions Trump makes to other countries, or any concessions those countries make to his businesses (e.g. the recent trademark approval by the Chinese). That doesn't require an investigation now, however. Nor is it illegal for the President to have such conflicts of interest.

How much money has he made by helping Russians launder money through real estate deals? Do the Russians have anything that could be used to blackmail him? Etc., etc.

Did the Iranians have anything that could be used to blackmail Obama? Because he sure acted like he was on their side. Who knows? There's still not enough concrete evidence to warrant an investigation. It's pure, unadulterated, baseless speculation at this point.

And what would you conservatives have said if Obama had defended Putin thus: "There are a lot of killers. You think our country's so innocent?" You would have been screaming treason. Trump's conduct is suspicious, and it raises questions that deserve to be answered.

I would have said that Obama had expanded his apology tour to Russia. In Trump's case, though, I know he said it not because he dislikes America and wants to see it taken down a peg or two, but because he's a blowhard who is trying to defend his positive feelings toward Putin. Such positive feelings existing purely because Putin said nice things about Trump. The evidence people have presented so far is evidence of Trump's shallowness and narcissism, and that's pretty much it. He may love himself more than he loves the country (and that's true of perhaps every President in modern times, with the exception of George W. Bush), but I'm still pretty sure he loves the country. He just loves himself a lot.

 

[sunmaster14]

This is the perfect video to sum up my view of the situation. Think of me as former AG Michael Mukasey and Democratic bedwetters as Erin Burnett.

 

[dudalb]

God, you will defend ANYTHING that Trump says and does, won't you?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

I don't see the point in continuing this. We tell you why a special prosecutor might investigate a non-criminal offense, you say you are only talking about prosecutors and criminal offenses.

Pretty sure there's no more to discuss here. You are wrong, you are doubling down and digging your heels in, you try to sidetrack the discussion to make it fit the narrow scenario you think lets you off the having-to-admit-you-were-wrong hook.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Then what was this supposed to insinuate outside of the reason he gave?

I'm not clear on your question. Are you saying Flynn's dodgy claim that "maybe the sanctions were mentioned" was credible?

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

Of course not, the comment was facetious.

 

[plague311]

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.

Good, because it's not at 0. That's just where you and Sunmaster are saying it is and that's fine. Had you said, "I don't believe this is true, and nothing you can ever say will change my mind" at the beginning, I probably wouldn't have engaged. A number of things Trump involves himself in seem to come up Russia. Hell, sunmaster even laid it out, and he still shrugs his shoulders at it. Then, strangely, tried to say it wasn't his political bias. I guess that goes with the implication that owing someone money, somehow, gives you power. That's why you see all those loan sharks getting their legs broken.

@Sunmaster, you keep commenting on this stuff piece by piece. Implying it doesn't make sense. Trump borrows money from Russia? That put him in the driver's seat. Trump's lackey gets caught talking to Russian officials about sanctions possibly violating the law? Pfft, that law doesn't make sense, and is totally stupid. It's fine. Trump compliments Putin ad nauseum and, for some *********** reason, lies about having met him? Meh, that's just what world leaders do. That's not the end of the list but just a few things from what is publicly available, that may require some looking into. Even by Coward's own list an Assessment can be based on pretty much nothing, and at the very least Flynn either got fired or left over it. Take your pick, one isn't better than the other.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I don't see the point in continuing this. We tell you why a special prosecutor might investigate a non-criminal offense, you say you are only talking about prosecutors and criminal offenses.

Pretty sure there's no more to discuss here. You are wrong, you are doubling down and digging your heels in, you try to sidetrack the discussion to make it fit the narrow scenario you think lets you off the having-to-admit-you-were-wrong hook.

First, to the extent I sidetrack something it is because I'm an extremely pedantic person. It has nothing to do with admitting I'm wrong, which I do a lot.

Second, your argument is not as convincing as you think it is. Let's run through it again.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Good, because it's not at 0.

Not relevant to my question.

 

[plague311]

Not relevant to my question.

I haven't really seen a question. I've seen you ask for evidence, be provided with it, and then say it either doesn't count, or it doesn't meet the minimum. Now you've posted that criteria which shows Trump is easily within the bounds of at least an assessment, if not more, given what we publicly know. So what is your question?

 

[BobTheCoward]

I haven't really seen a question. I've seen you ask for evidence, be provided with it, and then say it either doesn't count, or it doesn't meet the minimum. Now you've posted that criteria which shows Trump is easily within the bounds of at least an assessment, if not more, given what we publicly know. So what is your question?

Independent of anything going on in the world, imagine we are in a federal law enforcement class testing the boundaries of the law, considering the lax conditions on an assessment, are there any minimum standards besides authorized purpose? Could the d.a. draw a name out of a hat for a general inquiry into their finances looking for fraud?

I also have no problem with submitting the admin to an assessment. If I understand the tone of this thread, people want DoJ subpoena power. That doesn't kick in until preliminary investigation. In that case, we are debating "“Information or an allegation” about a national security threat or possible criminal activity."

Then I have a bunch of questions about the minimum standard of information or an allegation. How credible can it be?

 

[imodium]

Independent of anything going on in the world, imagine we are in a federal law enforcement class testing the boundaries of the law, considering the lax conditions on an assessment, are there any minimum standards besides authorized purpose? Could the d.a. draw a name out of a hat for a general inquiry into their finances looking for fraud?

I also have no problem with submitting the admin to an assessment. If I understand the tone of this thread, people want DoJ subpoena power. That doesn't kick in until preliminary investigation. In that case, we are debating "“Information or an allegation” about a national security threat or possible criminal activity."

Then I have a bunch of questions about the minimum standard of information or an allegation. How credible can it be?

Why? trump still refuses to open his books and admitted to tax dodging during the debates, why should anyone else be investigated for fraud if il presidente is immune.

 

[phiwum]

Why? trump still refuses to open his books and admitted to tax dodging during the debates, why should anyone else be investigated for fraud if il presidente is immune.

With due respect, he did not admit to breaking the law regarding his taxes. As usual, he was not explicit, but what he said would be consistent with following the law without paying taxes.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

First, to the extent I sidetrack something it is because I'm an extremely pedantic person. It has nothing to do with admitting I'm wrong, which I do a lot.

Second, your argument is not as convincing as you think it is. Let's run through it again.

A pedant is one concerned with rules or minor details. That's not what you are doing. You are backpedalling in between the straw men.

From your posts I think it's safe to say, you don't even know what my argument is. You aren't reading anyone's arguments, you are just finding ways to dodge and backpedal around the discussion.