DOJ Appoints Special Counsel In Russia Probe

a reply to: Xcathdra

Clapper resigned on Jan 20. He has no idea what has happened since. The investigation he referenced started in early-mid December. He wasn't even aware of the FBI's counterintelligence investigaton.

From what I remember of Yate's testimony she declined to comment.

But as I said, it really doesn't matter if Trump is the focus of the investigation. Why do you think that's such a mic-dropper? What about Flynn, Manafort, Page, etc etc etc? Are you denying that ANYONE from Team Trump is under investigation? Or is that you somehow believe that it only matters if Trump was directly involved with collusion? I'm at a loss for why you think this somehow translates to "nothing to see here."

a reply to: carewemust

There's no difference between 'special prosecuter' and 'special council.' They are the same thing.

In essence, Mueller now is the FBI so far as this investigation goes. He owns it, lock, stock, and barrel. He can ask courts to subpoena evidence, conduct interviews, has access to all FBI/NSA/CIA files... he can do anything but convict. He could actually serve as prosecuter in a trial, although he can and probably would hand the evidence over to Rosenstein at that point.

His mandate is to investigate Russian collusion to affect election results between Russia and the Trump campaign. But he also has the authority to unilaterally expand that scope if he finds evidence that a crime may have been committed. He could include Clinton's campaign, for example, or he could look into Syrian influence. Mueller, as far as this investigation goes, is God.

Trump cannot fire him, and if he's smart, won't even mention him. That's the big deal... no one can unilaterally weild power over him.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck


Thanks for enlightening me! If the House/Senate/FBI investigations have been cancelled and their findings forwarded to Robert Mueller, that's a good thing. What's even better is that he will not come before the cameras every few days to give updates, like the House/Senate panels used to do. This will frustrate the media to no end. They'll probably hound Mueller daily whenever he's accessible. If he burps, the liberal MSM will take that as a coded statement against President Trump.


BTW.. I hope Robert Mueller will fold the (alleged) Comey MEMO saga, the Trump Secret Recordings of Comey, and the Trump (allegedly) divulging classified ISIS-related material to the Russians, into his investigative scope as well. Give him hundreds of personnel, a few million taxpayer dollars, and turn him loose.

If Mueller can work on all this in secret, and President Trump can stay focused on what matters to the people of this country...we'll be back on track in no time. Fingers Crossed!

a reply to: TheRedneck

Another interesting aspect of this appointment is that Rosenstein appointed Mueller without consulting the White House or for that matter, Sessions, but that makes sense since Sessions had recused himself.

The White House counsel reportedly got an hour's notice of the announcement.

This is highly suggestive. I would say that Rosenstein was establishing his independence and effectively made himself unfireable. Technically, he could be fired but I think even the die hard supporters would be forced to remove the blinders if Rosenstein got canned at this point. And Trump better be real careful at this point because the obstruction of justice drums are already beating and if he doesn't watch himself, Trump will be facing impeachment regardless of the outcome of the investigations.

a reply to: carewemust

If the House/Senate/FBI investigations have been cancelled and their findings forwarded to Robert Mueller, that's a good thing.

It won't stop the House or Senate investigations but why would it be a good thing if they did? I for one want to hear the testimony of these people, whatever it is they have to say.

If he burps, the liberal MSM will take that as a coded statement against President Trump.

Perhaps you've missed all the "no evidence" comments? Despite your assertions, what seems to be *actually* happening is that Trump supporters are grasping at arbitrary status updates from *whenever* to incessantly declare "case closed" prematurely.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Speaking of the lying administration, why did all of those spokespeople say that the Comey firing was simply a result of the recommendation from Rosenstein when Donald Trump said that the recommendations were irrelevant to his decision?

That's not what Trump said.

Trump told Lester Holt that he had already decided he would be letting Comey go. He never said the recommendation was irrelevant. Comey might have continued to serve 2 more years if Rosenstein hadn't written the recommendation, or he might have been fired the same day; we don't know. All we know is that either way he would have been fired at some point.

Who's to say that letter didn't convince Trump to go ahead and act instead of waiting a while longer?

That's why you're having so much trouble trouble getting people to agree with you on this: you continually put words in the man's mouth and make fantastic futuristic predictions about what will happen instead of letting the investigations proceed. I actually saw two Congress members (didn't catch their names, sorry) openly calling for immediate Impeachment hearings. On what charges? With what evidence? What happened to the right to a fair trial? Are we to the point that someone can just be lynched because of allegations? The Salem Witch Trials even tried to give the appearance of a fair trial...

Let the investigations play out before you condemn the accused, or show the world you care zero about law and only about about selfish personalities... your choice.

TheRedneck

a reply to: carewemust

Unfortunately, this does not affect the Congressional Investigations. They will continue to move forward on things like the Comey firing. The FBI investigation is in the hands of Mueller though.

TheRedneck

a reply to: theantediluvian

To be honest, I'm surprised that President Trump himself didn't ask for a Special Prosecutor to investigate all the allegations that the MSM continually whine about. If he's innocent, a S.P. is the best way to prove it, IMO.

a reply to: TheRedneck


One problem I see continually is that the people who interview President Trump, aren't used to thinking for themselves. Bill O'Reilly used to do a thorough job. But Lester Holt didn't follow-up with logical questions, based on Trump's answers. He had a list of questions and simply rattled them off in order. A 10 year old can do that.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I feel sure Rosenstein didn't do this in total secrecy. His official announcement was one hour before the public announcement, but he had probably bounced the idea off of officials over the last couple days.

It would greatly surprise me if anything happened to Rosenstein over this. He did the right thing. As long as Trump is clean (and I believe he is until proven otherwise), this is no more than a way to shut up the detractors.

If Trump isn't clean, well, it might be unfair targeting IMO, but the law is the law. You can't drain a swamp with sewer water.

TheRedneck

a reply to: carewemust

Lester Holt had a script. He was afraid to deviate from it.

Bill O'Reilly wasn't afraid to deviate with follow-ups. And look where he is.

(Well, actually he's poolside on a beach somewhere living large on that big fat severance check, enjoying his early retirement and laughing at the people who think they hurt him... but don't tell anyone that. They think he's crying in a beer somewhere.)

TheRedneck

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: theantediluvian

To be honest, I'm surprised that President Trump himself didn't ask for a Special Prosecutor to investigate all the allegations that the MSM continually whine about. If he's innocent, a S.P. is the best way to prove it, IMO.

In the US we arent required to "prove our innocence". The government is required to prove a persons guilt.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: carewemust

Unfortunately, this does not affect the Congressional Investigations. They will continue to move forward on things like the Comey firing. The FBI investigation is in the hands of Mueller though.

TheRedneck

The elusive Comey memo that could indicate that President Trump attempted to "obstruct justice" is of most interest to the anti-Trumpers right now. That's easy to understand...though hard to prove. It would be Comey says... vs Trump says...

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: theantediluvian

To be honest, I'm surprised that President Trump himself didn't ask for a Special Prosecutor to investigate all the allegations that the MSM continually whine about. If he's innocent, a S.P. is the best way to prove it, IMO.

In the US we arent required to "prove our innocence". The government is required to prove a persons guilt.

As usual, you're 100% correct. But FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY, the President should have requested a Special Council to investigate everything, just so Congress could focus on accomplishing Tax Reform, ObamaCare Repeal, Infrastructure Modernizations, etc..

Since the Special Prosecutor doesn't give updates, there would (should) not be armies of reporters swamping Congressmen with questions day after day, for their reactions, and begging them for additional information. When a FAKE Anti-Trump story appears in the NYTimes, it would immediately be forwarded to the Special Prosecutor for discreet investigation.

a reply to: TheRedneck

That's not what Trump said. Trump told Lester Holt that he had already decided he would be letting Comey go.

He never said the recommendation was irrelevant. Comey might have continued to serve 2 more years if Rosenstein hadn't written the recommendation, or he might have been fired the same day; we don't know. All we know is that either way he would have been fired at some point.

Here are his actual words:

TRUMP: Oh, I was going to fire regardless of recommendation.

HOLT: So, there was...

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: They -- he made a recommendation. He's highly respected. Very good guy, very smart guy.

And the Democrats like him. The Republicans like him.

He had made a recommendation. But regardless of recommendation, I was going to fire Comey knowing there was no good time to do it

And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself -- I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should've won.

You can split hairs if you like as far as "irrelevant" vs "regardless of recommendation" (twice) but that very next part doesn't seem to indicate a firing two years from now, does it? Let me reiterate:

when I decided to just do it, I said to myself -- I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story.

That statement alone is essentially an admission of obstruction of justice. He's clearly implying that he fired Comey at least in large part because of the "Russia thing with Trump." Do you think that was a very smart comment on his part? It also goes to my paraphrasing with "irrelevant" as his stated reason for firing Comey has absolutely nothing to do with the recommendation.

That's why you're having so much trouble trouble getting people to agree with you on this: you continually put words in the man's mouth and make fantastic futuristic predictions about what will happen instead of letting the investigations proceed.

Is that what I do? Lmao. I disagree. I don't believe that I do that anymore or less than anyone else. I further don't believe that even if I did, that has anything to do with convincing Trump supporters as they're clearly capable of being swayed by complete bulls# from a total bulls#er. A quarter of everything that comes out of Trump's mouth is either a lie or a half-truth.

I think that Trump supporters won't be swayed because they're emotionally invested. I think that's probably just simple human nature. But hey, you can unreasonably hold me to a far higher standard than Donald Trump as you defend him. I mean, I'm a forum poster and he's just the President of the United States of America.

I actually saw two Congress members (didn't catch their names, sorry) openly calling for immediate Impeachment hearings. On what charges? With what evidence? What happened to the right to a fair trial? Are we to the point that someone can just be lynched because of allegations? The Salem Witch Trials even tried to give the appearance of a fair trial...

An impeachment is the due process under our law. There's no criminal indictment of the President while in office. I didn't hear the specific remarks but I would imagine it goes something like this:

pressuring Comey to kill Flynn investigation + firing Comey + "when I decided to just do it, I said to myself..." = a substantive case for obstruction of justice

Let the investigations play out before you condemn the accused, or show the world you care zero about law and only about about selfish personalities... your choice.

Again, the unequal application of standards is just absurd. Trump supporters en masse are yammering about "no evidence" along with the right-wing elements of the MSM and not-so-MSM. So have Trump and his spokespeople for that matter. I've maintained, consistently, from the very beginning, that an investigation was required. I can produce multiple examples if you wish?

Yet I'm the one getting the unsolicited and if I can be frank here, more than a little sanctimonious, admonishment. I'm all for letting the investigation take place. I'd say that puts me far ahead of Team Trump.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Why does President Trump sometimes refer to himself as another person...like there are two people inhabiting his body?

And you've pointed out (in your Trump transcript) another instance of him saying that Hillary was supposed to win. Whenever I hear President Trump say that, or say, "I wasn't supposed to win", I get the feeling that Donald Trump wishes that he hadn't won. But, because he's a person of integrity, Trump will do his best to fulfill campaign promises.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

when I decided to just do it, I said to myself -- I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story.

That statement alone is essentially an admission of obstruction of justice. He's clearly implying that he fired Comey at least in large part because of the "Russia thing with Trump." Do you think that was a very smart comment on his part? It also goes to my paraphrasing with "irrelevant" as his stated reason for firing Comey has absolutely nothing to do with the recommendation.

People need to stop throwing obstruction of justice around without understanding what it is.

18 USC 1503 - nfluencing or injuring officer or juror generally

(a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, and the act in violation of this section involves the threat of physical force or physical force, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.
(b) The punishment for an offense under this section is—
(1) in the case of a killing, the punishment provided in sections 1111 and 1112;
(2) in the case of an attempted killing, or a case in which the offense was committed against a petit juror and in which a class A or B felony was charged, imprisonment for not more than 20 years, a fine under this title, or both; and
(3) in any other case, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, a fine under this title, or both.

Obstruction of justice - defined

Obstruction of justice is defined in the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, which provides that "whoever . . . . corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense)." Persons are charged under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to intefere with an official proceeding, by doing things such as destroying evidence, or intefering with the duties of jurors or court officers.

A person obstructs justice when they have a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, they must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but the person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a nexus between the defendant’s endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the defendant must have knowledge of this nexus.

§ 1503 applies only to federal judicial proceedings. Under § 1505, however, a defendant can be convicted of obstruction of justice by obstructing a pending proceeding before Congress or a federal agency. A pending proceeding could include an informal investigation by an executive agency.

The FBI director is required by 2 federal statutes to report obstruction of justice to the attorney general immediately (18 USC 4 - Misprision of felony). If Trump obstructed justice it would have been disclosed by the FBI director. Since it has not and considering this conversation supposedly took place in February the FBI director did not see it as obstruction.

What Trump did was not obstruction of justice. That said has the supposed memo been turned over / been located yet?

Like I said Democrats wont be satisfied -

HuffPost Politics‏Verified account @HuffPostPol 28m28 minutes ago

Democratic senators call for investigation into Jeff Sessions over James Comey firing huffp.st...

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Like I said Democrats wont be satisfied -

HuffPost Politics‏Verified account @HuffPostPol 28m28 minutes ago

Democratic senators call for investigation into Jeff Sessions over James Comey firing huffp.st...

Those political minority idiots demand so much, so often, that you have to laugh. They're like the incredible shrinking people. Their yells become fainter and fainter, as they shrink smaller and smaller.

a reply to: theantediluvian

About damn time!