Why The Left Should Be Upset About The Cohen Raid

a reply to: Boadicea

Numbers are actually going the other way. Only 13% of Americans believe trump should fire Mueller. That's about one in ten.

The search was not vile. It was quite civil and polite and most importantly legal.

I bet at the end of the day he does not fire Mueller. I wonder who is telling him he can? More legal advice from his brainiac son in law who's bad advice got him in this hot water to begin with?

a reply to: Dfairlite

He's spouting. He knows he doesn't have a leg. But what lawyers do is talk....

a reply to: Dfairlite

Clear over reach of the parties involved. And it will yield zero results, same as every single other attack against Trump has yielded so far.

a reply to: Dfairlite

How did this raid violate the 4th and 6th amendments?

Also, who made you the official arbiter on what the left wants out of this investigation? Do you not care about people breaking the law going to jail or not? Because I do. So I'm TOTALLY interested in anyone within Trump's orbit breaking the law being indicted and going to jail.

FURTHERMORE, for the thousandth time already, this raid wasn't done by the Mueller investigation. It was done by New York.

Every time I read idiotic threads like this, this goes through my head, "Hi i'm a right wing poster and I'm making tons of leaps in logic over the current situation and I'm going to go ahead and assume what liberals are thinking because I'm arrogant that way."

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Boadicea

Numbers are actually going the other way. Only 13% of Americans believe trump should fire Mueller. That's about one in ten.

Okay. Don't know and don't care.

Two separate questions. The issue of whether Trump should fire is Mueller is not the same is the issue of a questionable raid on his attorney.

Although it is possible that this raid could influence folks' opinions of whether or not Trump should fire Mueller...

In the end, we'll find out together.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
a reply to: Dfairlite

Clear over reach of the parties involved. And it will yield zero results, same as every single other attack against Trump has yielded so far.

Besides all the indictments and people even going to jail over the investigation that is?

a reply to: Sillyolme

I wonder who is telling him he can? More legal advice from his brainiac son in law who's bad advice got him in this hot water to begin with?

At least one of those people saying Trump can legally fire Mueller is the --

...Obama Administration Solicitor General Neal Katyal, one of the authors of pertinent regulations...

-- according to a Law & Crime article: Sarah Sanders is Right, President Trump Can Directly Fire Robert Mueller. There is more at the link, of course, but here's the gist of it:

In summary: Trump has the constitutional power to direct repeal of a regulation that the attorney general alone may fire a special counsel; the president controls prosecution power; the regulation, if repealed, subjects Trump to all of the negative publicity that will come with such a move because he has to repeal it publicly.

I don't think Trump is worried about negative publicity, so I doubt that will stop him if that's what he really wants to do. But I don't pretend to know what's in Trump's head so I have no idea what Trump will do.

a reply to: Boadicea

Whether Trump is capable of firing him or not is really irrelevant. There are many ways he could go about disposing Mueller. The problem is if he carries through on any of those tactics. Doing such would be monumentally stupid and all but guarantee Trump's problems would be much much worse cause there is no way the Democrats would sit on this. It would almost be guaranteed to be challenged in the courts, and the liberal base is already SUPER energized for the election in November. Trump would probably be signing his own job death warrant. Of course Trump doesn't think things through, so logic like this is likely going to fly right over his head and if wants to do it he'll do it, but people really shouldn't be trying to get Trump to follow through on this if they want the best for his Presidency.

a reply to: Edumakated

The left logic is that since the payment benefited Trump it's basically a campaign contoribution. The sale logic makes Uranium One a bribe, but the fringe left isn't too bright. Also, by this logic, if I offered a pro Hillary idiot $100 to just shut up, I'd have to disclose that as a campaign contribution to whoever her opponent might be lol

originally posted by: bender151
a reply to: Edumakated

The left logic is that since the payment benefited Trump it's basically a campaign contoribution. The sale logic makes Uranium One a bribe, but the fringe left isn't too bright. Also, by this logic, if I offered a pro Hillary idiot $100 to just shut up, I'd have to disclose that as a campaign contribution to whoever her opponent might be lol

So none of this makes a lick of sense or has any logical continuity. Though points for whatabouting Hillary in a thread about Trump I guess.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Boadicea

Whether Trump is capable of firing him or not is really irrelevant. There are many ways he could go about disposing Mueller. The problem is if he carries through on any of those tactics. Doing such would be monumentally stupid and all but guarantee Trump's problems would be much much worse cause there is no way the Democrats would sit on this. It would almost be guaranteed to be challenged in the courts, and the liberal base is already SUPER energized for the election in November. Trump would probably be signing his own job death warrant. Of course Trump doesn't think things through, so logic like this is likely going to fly right over his head and if wants to do it he'll do it, but people really shouldn't be trying to get Trump to follow through on this if they want the best for his Presidency.

I tend to agree with most of this. Trump will do what he wants to do, and no doubt if he does fire Mueller, it will be taken to court. But the court of public opinion will matter the most in the end.

I just don't think it's cut and dried either way. There will always be those partisans who will cheer for their team no matter what, and condemn the other team no matter what. Then there will be those of us seeing the shenanigans on both sides... watching and waiting... knowing we're not getting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth from either side... leaving us more inclined to just not trust or believe anyone than to take either side.

Right now, for me, I have to wonder how much this raid has to do with Nunes' ultimatum to the DOJ to turn over the subpoena'd docs by the 11th, or face contempt/impeachment charges. Maybe nothing... maybe everything. I don't know. But the timing is curious to say the least.

a reply to: Boadicea

The raid wasn't conducted by Mueller's team so its timing is almost guaranteed to be a coincidence.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Boadicea

The raid wasn't conducted by Mueller's team so its timing is almost guaranteed to be a coincidence.

Technically perhaps... but only to the extent that Mueller's team passed it off to someone else to do their dirty work. And given the incestuous corruption between bureaucracies, there is much room for doubt and suspicion.

And add in the level of spying and surveillance by government, at this point, anyone and everyone could be acting under duress. In other words, I have absolutely no idea who has been compromised, bribed, blackmailed or otherwise pressured -- if not outright coerced -- to do their bidding.

Even if the timing were simply coincidence, I have no respect or faith in a DOJ that refuses to turn over legal subpoena'd docs and records demanded by "the people's house." So for me (and I'm sure others) the DOJ's credibility for me is zilch.

a reply to: Dfairlite

I don't think you understand the 4th and 6th amendment. The 4th wasn't violated because the raid doesn't violate cohens privacy or attorney client privilege, DOJ is investigating Cohen, legally. The 6th wasn't violated either unless you think 48 hours is a speedy trial, in which case Cohen is guilty of giving 130,000 illegally to Trump's campaign via an in-kind donation to stormy. Cohen is getting disbarred and taking Trump down with him.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Precisely!

originally posted by: Boadicea
Technically perhaps... but only to the extent that Mueller's team passed it off to someone else to do their dirty work. And given the incestuous corruption between bureaucracies, there is much room for doubt and suspicion.

Did it occur to you that perhaps this was done to circumvent the calls of Mueller overstepping his mandate? Why is corruption ALWAYS the go to assumption with you guys?

And add in the level of spying and surveillance by government, at this point, anyone and everyone could be acting under duress. In other words, I have absolutely no idea who has been compromised, bribed, blackmailed or otherwise pressured -- if not outright coerced -- to do their bidding.

Who cares? Stop being so pessimistic.

Even if the timing were simply coincidence, I have no respect or faith in a DOJ that refuses to turn over legal subpoena'd docs and records demanded by "the people's house." So for me (and I'm sure others) the DOJ's credibility for me is zilch.

Nunes' credibility is zilch thanks to the memo fiasco. I can't believe you guys still trust that sycophant.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

"You guys"? Really??? Okay.

Did it occur to you that perhaps this was done to circumvent the calls of Mueller overstepping his mandate?

Um... yeah... hence my comment about the incestuous bureaucracies complicit in corruption. Did it occur to YOU that perhaps this was done for exactly that reason? That this is in fact and in deed overstepping his mandate so he used cheap tricks to get someone else to do his dirty work so that "you guys" could make exactly this excuse for him???

Why is corruption ALWAYS the go to assumption with you guys?

Because the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Because without transparency the truth cannot be known. Because the Constitution demands that the authorities must prove themselves and everything they do for the precise reason of preventing such corruption to thrive in the dark.

Why do "you guys" assume otherwise with absolutely no good reason to do so???

Who cares? Stop being so pessimistic.

I care, obviously. And I'm sure everyone who has been so surveilled and spied on. And everyone who gives a damn about privacy and justice and fairness and Constitutionally protected rights.

Nunes' credibility is zilch thanks to the memo fiasco. I can't believe you guys still trust that sycophant.

LOL!!! To "you guys" maybe... but you don't speak for me or anyone else. Credibility is subjective. Unless and until the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is known, it's all subjective... our own opinions based on our own experiences and confirmation biases. None of us know because we don't have enough hard facts to know.

We shouldn't have to "trust" anyone in government. They should be proving themselves to us in anything and everything they do. Especially in potential criminal matters against a duly elected president. Even Trump.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Um... yeah... hence my comment about the incestuous bureaucracies complicit in corruption. Did it occur to YOU that perhaps this was done for exactly that reason? That this is in fact and in deed overstepping his mandate so he used cheap tricks to get someone else to do his dirty work so that "you guys" could make exactly this excuse for him???

No, because that is a ridiculous assumption to make and is very likely moving goal posts around to continue to call Mueller corrupt.

Because the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Because without transparency the truth cannot be known. Because the Constitution demands that the authorities must prove themselves and everything they do for the precise reason of preventing such corruption to thrive in the dark.

Why do "you guys" assume otherwise with absolutely no good reason to do so???

Because you have to PROVE corruption, not assume it exists everywhere and go from there. Occam's Razor says I should believe the idea with the least number of assumptions. If you are going to cry corruption, then you damn well better prove it for every case of corruption you are yelling about.

LOL!!! To "you guys" maybe... but you don't speak for me or anyone else. Credibility is subjective. Unless and until the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is known, it's all subjective... our own opinions based on our own experiences and confirmation biases. None of us know because we don't have enough hard facts to know.

Yet you support undermining an investigation intended to get answers that the Trump admin refuses to answer and implicitly trust the people carrying out that undermining while not trusting the people doing the actual investigation. I call that bias myself.

We shouldn't have to "trust" anyone in government. They should be proving themselves to us in anything and everything they do. Especially in potential criminal matters against a duly elected president. Even Trump.

So why haven't you complained about Trump greatly reducing transparency in government since Obama left office?

Just going off speculation the payment to stormy was 150,000.

There has been questions raised that trump received 150,000 from an oligarch.

This could have givin them probable cause to get the finance records from trumps lawyer.

BTW the same oligarch has givin millions to the clintons.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, because that is a ridiculous assumption to make and is very likely moving goal posts around to continue to call Mueller corrupt.

Well, yeah... any "assumption" is ridiculous. But I didn't make any assumptions. I stated alternatives to YOUR assumptions.

And, by definition, it wouldn't be me moving goalposts... it's Mueller/Rosenstein moving the goalposts by getting someone else to do their dirty work for them, and hence avoid the "goalposts" getting in their way.

Yet you support undermining an investigation intended to get answers that the Trump admin refuses to answer and implicitly trust the people carrying out that undermining while not trusting the people doing the actual investigation. I call that bias myself.

Nope. Not me! I have and am demanding complete transparency by all government officials. That's not undermining anything -- except potential corruption by those "investigating." And as long as those investigators are undermining the investigation of their activities -- i.e., refusing to provide the docs and records subpoena'd by the House -- their credibility is zilch. They have already proven to me by their own words and actions that THEY cannot be trusted.

So why haven't you complained about Trump greatly reducing transparency in government since Obama left office?

I believe what you are really asking is why I haven't complained about only Trump's lack of transparency. Because in reality I have been demanding such transparency from everyone. And "everyone" includes Trump.