Rudy Giuliani Admits Trump Repaid Cohen

a reply to: olaru12

Mueller is going to have to produce scope in on case, and either yield to Russia or show his cards Wed in another case.

Why are you willing to throw away your Constitutional freedom to embarrass Trump?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Erno86

Sorry, Mueller is bluffing and was just reprimanded by a judge. So why is it you are willing to give away your Constitutional freedoms to embarrass Trump?

I'm baffled by your claim --- Please explain why you think I'm willing to give up my Constitutional freedoms in the pursuit of justice?

a reply to: Erno86

Because that is what you are doing. Mueller is not investigating a crime, he is investigating a person and trying to pin any crime he can on them.

We have Constitutional protection from that. You are happy with Mueller's investigation. My conclusion is the only proper one.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Erno86

Because that is what you are doing. Mueller is not investigating a crime, he is investigating a person and trying to pin any crime he can on them.

We have Constitutional protection from that. You are happy with Mueller's investigation. My conclusion is the only proper one.

I agree to disagree...

Mueller is investigating charges that the Russians illegally disrupted our last U.S. presidential election. And with Trump and most of his henchmen having close ties to the Russian oligarchy --- including his former lawyer Richard Cohen, who has Russian and Ukrainian ties --- mainly from his father in law (according to today's NYT's) --- only deepens the plot further for Mueller to continue the investigation further.

Any other path...is to wrongly acquiesce victory to Putin, along with a total loss of faith in our political institutions, in the name of political corruption and terrorism.

a reply to: Erno86

Except that is false. That is what they claim the investigation is. So far all the legal troubles stemming from it have NOTHING to do with Russia, and Mueller was just blasted by a judge who accused him of an illegal investigation, believing he had unfettered power, and believing the scope of his investigation had no limit (investigating people to find crimes, not investigating crimes to find perpetrators). Mueller has tried to withhold the scope memo from the judge who insisted on seeing it.

So before you cheer away the loss of your freedoms you should understand the consequences of your hate.

originally posted by: Erno86

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Erno86

Because that is what you are doing. Mueller is not investigating a crime, he is investigating a person and trying to pin any crime he can on them.

We have Constitutional protection from that. You are happy with Mueller's investigation. My conclusion is the only proper one.

I agree to disagree...

Mueller is investigating charges that the Russians illegally disrupted our last U.S. presidential election. And with Trump and most of his henchmen having close ties to the Russian oligarchy --- including his former lawyer Richard Cohen, who has Russian and Ukrainian ties --- mainly from his father in law (according to today's NYT's) --- only deepens the plot further for Mueller to continue the investigation further.

Any other path...is to wrongly acquiesce victory to Putin, along with a total loss of faith in our political institutions, in the name of political corruption and terrorism.

Ahahahahahaha
Richard Cohen
Well played
Investigate or Putin wins
Ahahahaha
Watch out for those Nigerian lottery emails pal

a reply to: Erno86

Just because Rosenstein used the word "extortion," it does not follow that such is accurate. Congress has Constitutional authority and duty to oversee the DoJ. That's not extortion.

Essentially, Rosenstein is saying he is above the law. Wrong.

So far as the Grand Jury goes, existing established DoJ policy as well as two separate court decisions have established that no, Mueller does not have the authority to enforce a subpoena on the President... even if his name starts with 'T' and ends with 'P.' Mueller, too, seems to think the law does not apply to him. See my post above.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Erno86

Except that is false. That is what they claim the investigation is. So far all the legal troubles stemming from it have NOTHING to do with Russia, and Mueller was just blasted by a judge who accused him of an illegal investigation, believing he had unfettered power, and believing the scope of his investigation had no limit (investigating people to find crimes, not investigating crimes to find perpetrators). Mueller has tried to withhold the scope memo from the judge who insisted on seeing it.

So before you cheer away the loss of your freedoms you should understand the consequences of your hate.

I totally agree with Mueller too...for his withholding the scope memo from a judge that I consider not qualified to hold a seat on the bench!!!

a reply to: Erno86

Haha sorry you don't get to decide that. Your opinion is worthless, sorry Mueller didn't get a liberal activist judge. I love how you would be so happy if the actual scope memo was never looked at and Mueller had unfettered power, you just validate everything I said. You love the loss of your freedoms as long as it hurts Trump.

a reply to: Erno86

I agree to disagree...

You can disagree all you want. The facts do not change.

Mueller and Rosenstein are violating the law that protects you and I from illegal activity by all law enforcement. If this investigation is not slapped down and stopped, neither of us will have any rights under the law. A police officer can legally decide you are guilty and do whatever it takes, including manufacture false evidence, drag you around the country to a judge he is friends with, search whatever and wherever he wants for anything he wants, and find some way to lock you up.

If Mueller can do it, if Rosenstein can do it, the cop on the corner can do it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

He just admitted he doesn't want the judge to see the scope memo. You can't make this stuff up.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Erno86

Just because Rosenstein used the word "extortion," it does not follow that such is accurate. Congress has Constitutional authority and duty to oversee the DoJ. That's not extortion.

Essentially, Rosenstein is saying he is above the law. Wrong.

So far as the Grand Jury goes, existing established DoJ policy as well as two separate court decisions have established that no, Mueller does not have the authority to enforce a subpoena on the President... even if his name starts with 'T' and ends with 'P.' Mueller, too, seems to think the law does not apply to him. See my post above.

TheRedneck

I disagree...on the premise that "Mueller does not have the authority to enforce a subpoena on the president," much rather...Mueller does not have the authority to "indict" a sitting president --- The president can only be impeached in office --- And unless their is a "mutiny in Congress," impeachment of Trump is not going to happen.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TheRedneck

He just admitted he doesn't want the judge to see the scope memo. You can't make this stuff up.

imho --- The judge (nominated by president Ronald Reagan) is trying to usurp the authority of a legal judicial investigation.

a reply to: Erno86

And how can he enforce a subpoena?

First, no President has ever been subpoenaed and compelled to testify in a criminal matter, and second, Trump can plead the 5th.

It would likely go before the courts and a very hard look taken at Mueller's investigation, which likely would be very bad news for him and Trump would win.

a reply to: Erno86

Sorry, that is Mueller. Investigations have limits, a scope, you can't go beyond that. The investigation is about Russia, yet NOTHING in the charges have any relation to Russia.

It would be like me initiating a murder investigation on you and then charging all your friends with crimes that have nothing to do with murder as an attempt to get to you on ANY crime not just murder. That is illegal, you can't do it. This judge is the only one who is putting the law first not politics.

You clearly aren't. You don't want the judge to find out the investigation is illegal so it can continue. Disgusting.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Erno86

I agree to disagree...

You can disagree all you want. The facts do not change.

Mueller and Rosenstein are violating the law that protects you and I from illegal activity by all law enforcement. If this investigation is not slapped down and stopped, neither of us will have any rights under the law. A police officer can legally decide you are guilty and do whatever it takes, including manufacture false evidence, drag you around the country to a judge he is friends with, search whatever and wherever he wants for anything he wants, and find some way to lock you up.

If Mueller can do it, if Rosenstein can do it, the cop on the corner can do it.


TheRedneck

I feel the opposite...so much that I fear the sitting rogue president can go unfettered about his business (legal or otherwise), without proper checks and balances by the judicial system that upholds the rule of law.

a reply to: Erno86

Give an example. Although you are now a hypocrite because you enjoy lawlessness and the avoidance of checks and balances .. when it suits your agenda.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Erno86

Sorry, that is Mueller. Investigations have limits, a scope, you can't go beyond that. The investigation is about Russia, yet NOTHING in the charges have any relation to Russia.

It would be like me initiating a murder investigation on you and then charging all your friends with crimes that have nothing to do with murder as an attempt to get to you on ANY crime not just murder. That is illegal, you can't do it. This judge is the only one who is putting the law first not politics.

You clearly aren't. You don't want the judge to find out the investigation is illegal so it can continue. Disgusting.

Er...no

Russia has everything to do with Mueller's investigation, about hacking of our last presidential election. And if we're not going to persevere in this matter --- the Russian hacking of our political institutions will continue at a frenzied pace...

a reply to: Erno86

I disagree...on the premise that "Mueller does not have the authority to enforce a subpoena on the president," much rather...Mueller does not have the authority to "indict" a sitting president --- The president can only be impeached in office --- And unless their is a "mutiny in Congress," impeachment of Trump is not going to happen.

As I said, the restriction on subpoenaing a sitting president is explicitly stated in two (2) DoJ policies and has been upeld in two (2) separate court decisions. Clinton was not subpoenaed... he agreed to testify.

Your disagreement has no relevance to established legal precedent. You might as well disagree that murder is illegal. Doesn't change a thing.

This judge cannot "usurp the authority of a legal judicial investigation," because Mueller's investigation is not a judicial process. Mueller's investigation is an executive process. Your statement is an oxymoron.

The problem you are having is obvious. You hate Trump so badly that there is nothing you would not do, no law you would not overturn, no legal protection you would not give up, no danger you would not face in order to have some chance of damaging Trump. That, sir, is the very definition of mental illness. Some of us have designated it as TDS - Trump Derangement Syndrome - and while I'm sure most of us wish it were a joke, it certainly is not. It is an actual mental illness, characterized by complete and utter devotion to the destruction of one man (including anyone he cares about) at the peril of the other 300 million+ residents of the country... including oneself.

I hope you recover soon.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Erno86

And here again we have absolute proof of TDS. let's look at the definition of rogue from Merriam-Webster, shall we?

: vagrant, tramp
2 : a dishonest or worthless person : scoundrel
3 : a mischievous person : scamp
4 : a horse inclined to shirk or misbehave
5 : an individual exhibiting a chance and usually inferior biological variation

Trump, being a self-made billionaire, certainly does not fit number 1.

I have seen less dishonesty in the Trump administration than I have seen in the last 4 before him; therefore, I dismiss number 2.

Number 3 might apply to him somewhat, but no more than to any other individual. On the whole, I see no major mischieviousness outside his infamous tweets.

He is obviously not a horse, so we can dismiss number 4.

Unless he has a tail hidden under his pants (which I do not care to know about in any case), number 5 does not apply.

In the vernacular, I have always seen 'rogue' as someone who ignores laws and societal norms. Neither of these describe President Trump; his abandonment of DACA as being outside the scope of a legal Executive Order shows a consideration for law, and the simple fact he wears a suit means he follows social norms.

So Trump does not meet the definition of a "rogue president." Therefore, your first sentence is highly biased and inaccurate. Since we are discussing legal precedent and procedure, that statement invalidates everything else that follows it.

Get well soon.

TheRedneck