Donald Trump's lawyers investigating special counsel Robert Mueller's team

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Damiel

Because the president shouldn't be under any type of investigations. That's why the founders gave him the power to pardon everyone. It was meant to discourage the attempted use of law enforcement against a president by political opponents, if they couldn't harm him why would they waste time investigating him or those around him? Welcome to 2017 and the state of opposition research. It's sad.

I think you are woefully ignorant about what a President should and should NOT have at their disposal. People like you are frightening FFS..... "the president shouldn't be under any type of investigation" ?!?! are you friggin insane or what?

a reply to: links234

No Nixon didn't/ couldn't fire him.
Archibald Cox was actually fired by the third guy in line as AG when the AG refused to follow Nixon's orders to fire Cox and resigned and then the second in line refused and resigned. The third guy in line thought Nixon knew something so flowed his orders.
I can't remember those other guys names. Look up Saturday night massacre.
But Nixon had to search to find someone to fire Cox. They wound up getting his tapes anyway and it was all over for Nixon.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Stop. He's doing this to himself.
He needs to grow the # up.
Grow a pair.
Admit his wrong doings and face the music.
He can't pardon himself.

a reply to: tadaman

There's loads of evidence. These guys don't play games or do investigations to "get" someone.

a reply to: Xcathdra

No he resigned in disgrace instead.
He would have been.

a reply to: Sillyolme

No there isnt. This is a witch hunt and these people absolutely would waste millions of dollars and months of government effort just to get Trump.

Its simple, list the evidence.

Lets hash this out.

There isnt any and all I hear is "wait you see, good lord there is so much evidence I dont know where to start"

Start.

What.

Dont bother responding with maybes, what ifs, your opinion we all know, or nonsense.

Facts alone. The famous Russia collusion evidence....

Dumbasses.

a reply to: tadaman

No it's not a witch hunt.
Show me where they say there's no evidence.
Let's hash this out. Ha ha
Get real there's nothing to hash out.
You have a handful of hope.
I have facts.

a reply to: Sillyolme

No there isnt. This is a witch hunt and these people absolutely would waste millions of dollars and months of government effort just to get Trump.
Tadaman

The denial is strong with this one!

a reply to: tadaman

Who you calling a dumbass buddy?

a reply to: windword

I think it's our education system.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer had choice words for Hillary Clinton in an interview over the weekend, blasting the Democratic presidential nominee for blaming Russia for her loss to now-President Trump -- who picked up on the jab in a Monday morning tweet. “When you lose to somebody who has a 40 percent popularity, you don’t blame other things—Comey, Russia—you blame yourself,” Schumer told the Washington Post. “So what did we do wrong? People didn’t know what we stood for, just that we were against Trump. And still believe that.”

I am going to leave this here for you.
When the dems de facto leader says not to blame russia for the election loss what else is needed.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Sillyolme

No there isnt. This is a witch hunt and these people absolutely would waste millions of dollars and months of government effort just to get Trump.

I get the feeling that, with respect to the law, you are missing what the meaning of evidence is. Here let me help and I will highlight the applicable parts for you.

ev·i·dence
ˈevədəns/
noun
noun: evidence
1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
"the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
synonyms:
proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, attestation
"they found evidence of his plotting"
Law
information given personally, drawn from a document, or in the form of material objects, tending or used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in court.
"without evidence, they can't bring a charge"
synonyms:
proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, attestation More
"they found evidence of his plotting"
testimony, statement, attestation, declaration, avowal, submission, claim, contention, allegation;
deposition, representation, affidavit
"the court accepted her evidence"
signs; indications.
plural noun: evidences

As you can see above, having evidence to ESTABLISH facts is what's key here. What you're doing is asking for evidence AS FACTS, and thats not the way it works.

Its simple, list the evidence.

Trump Jr.
Manafort
Kushner
Firing Comey
"I hope you let this go"
3 people in the meeting; no wait 4 people in the meeting; no wait 5 people in the meeting; no wait 8 people in the meeting >.>
Sessions failure to disclose contacts
Kushners failure to disclose contacts, back-channels, financial ties
Sessions recusal

Why we have to keep rehashing this to a tone deaf audience though, is beyond me.

Lets hash this out.

Too late for that.

Dont bother responding with maybes, what ifs, your opinion we all know, or nonsense.

No one needs to.

a reply to: alphabetaone

None of that is illegal even if that were all true.. Sooo,

Evidence of non law breaking actions?

Ok. LoL

But please teach me about law.

Like what precident you think applies, what charges are the basis for the complaint...and you know everything you didnt mention that would actually make your argument valid.

You seem to know less than me.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Anyone it applies to.

a reply to: Sillyolme

What facts? All I ever see you post is one liners like a spaztic spammer.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: alphabetaone

None of that is illegal even if that were all true.. Sooo,

None of WHAT would be illegal? I didn't post anything that relates to bringing charges against anyone. Your assertion is that you wanted FACTS to prove there is no justification for an investigation. Evidence does not equal facts to warrant an investigation; evidence is used to arrive at the facts.

But please teach me about law.

I aint your father or your mommy....you wanna be taught, go to them.

Like what precident you think applies,

You seem to know less than me.

Clearly.

There is probable cause, no legal precedent needs to be established to investigate someone where there is probable cause. But see above, I seem to know less than you.

...and you know everything you didnt mention that would actually make your argument valid.

I just did.

a reply to: alphabetaone

So you admit that you dont actually have anything substantive to base your argument on and your advocative attitude in favor of what then amounts to a baseless witch hunt is without merrit.

A phantom and a lie.

No one spoke about there NOT being an investigation. No need to say I was doubting that. I am saying it is a baseless series of accusations levied by opposition politics employing foreign intelligence operatives to meddle in a US election.

That is a violation of the Hatch act. Where is your sore heart for justice in that instance?

a reply to: tigertatzen

Accepting a pardon is an automatic admission of guilt

Can no-one agree on that simple truth ?

a reply to: alphabetaone

No, I'm looking at it from the perspective of the founders. What good comes from a president under investigation? But you're right, I misspoke, the president should be able to be investigated by congress. That's who is responsible for oversight of the executive. That's who has the power to do anything to the president. I should have said that the president should never be under investigation from the intelligence community nor the DoJ (which is asinine in and of itself). The president cannot be criminally prosecuted. It's a simple waste of time and money to have an investigation like the DoJ investigation.

a reply to: RazorV66

Sorry it has zero bearing on the investigation.