"Defending the Indefensible"

[Speedwell]

Yes of course but that's not the question. I'm asking if you see the contradiction in appointing a special counsel to investigate whether or not a crime was committed, and yet not allow the special counsel to determine whether or not a crime was committed? If so, then you should be able to understand how the semantics form so that it's possible for Mueller to believe a crime was committed, but not be able to say a crime was committed nor deny that a crime was committed. Do you get that?

He was not appointed solely to determine if a crime was committed by the President.

 

[redleghunter]

Yes of course but that's not the question. I'm asking if you see the contradiction in appointing a special counsel to investigate whether or not a crime was committed, and yet not allow the special counsel to determine whether or not a crime was committed? If so, then you should be able to understand how the semantics form so that it's possible for Mueller to believe a crime was committed, but not be able to say he believes a crime was committed. Do you get that?

I believe Mueller put those restrictions upon himself.

 

[childeye 2]

He was not appointed solely to determine if a crime was committed by the President.

Of course not. Obviously the primary question is, (1) Did Russia interfere with the election? (2) How and to what extent?.. (This involves did Russia prefer a candidate?)... (3) Were any Americans involved so as to constitute a conspiracy?

Please note that the first question must be answered in the affirmative before the secondary questions can even be considered as viable questions. This reasoning reveals why Trump had personal self serving motives to deny that Russia was ever involved to begin with.

 

[childeye 2]

I believe Mueller put those restrictions upon himself.

And that is why I encourage people to look at the laws that were changed after Ken Starr, concerning the Special counsel. Please be informed that you can't logically believe that Mueller put those restrictions on himself without essentially proclaiming there are no such restrictions.

Moreover, be prepared to find out that even those restrictions may be described more as "guidelines", leaving a legal loophole. They exist as such because the letter of the law is not sufficient enough to draw a clear line between separate powers of government. This is why only Congress has the power to impeach which Mueller also laid out in his report.

 

[DaisyDay]

Compelled by law.

Which law would that be?

If a crime was committed, it would be stated as such and the proper authority (House) would impeach.

That's not how it works.

Ken Starr clearly indicated in his report President Clinton perjured before a grand jury.

Ken Starr had a different mandate -- his stated that he had to make a report to Congress; furthermore, it was open-ended and he could follow any line of investigation, related or not (which is why it went on for so many years). Mueller's mandate was different - his was that he was only to report to the A.G. and it was very narrow such that he could only investigate matters directly related to Russian interference (which is why he handed off investigations to other courts).

 

[DaisyDay]

Then Obama should sue.

He's not Donald.

Really, though, it sounds more like a little hyperbole which makes an effective point. The Obama DOJ did, in point of fact, commit unlawful acts, running guns to criminals in Mexico is how Obama's DOJ started out under Barack's tenure.

That was to trace the guns, not to supply them - yes, it went awry.

Who exactly is slandering who here?

Surely, you didn't miss that poster's claim about sarcasm?

I must have - where was that?

 

[DaisyDay]

I believe Mueller put those restrictions upon himself.

No.

 

[DaisyDay]

LOL ... since when has the Senate been devoted to Trump?

Since he won the election with a Republican Senate majority and started filling judgeships with uberconservatives.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I must have - where was that?

I believe the exact words were ...

"Something sarcastic this way comes..."

 

[redleghunter]

And that is why I encourage people to look at the laws that were changed after Ken Starr, concerning the Special counsel. Please be informed that you can't logically believe that Mueller put those restrictions on himself without essentially proclaiming there are no such restrictions.

Moreover, be prepared to find out that even those restrictions may be described more as "guidelines", leaving a legal loophole. They exist as such because the letter of the law is not sufficient enough to draw a clear line between separate powers of government. This is why only Congress has the power to impeach which Mueller also laid out in his report.

It has little to do on what special prosecutor laws were changed. Starr had actual evidence of perjury.

 

[redleghunter]

Which law would that be?

A violation of US code.

 

[Arcangl86]

It has little to do on what special prosecutor laws were changed. Starr had actual evidence of perjury.

And Muller had actual evidence of obstruction of justice. Nancy Pelosi decided to not go forward with impeachment proceedings likely had more to do with a belief that no matter what the Senate wasn't going to vote to convict, rather than a lack of evidence.

A violation of US code.

What section? I'll even go easy on you. What title?

 

[redleghunter]

And Muller had actual evidence of obstruction of justice. Nancy Pelosi decided to not go forward with impeachment proceedings likely had more to do with a belief that no matter what the Senate wasn't going to vote to convict, rather than a lack of evidence.
What section? I'll even go easy on you. What title?

Well that’s the point. Which statute is in question?

 

[Arcangl86]

Well that’s the point. Which statute is in question?

What? We were asking you what law would compel AG Barr to report to Congress if a law was broken by the President.

 

[childeye 2]

It has little to do on what special prosecutor laws were changed. Starr had actual evidence of perjury.

Respectfully, that's irrelevant and even insignificant. Clinton was interviewed and Trump wasn't which makes it irrelevant. Clinton's sexual liaison is insignificant in regards to our Nation's security interests compared to Russia influencing our elections.

 

[redleghunter]

Respectfully, that's irrelevant and even insignificant. Clinton was interviewed and Trump wasn't which makes it irrelevant. Clinton's sexual liaison is insignificant in regards to our Nation's security interests compared to Russia influencing our elections.

Clinton’s impeachment was based on false testimony before a grand jury. Something proven.

 

[childeye 2]

Clinton’s impeachment was based on false testimony before a grand jury. Something proven.

Yes I know, the blue dress proved Clinton lied about a sexual liaison. That is not the case here since Trump did not submit to an interview. But as is true in any case, evidence must be produced to support a claim of misconduct for the claim to be credible. You talk as if Mueller did not produce any proof. Have you read the report? If not, then read the Mueller report and witness for yourself the evidence that was presented. Then you can legitimately say whether you think there is a case to be made or not, and show why.

 

[redleghunter]

Yes I know, the blue dress proved Clinton lied about a sexual liaison. That is not the case here since Trump did not submit to an interview.

Trump did submit to questions.

Trump submits written answers to special counsel Robert Mueller's questions

 

[redleghunter]

You talk as if Mueller did not produce any proof. Have you read the report? If not, then read the Mueller report and witness for yourself the evidence that was presented. Then you can legitimately say whether you think there is a case to be made or not, and show why.

There’s the problem. The report mentions no laws broken.

 

[KCfromNC]

There’s the problem. The report mentions no laws broken.

That's false.