Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to Kill Flynn Investigation

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: butcherguy

everytime I have to respond to impeachment bs I am going to quote dear ole crazy nancy

she at least knows when to bluff and when not to

Anyone who cares to do a "gotcha" can save this post and throw it back at me if I'm wrong...

Not only will President Trump never be impeached, he will easily be re-elected in 2020 by an even bigger margin than he had against Bill Clinton's wife.

2018 will be key, but right now the Democrats are committing political suicide. They represent everything that people hate about politics and politicians.

I completely agree. If the GOP even holds it's own in the House (loses less than 10 or 12 seats), and then picks up even 4 Dem' seats of the 10 that are up for re-election in states that Trump won, the Democrats are in Big Trouble for 2020.

I think they're already in full panic mode because their two most revered icons -- Bill Clinton's wife and Barack Obama, are proven failures. It's actually Obama who took a wrecking ball to the Dem' Party, losing more down-ballot seats than any Democrat POTUS in history.

So far, Trump is somewhat untested in that regard, though he did seem to have some "coattails" in 2016, and has yet to lose an off-year seat in 2017, but we'll see.

I have a feeling that the world will be a very different place a year from now and if I'm right about a looming economic boom, the Left will have a very tough time indeed.

After that, the new Alt-Left Democrat Party is going to have to find a viable candidate to go up against Trump, who absolutely eviscerated 16 well-qualified Republican challengers and then went on to easily beat the supposed "sure thing" offered up by the Left.

I can tell you right now that "viable candidate" better be more than a fake Indian squaw or the truly creepy Tim Kaine.



Moderator Note:

Please do not use reason for edits for political comments. Thanks.

edit on 5/17/2017 by Blaine91555 because: Removed political comments in reason for edit's notes.

a reply to: SBMcG

With far left antifas, Hillarys hilarious resistance, Baracks army and an MSM bent on destroying credibility.

How are the Democrat party ever going to get back center enough to even place in an election other than known strongholds of the brainwashed gimmedats.

The more they support witch hunts like going on now, more they alianate common American voters.

For life of me I cannot think of one single nationally known potential candidate on their side that could even pretend to be centrist.

This is Obamas legacy, make yer bed and lie in it.

a reply to: Phoenix

I agree, I have voted both sides on and off, but darn the way the Democrats are looking like, they will not have my vote for a long time and neither any member in my family.

They are a mess.

originally posted by: Indigo5
I imagine Team Trump is staring at the clock wide-eyed right now amazed they made it until 4PM Eastern...a whole day...without another giant mountain of # hitting the fan.

I spoke too soon.

Rosenstein appoints Robert Mueller as Special Prosecutor...

a reply to: Indigo5

Ok, I am sure you're breathless, who is Rosenstein, didn't special prosecutor law get sunsetted back in 99' or something?

Linky dinky?

a reply to: Indigo5

Annnnn it's "special counsel" NOT prosecutor as alleged.

That's very different than implied. Good try though.

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: Indigo5

Annnnn it's "special counsel" NOT prosecutor as alleged.

That's very different than implied. Good try though.

It's actually the same position and I believe the titles were changed a while back. Special counsel still has the same investigative and prosecutor powers.

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: Indigo5

Annnnn it's "special counsel" NOT prosecutor as alleged.

That's very different than implied. Good try though.

It's actually the exact same thing..

They changed the name to Special Counsel in 83 to sound less aggressive..But same thing..

I will let you figure out that one for yourself..

a reply to: Phoenix

Jan 23 Before Flynn lied to the FBI before he was reported to the DOJ before Yates warned the Whitehouse before Flynn lied to the Veep. Before Flynn was fired.
Sorry nope.
Flynn has NOT been cleared by the FBI.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: Indigo5

Annnnn it's "special counsel" NOT prosecutor as alleged.

That's very different than implied. Good try though.

It's actually the exact same thing..

They changed the name to Special Counsel in 83 to sound less aggressive..But same thing..

I will let you figure out that one for yourself..

Not correct. The reporting lines, rules and appointment procedure are all different.
Rosenstein made it clear this has nothing to do with a prosecution, but when the truth doesn't work, we can always rely on liberals to lie.

Statement:

In my capacity as acting Attorney General, I determined that it is in the public interest for me to exercise my authority and appoint a Special Counsel to assume responsibility for this matter,” said Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein. “My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination. What I have determined is that based upon the unique circumstances, the public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree of independence from the normal chain of command.

a reply to: Phoenix

Sooo....to recap


-Trump fires the Director of the FBI who is investigating the links with Russia
-Then he invites the Russians into the Oval office the next morning
-Kicks out the American Media
-Has the Russian State Run Press there instead but denies entry to American Press
-Confesses to Federal Obstruction on live TV
-Comey details an official Memo of a conversation with Trump implicating him in further obstruction of Justice


and Hillary......

sent emails from the wrong laptop, so clearly they're on equal footing, corruptwise.


Suddenly I see where before, I was blind.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: Indigo5

Annnnn it's "special counsel" NOT prosecutor as alleged.

That's very different than implied. Good try though.

It's actually the same position and I believe the titles were changed a while back. Special counsel still has the same investigative and prosecutor powers.

Also not correct.
A special counsel makes recommendations on prosecutions to the DoJ, who can over rule.
There is not even a suggestion of the prosecutorial process.
Nice try though.

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: Phoenix

Sooo....to recap


Trump fires the Director of the FBI who is investigating the links with Russia
Then he invites the Russians into the Oval office the next morning
Kicks out the American Media
Has the Russian State Run Press there instead but denies entry to American Press
Confesses to Federal Obstruction on live TV
Comey details an official Memo of a conversation with Trump implicating him in further obstruction of Justice
and Hillary......

sent emails from the wrong laptop, so clearly they're on equal footing, corruptwise.


Suddenly I see where before, I was blind.

Almost everyone wanted Comey fired.
The timing of the Russian meeting had nothing to do with the firing.
He didn't kick out American media. American and Russian photographers were allowed in.
No, he didn't admit to any federal obstruction on TV.
The memo, if it exists, has no implication f obstruction of justice (based on what we have heard).

It's a shame that you feel the need to repeat lies.

As for Hillary - she is actually guilty of breaking the law as clearly communicated by the FBI. So no, not an equal footing. One law breaker in Clinton vs innuendo, hearsay and lies against Trump.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: Indigo5

Annnnn it's "special counsel" NOT prosecutor as alleged.

That's very different than implied. Good try though.

It's actually the same position and I believe the titles were changed a while back. Special counsel still has the same investigative and prosecutor powers.

Also not correct.
A special counsel makes recommendations on prosecutions to the DoJ, who can over rule.
There is not even a suggestion of the prosecutorial process.
Nice try though.

A special prosecutor (or special counsel or independent counsel) is a lawyer appointed to investigate and possibly prosecute a specific legal case of potential wrongdoing for which a conflict of interest exists for the usual prosecuting authority. For example, the investigation of an allegation against a sitting president or attorney-general might be handled by a special prosecutor rather than an ordinary prosecutor, who would otherwise be in the position of investigating their own boss. Investigations into others connected to the government but not in a position of direct authority over the prosecutor, such as cabinet secretaries or election campaigns, have also been handled by special prosecutors.

The terms "special prosecutor", "independent counsel" and "special counsel" have the same fundamental meaning, and their use (at least at the federal level in the U.S.) is generally differentiated by the time period to which they are being applied. The term "special prosecutor" was used throughout the Watergate era, but was replaced by the less confrontational "independent counsel" in the 1983 reauthorization of the Ethics in Government Act.[4] Those appointed under that act after 1983 are generally referred to as independent counsels. Since the independent counsel law expired in 1999, the term special counsel has generally been used. This is the term used in the current U.S. government regulations concerning the appointment of special counsels.[5] While the term special prosecutor is sometimes used in historical discussions of all such figures before 1983, the term special counsel appears to have been frequently used as well, including, for example, in contemporary newspaper accounts[6] describing the first presidentially appointed special counsel in 1875.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: Indigo5

Annnnn it's "special counsel" NOT prosecutor as alleged.

That's very different than implied. Good try though.

It's actually the same position and I believe the titles were changed a while back. Special counsel still has the same investigative and prosecutor powers.

Also not correct.
A special counsel makes recommendations on prosecutions to the DoJ, who can over rule.
There is not even a suggestion of the prosecutorial process.
Nice try though.

A special prosecutor (or special counsel or independent counsel) is a lawyer appointed to investigate and possibly prosecute a specific legal case of potential wrongdoing for which a conflict of interest exists for the usual prosecuting authority. For example, the investigation of an allegation against a sitting president or attorney-general might be handled by a special prosecutor rather than an ordinary prosecutor, who would otherwise be in the position of investigating their own boss. Investigations into others connected to the government but not in a position of direct authority over the prosecutor, such as cabinet secretaries or election campaigns, have also been handled by special prosecutors.

The terms "special prosecutor", "independent counsel" and "special counsel" have the same fundamental meaning, and their use (at least at the federal level in the U.S.) is generally differentiated by the time period to which they are being applied. The term "special prosecutor" was used throughout the Watergate era, but was replaced by the less confrontational "independent counsel" in the 1983 reauthorization of the Ethics in Government Act.[4] Those appointed under that act after 1983 are generally referred to as independent counsels. Since the independent counsel law expired in 1999, the term special counsel has generally been used. This is the term used in the current U.S. government regulations concerning the appointment of special counsels.[5] While the term special prosecutor is sometimes used in historical discussions of all such figures before 1983, the term special counsel appears to have been frequently used as well, including, for example, in contemporary newspaper accounts[6] describing the first presidentially appointed special counsel in 1875.

en.wikipedia.org...

Thanks - I already know that. I also know the the rules for appointment and reporting lines are completely different.
I further know, because I actually listen to what the person appointing the Special Counsel said, that this is not about prosecution.

In my capacity as acting Attorney General, I determined that it is in the public interest for me to exercise my authority and appoint a Special Counsel to assume responsibility for this matter,” said Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein. “My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination. What I have determined is that based upon the unique circumstances, the public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree of independence from the normal chain of command.

Like I said, nice try, but reality wins.

a reply to: UKTruth

Thanks - I already know that. I also know the the rules for appointment and reporting lines are completely different. I further know, because I actually listen to what the person appointing the Special Counsel said, that this is not about prosecution.

You said the SC/SP did not have prosecutorial powers, which is incorrect and I have shown how there is not only a suggestion of the prosecutorial process, but also the power to do so.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

Thanks - I already know that. I also know the the rules for appointment and reporting lines are completely different. I further know, because I actually listen to what the person appointing the Special Counsel said, that this is not about prosecution.

You said the SC/SP did not have prosecutorial powers, which is incorrect and I have shown how there is not only a suggestion of the prosecutorial process, but also the power to do so.

Ok, fair enough. I was not clear in that post. I meant there is not even the suggestion of a prosecutorial process in THIS special counsel appointee as declared by the Deputy AG.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

Thanks - I already know that. I also know the the rules for appointment and reporting lines are completely different. I further know, because I actually listen to what the person appointing the Special Counsel said, that this is not about prosecution.

You said the SC/SP did not have prosecutorial powers, which is incorrect and I have shown how there is not only a suggestion of the prosecutorial process, but also the power to do so.

Ok, fair enough. I was not clear in that post. I meant there is not even the suggestion of a prosecutorial process in THIS special counsel appointee as declared by the Deputy AG.

He doesn't have to suggest it. By the very nature of the position, the SC/SP has that authority.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

Thanks - I already know that. I also know the the rules for appointment and reporting lines are completely different. I further know, because I actually listen to what the person appointing the Special Counsel said, that this is not about prosecution.

You said the SC/SP did not have prosecutorial powers, which is incorrect and I have shown how there is not only a suggestion of the prosecutorial process, but also the power to do so.

Ok, fair enough. I was not clear in that post. I meant there is not even the suggestion of a prosecutorial process in THIS special counsel appointee as declared by the Deputy AG.

He doesn't have to suggest it. By the very nature of the position, the SC/SP has that authority.

My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination.

I'll leave that there. Pretty clear from the person who defines the scope of the appointed special counsel.
By the way using "SC/SP" is also spurious. There is no such thing as a special prosecutor.

a reply to: UKTruth

I'll leave that there. Pretty clear from the person who defines the scope of the appointed special counsel.

They have made no such determination if prosecution is warranted. Of course not. They have to investigate it first. But if they find reason to, they can prosecute.

By the way using "SC/SP" is also spurious. There is no such thing as a special prosecutor.

Not any more. The title was changed.

The purpose and powers remain the same.