Donald Trump Suggests Appointment of Special Counsel Was Illegal After James Comey Leaks

a reply to: luthier

Little secret for you. If you believe the NSA/CIA/FBI are going to stop spying on people, illegally, just because congress says they can't, you're deluding yourself. They did it before it was legal and they don't follow the current laws either.

originally posted by: Phage
Was there some delay in the process?

This could have started a while back, though
Rosenstein would not release them to congressional
oversight even though the DOJ had said they would.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: luthier

Little secret for you. If you believe the NSA/CIA/FBI are going to stop spying on people, illegally, just because congress says they can't, you're deluding yourself. They did it before it was legal and they don't follow the current laws either.

Lol, uh no..you can't bring crimes up from illegal searches in trials quite so easily until you make them legal.

But try again.

a reply to: luthier

The current 'special counsel' guidelines are wholly different than those during the 'special prosecutor' days of whitewater. Those regulations were allowed to expire after the fiasco that was the Ken Starr investigation.

a reply to: luthier

Oh, sure you can, it's called parallel construction. It's you who needs to try again.

a reply to: burntheships

So you get my meaning. You catch my drift.
How long would it take to make such a determination. It's not as if the DOJ hasn't had the pertinent evidence.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: luthier

The current 'special counsel' guidelines are wholly different than those during the 'special prosecutor' days of whitewater. Those regulations were allowed to expire after the fiasco that was the Ken Starr investigation.

That is what you believe?

a reply to: FredT

then why not simply take it to court and challenge its constitutionality?

Maybe he is afraid to hire a lawyer since apparently Dems don't respect attorney-client privilege anymore. I still can't believe they were able to attack Trump's lawyer and out others as the lawyers clients.

originally posted by: Phage

How long would it take to make such a determination. It's not as if they don't have the pertinent evidence.

I assume they are also examining the devices that were in Comey's
possession, and possibly interviewing witnesses.

That might take a while.

a reply to: luthier

Are you asking if I believe the factual history? Or are you claiming you don't?

a reply to: Metallicus

I still can't believe they were able to attack Trump's lawyer and out others as the lawyers clients.

It sounds like you are not well versed on what happened.

The fact that Cohen was Trump's attorney is not relevant. The government has clearly stated that no communications between Cohen and Trump have been collected.

The fact that Cohen's clients were named is a result of the actions of Cohen's attorneys, not the government.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: luthier

Oh, sure you can, it's called parallel construction. It's you who needs to try again.

Maybe you should reread the post I made.

Maybe also include the case differences post 911 to pre 911 where parrel construction is given a free pass.

Or maybe don't create a strawman. Considering like I said it is much easier when you change the law to make prior illegal searches legal.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: luthier

Are you asking if I believe the factual history? Or are you claiming you don't?

You believe special councils (prosecutors) have diminished since there inception? Or is there a clear pattern for giving more authority. I will wait for your deflection.

a reply to: luthier

Oh, you're saying your whole "until you make it legal" bit is a pro for the argument you're making? Maybe think about that and what I've been saying, as it's basically an admission that you agree with me.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: luthier

The current 'special counsel' guidelines are wholly different than those during the 'special prosecutor' days of whitewater. Those regulations were allowed to expire after the fiasco that was the Ken Starr investigation.

Hardly.

You seem to think creating a separate case where you hide the evidence origin is as easy as changing what the courts allow. None the less if it's discover by the defence the case is destroyed in your example.


But good try.

a reply to: luthier

That's not what I said, but good job trying to put words in my mouth. I said:

The current 'special counsel' guidelines are wholly different than those during the 'special prosecutor' days of whitewater.

and for context, here's the title of the OP:

Donald Trump Suggests Appointment of Special Counsel Was Illegal After James Comey Leaks

a reply to: Dfairlite

and for context, here's the title of the OP:

Seriously?
Is Donald Trump credible as a legal authority?

a reply to: Dfairlite

The reason special council was brought up was because sessions is an idiot reused himself and made a weak leader in the doj. Then Rod fired comey and the optics made a panic move to bring up special council.

Which by the way has the support of the Senate judiciary where they read the memos in January.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: luthier

That's not what I said, but good job trying to put words in my mouth. I said:

The current 'special counsel' guidelines are wholly different than those during the 'special prosecutor' days of whitewater.

and for context, here's the title of the OP:

Donald Trump Suggests Appointment of Special Counsel Was Illegal After James Comey Leaks

So they never expired? Legal precedent came into play?

originally posted by: Phage

Is Donald Trump credible as a legal authority?

I am sure he has legal counsel.

He also has a lot of authority....

Executive powers
Powers related to legislation
Powers of appointment
Executive clemency
Foreign affairs
Emergency powers
Executive privilege