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

[quadraginta]

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?

What need. We have our trusty Congressmen to determine the right of things for us.

They've demonstrated their ability to maintain a non-partisan approach to investigations over the past few years.

Who could doubt it. They're Republicans.

So you need not worry.

 

[BobTheCoward]

What need. We have our trusty Congressmen to determine the right of things for us.

They've demonstrated their ability to maintain a non-partisan approach to investigations over the past few years.

Who could doubt it. They're Republicans.

So you need not worry.

If the evidence threshold is below what is necessary for a prosecutor, the biases of Congress is not a determing factor that can push it across the line.

 

[quadraginta]

If the evidence threshold is below what is necessary for a prosecutor, the biases of Congress is not a determing factor that can push it across the line.

Then there's no problem, I guess.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Then there's no problem, I guess.

That is neither what I said nor a conclusion from what I said.

 

[Foolmewunz]

What need. We have our trusty Congressmen to determine the right of things for us.

They've demonstrated their ability to maintain a non-partisan approach to investigations over the past few years.

Who could doubt it. They're Republicans.

So you need not worry.

I'm sure Chairman Gowdy has need of something to do. He could simply apply the GOP Playbook (a.k.a. the Deacon Jones philosophy of meting out justice*) as they spent four years doing to Hillary.

*Some sportswriter attributed the methodology to Deacon Jones. "Don't bother following the movement of the ball. Just grab the entire backfield and peel the others away until you get at the ball carrier/holder." This was very much the Select Committee's approach. Grab up every scrap of paper you can, leak the smarmy ones, introduce the questionable ones as "evidence" and discard the rest.

@Bob the Coward. At what point does your right to know transcend sensible security and investigatory practice. There are accusations flying about. Do you wish to just ignore them? Wouldn't you prefer that a non-aligned person conduct an investigation to determine whether the POTUS is making deals to sell off suburban Mesa to a Russian kleptocrat? Most investigations, whether they result in prosecution or not, start from somewhere. We're not talking about Secret Mooslim Code on Rings. We're talking about a trusted adviser, friend and appointee having been caught, at minimum, making nice-nice with a foreign administration and possibly making them "promises" based on his insider position. Either(all) side(s) should want someone to get to the bottom of this.

 

[BobTheCoward]

@Bob the Coward. At what point does your right to know transcend sensible security and investigatory practice. There are accusations flying about. Do you wish to just ignore them? Wouldn't you prefer that a non-aligned person conduct an investigation to determine whether the POTUS is making deals to sell off suburban Mesa to a Russian kleptocrat? Most investigations, whether they result in prosecution or not, start from somewhere. We're not talking about Secret Mooslim Code on Rings. We're talking about a trusted adviser, friend and appointee having been caught, at minimum, making nice-nice with a foreign administration and possibly making them "promises" based on his insider position. Either(all) side(s) should want someone to get to the bottom of this.

There is a lot to cover here.

I don't claim a right to know. But if they keep it secret, and we are discussing the evidence for a crime, I'm going to point out that there isn't any evidence in our discussion.

I would love a non biased party to investigate. Those words do not describe prosecutors. The special part of special prosecutor refers to their independence. They are still law enforcement. I want every citizen to enjoy equal protection under the law. Which means I won't t support one until it meets that threshold. Am I privy to that information? No. But I'm not going to relax my skepticism to accommodate them.

If our only two choices are special prosecutor and Congress, and suppose it doesn't rise to the minimum standard for a criminal investigation,, then the fact Congress sucks doesn't alter my stance on prosecutors.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Exactly. I don't want a repeat of a witch-hunt.

Isn't the fact that the White House is obstructing justice evidence enough?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Isn't the fact that the White House is obstructing justice evidence enough?

If I was presented evidence of obstruction of justice and appropriate case law regarding obstruction investigations. You are jumping several steps ahead.

 

[sunmaster14]

They coordinated which Hillary-supporting entity should be hacked and when the info should be released.

Do you really think the Russians needed the Trump team's advice about that? The Trump campaign was hardly a fine-tuned machine, and I don't remember either Trump or any of his advisers pointing to anything specific in the Wikileaks documents. It seemed they barely had the resources to take advantage of the Wikileaks dump, let alone aid the Russians and coordinate ahead of time. And why would the Russians want Trump's people involved anyway, unless it was to entrap them and blackmail them later? I suppose that's a possibility, but it strikes me as ridiculously unlikely. That would be a lot of deep preparation for a scenario (Trump winning) that looked pretty unlikely at the time they would have been planning it. Russians are good chess players, it's true, but they don't exactly have tons of resources to divert to long shot bets.

 

[sunmaster14]

I'm sure Chairman Gowdy has need of something to do. He could simply apply the GOP Playbook (a.k.a. the Deacon Jones philosophy of meting out justice*) as they spent four years doing to Hillary.

*Some sportswriter attributed the methodology to Deacon Jones. "Don't bother following the movement of the ball. Just grab the entire backfield and peel the others away until you get at the ball carrier/holder." This was very much the Select Committee's approach. Grab up every scrap of paper you can, leak the smarmy ones, introduce the questionable ones as "evidence" and discard the rest.

@Bob the Coward. At what point does your right to know transcend sensible security and investigatory practice. There are accusations flying about. Do you wish to just ignore them? Wouldn't you prefer that a non-aligned person conduct an investigation to determine whether the POTUS is making deals to sell off suburban Mesa to a Russian kleptocrat? Most investigations, whether they result in prosecution or not, start from somewhere. We're not talking about Secret Mooslim Code on Rings. We're talking about a trusted adviser, friend and appointee having been caught, at minimum, making nice-nice with a foreign administration and possibly making them "promises" based on his insider position. Either(all) side(s) should want someone to get to the bottom of this.

First I've heard of this. Do tell.

 

[Foolmewunz]

If I was presented evidence of obstruction of justice and appropriate case law regarding obstruction investigations. You are jumping several steps ahead.

You can't be presented with evidence if they aren't allowed to investigate. Would you be happier if they drop the word "prosecutor"? Call it "investigator". Meh? I'm content that there's enough out there to warrant an investigation. You can't give it to the FBI - Comey and ComeyClones are still there. DoJ? Being run by a Trump lackie. The heads of Intel who've made it through Mercer/Bannon vetting? They're donors and supporters.

If you prefer, we should have a blue ribbon panel of independent investigators, but where are we going to find them? There are people on the left who the right respect and vice-versa. Let the Administration nominate 15 names to investigate; let the (say) ACLU nominate fifteen names. Have the 15 Admin nominees voted on by the ACLU and the ACLU nominees voted on by the Administration. Pick five from each.

Something like that... I used ACLU because the right perceives them to be lefties.

 

[thaiboxerken]

If I was presented evidence of obstruction of justice and appropriate case law regarding obstruction investigations. You are jumping several steps ahead.

The White House telling investigators to squash the investigation and tell the media there is nothing to investigate is obstruction of justice.

 

[BobTheCoward]

You can't be presented with evidence if they aren't allowed to investigate. Would you be happier if they drop the word "prosecutor"? Call it "investigator". Meh? I'm content that there's enough out there to warrant an investigation. You can't give it to the FBI - Comey and ComeyClones are still there. DoJ? Being run by a Trump lackie. The heads of Intel who've made it through Mercer/Bannon vetting? They're donors and supporters.

I keep saying as long as it meets the minimum standard, go right ahead.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The White House telling investigators to squash the investigation and tell the media there is nothing to investigate is obstruction of justice.

I know for a fact the second part is not obstruction of justice.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I know for a fact the second part is not obstruction of justice.

Cite?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Cite?

https://www.justice.gov/usam/crimin...offenses-related-obstruction-justice-offenses

The entire statute only references federal authorities, witnesses, or jurors. No media.

 

[thaiboxerken]

https://www.justice.gov/usam/crimin...offenses-related-obstruction-justice-offenses

The entire statute only references federal authorities, witnesses, or jurors. No media.

Well you have me there. However, telling these people to stop investigating is.

 

[phiwum]

Isn't the fact that the White House is obstructing justice evidence enough?

What do you have in mind? I'm sympathetic to the call for investigation, but the claims of obstruction in the legal sense are new to me.

 

[thaiboxerken]

What do you have in mind? I'm sympathetic to the call for investigation, but the claims of obstruction in the legal sense are new to me.

The White House has been trying to pressure people to stop investigating, including the FBI.

 

[sunmaster14]

You can't be presented with evidence if they aren't allowed to investigate. Would you be happier if they drop the word "prosecutor"? Call it "investigator". Meh? I'm content that there's enough out there to warrant an investigation. You can't give it to the FBI - Comey and ComeyClones are still there. DoJ? Being run by a Trump lackie. The heads of Intel who've made it through Mercer/Bannon vetting? They're donors and supporters.

The FBI is part of the DOJ, just FYI. 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).

If you prefer, we should have a blue ribbon panel of independent investigators, but where are we going to find them? There are people on the left who the right respect and vice-versa. Let the Administration nominate 15 names to investigate; let the (say) ACLU nominate fifteen names. Have the 15 Admin nominees voted on by the ACLU and the ACLU nominees voted on by the Administration. Pick five from each.

Something like that... I used ACLU because the right perceives them to be lefties.

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.