Donald Trump's lawyers investigating special counsel Robert Mueller's team

Listen Up:
This is NOT the Mud Pit....or the Street Corner!!!!!!

All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.
Community Announcement re: Decorum

and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

originally posted by: Xcathdra

When the special counsel hires lawyers who supported Clinton there is a real concern of conflict of interest. The conflict of interest clause for the DOJ applies to the special counsel. The special counsel is also delving into areas that arent covered by his mandate - namely russia related issues. The business issues, if wrong doing is discovered, is outside te statute of limitations and cant be prosecuted anyways, let alone being outside the mandate.

One has to question the motive behind that.

For starters, Donald Trump being a billionaire political donor himself, has probably donated more money to both, Democrats in general and to the Clintons in particular, than Mueller and all of his special investigators combined.

But, despite how weak the political donations conflict of interest argument may be, I would agree that it is just hypocritical enough that Trump may not be able to resist using it.

Secondly, nothing that Mueller has done or is doing with respect to this investigation is outside of the scope or authority granted to him by the DOJ and we won't know if a crime occurred outside the statute of limitations unless we investigate it first and find out what happened, when did it happen and/or is it still happening as in, "continuous and ongoing criminal activity."

originally posted by:
Xcathdra

I also want to know why no special counsel has ben assigned for Clinton, Obama, Lynch, Powell, Holder etc etc etc.

Maybe, just maybe, because no one has provided sufficient evidence to justify appointing one.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot.....and no one fired the head of the FBI who was investigating those matters in an attempt to obstruct justice.

That might have a little something to do with it.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

Please, explain to us how something financial from 2008 even comes close to what Comey was investigating?

Maybe they're just trying to figure out how long the Trump empire has been dependent on the flow of laundered money from Russian oligarchs.

Or simply put, how long has Putin owned Donald?

a reply to: Damiel

Mueller can get a team at a pace far faster than Trump can get his political appointees. This just goes to show how entrenched the unelected bureaucracy is, and how little the democratic process matters anymore.

Despite everything that has been said so far,
I'd suggest that most worrying thing
is that the rule of law is being usurped drip by drip
Trump senior has form on that :

The Justice Department’s May 17 order to Mueller instructs him to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign” as well as “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation,” suggesting a relatively broad mandate.

Agents are interested in dealings with the Bank of Cyprus, where Wilbur Ross served as vice chairman before he became commerce secretary. In addition, they are examining the efforts of Jared Kushner, the President’s son-in-law and senior aide, to secure financing for some of his family’s real-estate properties. The information about the investigation was provided by someone familiar with the developing inquiry but not authorized to speak publicly.

The roots of Mueller’s follow-the-money investigation lie partly in a wide-ranging money-laundering probe launched by then-Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara last year, according to the person.

FBI agents already had been gathering information about Manafort, according to two people with knowledge of that probe. Prosecutors hadn’t yet begun presenting evidence to a grand jury. Trump fired Bharara in March.

The Manafort inquiry initially focused on actions involving a real-estate company he launched with money from Ukraine in 2008. By the time Bharara was fired, his office’s investigation of possible money laundering extended well beyond that, according to the person briefed on the Mueller probe.

The Bharara investigation was consolidated into Mueller’s inquiry, showing that the special counsel is taking an overarching approach.

The various financial examinations constitute one thread of Mueller’s inquiry, which encompasses computer hacking and the dissemination of stolen campaign and voter information as well as the actions of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

www.bloomberg.com...

Little use saying that it all goes back ni on ten years : the investigators deem it still relevent

a reply to: Damiel

Bob Mueller will get to the bottom of it all. There is no doubt about that. I wouldn't worry too much about the grandstanding by President Trump.

The President knows he can't fire Mueller.

All the typical 'Trump defenders' that show up anytime Donald Trump is called into question on ATS can't change that fact and let them have their little. meaningless raves.

By the way, take notice (a bit off-topic but somehow relevant) that the relatively few ardent President Trump supporters end up getting a ton of stars on their posts no matter how poorly thought out they are? Then pay attention to the flurry of accounts that get created and then subsequently either self-removed or banned due to duplicate IP's creating them. You can see an emergent pattern.....hmmmm much like influencing an election, as a completely unrelated example.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Damiel

Mueller can get a team at a pace far faster than Trump can get his political appointees. This just goes to show how entrenched the unelected bureaucracy is, and how little the democratic process matters anymore.

This is merely your opinion (one I disagree with). I could equally say that it merely demonstrates the staggering level of disarray and general incompetence among Trump and his cabinet, rather than some entrenched bureaucratic boogeyman.

Its also interesting to note how quickly you jump to the 'failure of the democratic process' as the crux of the issue when a darkhorse candidate like Trump could even get elected in the first place (democratically), removes an individual appointed by another (democratically) elected official, and then rails against the person appointed by his own cabinet (also created through appointment by Trump and Congress - both democratically elected positions).

a reply to: alphabetaone

I dont know as of late there seems to be a boom of new accounts beating the DNC drum.

Guess it is just a matter of perspective.

===============

I just find it amusing that some folks feel that if they just dig further they will find something, problem in my eyes his team was under investigation for a year (that we know of) and if they had anything he either would not be president, or they choose him for a reason in which case he will not get impeached.

OR you have the aspect that this special counsel is based off of Comey's opinion of what the president was saying, and that the president did something he had the legal ability to when he fired comey, suspicious lack of evidence that many people are running with.

Take from that what you will *shrugs*, I still think the democrats need to find an actual message other than not trump if they want to make up ground in the mid-terms.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Accepting a pardon is an automatic admission of guilt. So I have to disagree with you that such an action would end the BS. I think, conversely, it would only make the entire situation worse. It would make everything they're saying about him seem to be truth. I sincerely hope he doesn't do that. I really do.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: alphabetaone

I dont know as of late there seems to be a boom of new accounts beating the DNC drum.

Guess it is just a matter of perspective.

===============

Yep, you're right. But my focus was specifically on President Trump supporters in this instance. Every election cycle there is a flurry from both sides trying to make themselves seem more relevant than their oppositions viewpoint.

I just find it amusing that some folks feel that if they just dig further they will find something, problem in my eyes his team was under investigation for a year (that we know of) and if they had anything he either would not be president, or they choose him for a reason in which case he will not get impeached.

With this administration you dont have to dig at ALL. It's right before everyone's eyes..Jr.s emails didn't release themself. And you're wrong, "his team" hasnt been under investigation "for a year", where are you coming up with that? The Russian involvement in the election cycle has been under investigation for over a year....Are you saying that "his team" is exactly equal to "Russian involvement"? That's what it sounds like to me.

OR you have the aspect that this special counsel is based off of Comey's opinion of what the president was saying, and that the president did something he had the legal ability to when he fired comey, suspicious lack of evidence that many people are running with.

Comey's opinion of what the President was saying is not even crucial as, at the time, the President was not under investigation. It's what the President did that is most damning, not opinions of what was said afterwards....removing everyone from the Oval Office to simply speak alone with the FBI Director is something that AG Sessions, as Comey's boss should have never allowed to happen. What was said behind those closed doors, simply doesn't matter.

Take from that what you will *shrugs*, I still think the democrats need to find an actual message other than not trump if they want to make up ground in the mid-terms.

I will argue with you on this. ANYONE who runs for a public office (not a partisan problem) needs to have a message. If you take "messages" as criteria for an effective Government, then right now, we're about as ineffectual as any Government could possibly be.

Repeal and Replace. Accomplished? No.
Build that wall! Accomplished? No.
Lock her up! Accomplished? No. (and likely never can be)
Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! Accomplished? No. (status quo reigns supreme)
Drain the swamp! Accomplished? No. (not just no, but HELL no...in fact swamp is becoming mired in quagmire)

All the tenets of the "message" that bear no fruit.

a reply to: alphabetaone

And you're wrong, "his team" hasnt been under investigation "for a year", where are you coming up with that?

Comey stated this before congress under oath.
The "counter intelligence" investigation has been ongoing since July of 16.

It's what the President did that is most damning, not opinions of what was said afterwards....removing everyone from the Oval Office to simply speak alone with the FBI Director is something that AG Sessions, as Comey's boss should have never allowed to happen.

I will remind you of comeys testimony again.
It was the former administrations INSTRUCTIONS to have comey meet with trump ALONE first.
Comey instigated that behavior so for anyone to say it was trumps idea alone is bs.
If it is ok for the fbi to do it why is it bad for the potus to do it?

a reply to: shooterbrody

What?

None of what you said even seems relevant to the reason I had posted.
Counter-intelligence is merely a way of preventing spying activity by a foreign entity. How is that refuting a single thing that i pointed out? Unless you're merely trying to accentuate the fact that I was right.


As far as Jim Comey's testimony, why dont you post an audio clip during his testimony under oath where he states that the closed door meetings with Donald Trump were the Obama administrations "idea" first so that I can hear it for myself. I dont recall that little soundbyte.

a reply to: Irishhaf

I just find it amusing that some folks feel that if they just dig further they will find something, problem in my eyes his team was under investigation for a year (that we know of) and if they had anything he either would not be president, or they choose him for a reason in which case he will not get impeached.

As an illustration of how long these investigations can last:

The Nixon campaign attempted to gain dirt on the democrats in 1972, resulting in the break in of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C. President Richard Nixon’s administration’s attempted cover-up of its involvement. (does this sound somewhat familiar?).

It was not until August of 1974 that enough evidence had been collected to convince Nixon to resign. But that was really not the end. In September of 1974 Ford pardoned him (as wise move in retrospect), but that was not the end. The scandal resulted in the indictment of 69 people, with trials or pleas resulting in 48 being found guilty, many of whom were Nixon’s top administration officials.

The Watergate scandal resulted in many new laws on campaign finance, oversight, and accountability.

So sit tight. This reel still has a lot of line left in it.

If anything, Obama spying on Trump with bugging devices is more like Nixon's Watergate. Today the standards are so low it's hardly a big deal nowadays compared to the early 70s.

a reply to: Wayfarer

This is merely your opinion (one I disagree with). I could equally say that it merely demonstrates the staggering level of disarray and general incompetence among Trump and his cabinet, rather than some entrenched bureaucratic boogeyman.

Its also interesting to note how quickly you jump to the 'failure of the democratic process' as the crux of the issue when a darkhorse candidate like Trump could even get elected in the first place (democratically), removes an individual appointed by another (democratically) elected official, and then rails against the person appointed by his own cabinet (also created through appointment by Trump and Congress - both democratically elected positions).

It's not my opinion. It is a demonstrable fact that Trump's political appointees are getting approved at a slower rate than any of his predecessors. He, and the people who voted for him, have to wait as an entrenched bureaucracy stalls the entire political process.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It was your opinion on the entrenched bureaucracy being the cause for the delay.

a reply to: Wayfarer

It was your opinion on the entrenched bureaucracy being the cause for the delay.

I'm speaking about the entire political process, as I explicitly mentioned, and not "the delay".

Mueller can get a team at a pace far faster than Trump can get his political appointees (FACT). This just goes to show how entrenched the unelected bureaucracy is, and how little the democratic process matters anymore (Opinion).

Can you show me where in the first factual statement above you explicitly mention the entire political process? I can see in your second statement where you clearly reference 'unelected bureaucracy' as I guess a proxy for 'entire political process' regarding your last post, but I'm still struggling to see how that's not an opinion.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Can you show me where in the first factual statement above you explicitly mention the entire political process? I can see in your second statement where you clearly reference 'unelected bureaucracy' as I guess a proxy for 'entire political process' regarding your last post, but I'm still struggling to see how that's not an opinion.

I didn't, because I said it in the next post. It also shows that I never mentioned an entrenched bureaucracy as a cause of "the delay".