Justice Department appoints special prosecutor for Trump/Russia

Skeptic Ginger said:
He's not getting headlines, doesn't mean he isn't involved.

Rachel Maddow Explains How Mike Pence Is Going To Go Down With Trump For Russia Scandal

Salon: Mike Pence is neck-deep in Donald Trump’s James Comey mess
Click to expand...

Next up would be Ryan.

House majority leader to colleagues in 2016: ‘I think Putin pays’ Trump

“There’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump,” McCarthy (R-Calif.) said, according to a recording of the June 15, 2016, exchange, which was listened to and verified by The Washington Post. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher is a Californian Republican known in Congress as a fervent defender of Putin and Russia.

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) immediately interjected, stopping the conversation from further exploring McCarthy’s assertion, and swore the Republicans present to secrecy.

Before the conversation, McCarthy and Ryan had emerged from separate talks at the Capitol with Ukrainian Prime Minister Vladimir Groysman, who had described a Kremlin tactic of financing populist politicians to undercut Eastern European democratic institutions.
Click to expand...

Oops...

So then it would fall to Orrin Hatch.
 
Last edited:
CORed said:
If it were anybody but trump, I would say he's acting like he's guilty, but I think Trump is easily dumb enough to try to conduct a coverup of a non-existent crime.
Click to expand...
That brings the interesting question: would a coverup of a non-existing crime be a crime itself? Would it count as obstruction of justice?

Tony Stark said:
I can see Trump trying to coverup a nonexistent crime. Maybe he decides to destroy documents, tamper with witnesses, ect not for any specific reason but because he thinks it is the cautious move. Or maybe he gets super paranoid and decides that unless he takes drastic measures, that he's going be framed by the special prosecutor.
Click to expand...
That's a very real possibility. Remember, in the 3,000 lawsuits in his private career, he routinely destroyed evidence that even was already demanded in discovery.
 
ddt said:
That brings the interesting question: would a coverup of a non-existing crime be a crime itself? Would it count as obstruction of justice?
Click to expand...
Obstruction of justice/illegally interfering with an investigation doesn't require an underlying crime by the person doing the obstructing. It doesn't even require the guilt of the person(s) being investigated. In other words, the FBI/Special Counsel could find that Flynn was guilty of no federal crime (or at least none that can be prosecuted) while anyone believed to have obstructed the investigation (or perhaps even attempted to do so) could still be prosecuted.

Also, the rules on impeachment are sufficiently vague ("high crimes and misdemeanors") that there could be insufficient evidence to prosecute a President for obstruction, but the Congress could still find that same President guilty of abusing their authority, and that this is sufficient cause to remove that President from office.
 
Last edited:
logger said:
I sure as hell hope your side keeps thinking that?
Click to expand...


Let's take a look back into history.


Why I Will Not Cast My Electoral Vote for Donald Trump

DALLAS — I am a Republican presidential elector, one of the 538 people asked to choose officially the president of the United States. Since the election, people have asked me to change my vote based on policy disagreements with Donald J. Trump. In some cases, they cite the popular vote difference. I do not think presidents-elect should be disqualified for policy disagreements. I do not think they should be disqualified because they won the Electoral College instead of the popular vote. However, now I am asked to cast a vote on Dec. 19 for someone who shows daily he is not qualified for the office.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/...-my-electoral-vote-for-donald-trump.html?_r=0
Click to expand...
 
Babbylonian said:
Obstruction of justice/illegally interfering with an investigation doesn't require an underlying crime by the person doing the obstructing. It doesn't even require the guilt of the person(s) being investigated. In other words, the FBI/Special Counsel could find that Flynn was guilty of no federal crime (or at least none that can be prosecuted) while anyone believed to have obstructed the investigation (or perhaps even attempted to do so) could still be prosecuted.

Also, the rules on impeachment are sufficiently vague ("high crimes and misdemeanors") that there could be insufficient evidence to prosecute a President for obstruction, but the Congress could still find that same President guilty of abusing their authority, and that this is sufficient cause to remove that President from office.
Click to expand...

I think it's cute that ANYONE doesn’t believe there is a crime behind this. Not that it will be proved. But that there was criminal activity at least by Flynn that Trump was trying to prevent coming to light.

Frankly, Trump’s behavior has been disgusting and dangerous. His total disrespect for the Constitution and the rule of law makes me I'll. That he requested Comey or anyone in law enforcement to swear loyalty to him is an assault on America. And reason enough to show him the door.
 
Crossbow said:
And can we have ponies that shoot rainbows out of their butts too?

;)

By the way, I love your new avatar. I have that movie on DVD.
Click to expand...

They only have those on Mars:

red-faction-toots.jpg


Stacko said:
Click to expand...

Why is Trump having lunch with the enemy of the American people?
 
What Donald Trump Needs to Know About Bob Mueller and Jim Comey

The short of it is that Mueller is about the last person that Trump would want investigating him unless he is is innocent. Muller will take the job very seriously and conduct a thorough investigation aimed at find the facts. And if the facts support criminal charges against anyone in the administration, he pursue them because he actually cares deeply about doing the right thing.

If Trump is guilty, he should be scared ********. Though he's probably delusional enough to not really be worried.
 
Tony Stark said:
What Donald Trump Needs to Know About Bob Mueller and Jim Comey

The short of it is that Mueller is about the last person that Trump would want investigating him unless he is is innocent. Muller will take the job very seriously and conduct a thorough investigation aimed at find the facts. And if the facts support criminal charges against anyone in the administration, he pursue them because he actually cares deeply about doing the right thing.

If Trump is guilty, he should be scared ********. Though he's probably delusional enough to not really be worried.
Click to expand...
Trump doesn't recognize the fact that anything he does could possibly be wrong. Whether or not it's illegal or not is irrelevant to him. He's never wrong so there's no way it could be illegal.
 
Tony Stark said:
Real life is crazier than House of Cards.



I wouldn't pop it quite yet but this is very bad for Trump. This could easily destroy his presidency. He should be scared.
Click to expand...

Psychopaths don't scare easily. If he shows palpapable fear we'll know he's only about a 32 on the 40 scale of psychopathy.
 
Last edited:
logger said:
Scammed? Was I suppose to support hillary? You haven't a clue about politics!
Click to expand...

Yes. You were supposed to support the lesser of the available evils. You failed.

You were supposed to resist the Russian disinformation/indoctrination campaign. You didn't even try.
 
Babbylonian said:
Obstruction of justice/illegally interfering with an investigation doesn't require an underlying crime by the person doing the obstructing. It doesn't even require the guilt of the person(s) being investigated. In other words, the FBI/Special Counsel could find that Flynn was guilty of no federal crime (or at least none that can be prosecuted) while anyone believed to have obstructed the investigation (or perhaps even attempted to do so) could still be prosecuted.

Also, the rules on impeachment are sufficiently vague ("high crimes and misdemeanors") that there could be insufficient evidence to prosecute a President for obstruction, but the Congress could still find that same President guilty of abusing their authority, and that this is sufficient cause to remove that President from office.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. But impeachment is only part of the process; it's about the removal from office of a federal officer. If I understand correctly, that same person - be it Trump, or Pence, or anyone else in this executive - could afterwards also be indicted in a normal criminal court. If they couldn't, what was Ford's pardon of Nixon about?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom