Special Counsel Mueller Impanels Washington Grand Jury in Russia Probe

Would Nixon have been caught without the help of unnamed sources???

Is this seriously an argument?

– Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: TacSite18

Meet the all-star legal team who may take down Trump

* - Robert Mueller
* - James Quarles
* - Jeannie Rhee
* - Aaron Zebley
* - Greg Andres
* - Michael Dreeben
* - Preet Bharara
* - Andrew Weissmann
* - Lisa Page

A breakdown of some of the ;awyers he hired, who came from Holders / Lynch's DOJ

according to multiple people with knowledge of the deliberations

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: mkultra11

"Show me the man and I'll show you the crime"

Clearly a tax-payer funded fishing expedition.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: TacSite18
a reply to: Xcathdra

For speeding? What the heck are you on about. I personally cited people. If they were from out of town or state, you brought them to the JP's house. The JP would try and usually fine them. Case closed. No DA, no one else.

You don't like the law, go pund sand.

If you dont understand the law dont get pissy with me. Your actions are done with the blessing of and on behalf of the prosecuting attorney.

Hey why aren't you busy going off to "pund sand" already?

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

That was before so many of the unnamed sources stories turned out to be false or inaccurate.

Ahhh right....

So when unnamed sources were talking about NSA spying or when they were talking about other government goings on during pretty much every other administration they were right but when it's under your guy, premiere Trump now they become inaccurate

Sounds like a double standard to me

So youd prefer that Nixon would not get caught?

Im seriously confused as to how anything would reach the public without sources

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

The leaking of information is awesome when it involves informing the public about matters that affect them daily that they otherwise would never had known. Leaking of information to sway public opinion is just plain dastardly. I would wager damn near everything I have that a great majority of our elected federal officials and most any successful businessman have dirt on them, real, certifiable indictable dirt. But that's not what this is about.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

That was before so many of the unnamed sources stories turned out to be false or inaccurate.

Ahhh right....

So when unnamed sources were talking about NSA spying or when they were talking about other government goings on during pretty much every other administration they were right but when it's under your guy, premiere Trump now they become inaccurate

Sounds like a double standard to me

How many of the unnamed sources stories from those times were false or inaccurate?

I'm sure a few were, but did it have the same degree as they do now?

Subpart E - Impartiality in Performing Official Duties

There may be circumstances other than those covered by Subpart D in which employees should not perform official duties in order to avoid an appearance of loss of impartiality. Subpart E contains two disqualification provisions addressing those appearance issues.

The first provision, entitled "Personal and business relationships," states that employees should obtain specific authorization before participating in certain Government matters where their impartiality is likely to be questioned. The matters specifically covered by this standard include those:

Involving specific parties, such as contracts, grants, or investigations, that are likely to affect the financial interests of members of employees' households; or
In which persons with whom employees have specific relationships are parties or represent parties. This would include, for example, matters involving recent employers, employers of spouses or minor children, or anyone with whom the employees have or seek a business or financial relationship.


There are procedures by which employees may be authorized to participate in such matters when it serves the employing agency's interests. The process set out in Subpart E should be used to address any matter in which an employee's impartiality is likely to be questioned.

The second provision, entitled "Extraordinary payments from former employers," restricts employees' participation in certain matters involving former employers. If a former employer gave an employee an "extraordinary payment" in excess of $10,000 prior to entering Federal service, it bars the employee from participating for two years in matters in which that former employer is a party or represents a party. A $25,000 payment voted on an ad hoc basis by a board of directors would be an "extraordinary payment." A routine severance payment made under an established employee benefit plan would not.

5 C.F. R. § 2635.501 - 503 (Subpart E - Impartiality in Performing Official Duties)

In addition to the impartiality regulation, 28 C.F.R. § 45.2 prohibits a DOJ employee, without written authorization, from participating in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution, or any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: bknapple32

Nixon got caught because a director at the FBI leaked information to 2 reporters who were only identified 30+ years after the fact.