Jump to content
knapplc

The Republican Utopia

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

If Trump murdered someone on live TV Ric Flair would say it can't be investigated because it's not in the scope of the current investigation(s) on Trump.

 

Damn straight. The local prosecutors could and should then go after it. But Mueller’s investigation is limited in scope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that the rules of SC is that if they uncover evidence of other crimes they are to pass the along to the proper jurisdictions or they have the legal right (no, actually obligation) to explore further.  Manafort was in VA, Cohen in NYC.  They did just as you say above, but giving it to proper, local prosecutors.  

 

And this broad scope was established when Starr did all his work against Bill Clinton.  A great example of the charges and the impeachment being caused not by the "crime" that was initially set out to explore.  Nixon was the same.  

 

And btw, breaking campaign finance laws in most certainly tied to the campaign.

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Damn straight. The local prosecutors could and should then go after it. But Mueller’s investigation is limited in scope.

And come on Ric - seriously?  You're ok with an investigation uncovering crimes involving the top tier of our current government and not exploring that to the full extent of their capabilities?  

 

From what I have seen here you are a man driven by strict morals of right and wrong.  This doesn't jive with your opinions on any other topic.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, NM11046 said:

And come on Ric - seriously?  You're ok with an investigation uncovering crimes involving the top tier of our current government and not exploring that to the full extent of their capabilities?  

 

From what I have seen here you are a man driven by strict morals of right and wrong.  This doesn't jive with your opinions on any other topic.

 

I’m saying it should be investigated and prosecuted. Just not by Mueller. That’s not in his job description.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

I’m saying it should be investigated and prosecuted. Just not by Mueller. That’s not in his job description.

Quote

In appointing Mueller, however, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein gave him broad authority not only to investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated" with Trump's campaign, but also to examine "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." 

Rosenstein also gave Mueller the power to investigate "any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a)" — including perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses. 

 

The mandate's scope is similar to that given by then-Acting Attorney General James Comey to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald in 2003 to investigate who leaked the identity of former CIA operative Valerie Plame.

 

  • Plus1 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, commando said:

and the GOP fun continues today..

 

 

 

This shouldn't be overlooked.

 

This was the second Republican rep in the last month to be indicted.

 

The other one was Trump's first endorsement.

 

Hunter was his second endorsement.

 

Birds of a feather...

 

 

  • Plus1 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NM11046 said:

 

 

Rosenstein’s order is illegal and unconstitutional. No order that is so broad in scope would withstand a court challenge. Mueller knows that, which is why he has referred matters outside the scope of his investigation to federal prosecutors. 

 

In your hypothetical, Trump would have committed murder. Mueller’s team isn’t set up to investigate and prosecute a murder, which is completely outside their authority or areas of expertise. I have no doubt that he would refer the matter to outside federal prosecutors to deal with. 

 

This really isn’t complicated folks. It doesn’t take a law degree to think this sort of thing through.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Rosenstein’s order is illegal and unconstitutional. No order that is so broad in scope would withstand a court challenge. Mueller knows that, which is why he has referred matters outside the scope of his investigation to federal prosecutors. 

 

In your hypothetical, Trump would have committed murder. Mueller’s team isn’t set up to investigate and prosecute a murder, which is completely outside their authority or areas of expertise. I have no doubt that he would refer the matter to outside federal prosecutors to deal with. 

 

This really isn’t complicated folks. It doesn’t take a law degree to think this sort of thing through.

now you say you  know more than judges and lawyers as well as scientist?     

  • Plus1 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Rosenstein’s order is illegal and unconstitutional. No order that is so broad in scope would withstand a court challenge. Mueller knows that, which is why he has referred matters outside the scope of his investigation to federal prosecutors. 

 

In your hypothetical, Trump would have committed murder. Mueller’s team isn’t set up to investigate and prosecute a murder, which is completely outside their authority or areas of expertise. I have no doubt that he would refer the matter to outside federal prosecutors to deal with. 

 

This really isn’t complicated folks. It doesn’t take a law degree to think this sort of thing through.

 

Mueller referred cases to federal prosecutors because he's following protocol and that's what you're supposed to do.

 

If the scope of his investigation is unconstitutional, you'd think someone on the president's crack legal team would've challenged it in court a long time ago and had it thrown out, if it was such an open & shut case. I wonder why they haven't done so?

 

Hint: It's not because they think they'd win.

  • Plus1 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, commando said:

now you say you  know more than judges and lawyers as well as scientist?     

 

I have a legal background and know quite a bit about the subject matter.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

Mueller referred cases to federal prosecutors because he's following protocol and that's what you're supposed to do.

 

If the scope of his investigation is unconstitutional, you'd think someone on the president's crack legal team would've challenged it in court a long time ago and had it thrown out, if it was such an open & shut case. I wonder why they haven't done so?

 

Hint: It's not because they think they'd win.

 

Special prosecutors have a likited and clearly defined scope of authority. Numerous legal scholars have opined that Rosenstein exceeded his authority by making Mueller’s authority so broad. Seriously...Google it and do a little reading,

 

Mueller himself realizes that his scope is limited. That’s why he refers cases to others to handle rather than trying to handle them himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

I have a legal background and know quite a bit about the subject matter.

 

I have a legal background and I think Mueller is well within his jurisdiction, as outlined by Rosenstein's completely legal and constitutional order.

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further, I am an American patriot, not a party partisan, and I can tell you I'd be cheering on Mueller/Rosenstein if this investigation uncovered the same things about:

 

Clinton

The other Clinton

Obama

Bush

The other Bush

Reagan

Carter

Ford

Nixon - wait, they *did* find this kind of stuff on Nixon

 

 

 

 

 

Irregardless. It's funny how people of a certain political lean have a HUGE PROBLEM with this stuff coming out when it goes against the party they affiliate themselves with.

 

That's the problem with parties. They're not America.

 

I'm an American, proudly Independent. Prosecute 'em all.

  • Plus1 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Further, I am an American patriot, not a party partisan, and I can tell you I'd be cheering on Mueller/Rosenstein if this investigation uncovered the same things about:

 

Clinton

The other Clinton

Obama

Bush

The other Bush

Reagan

Carter

Ford

Nixon - wait, they *did* find this kind of stuff on Nixon

 

 

 

 

 

Irregardless. It's funny how people of a certain political lean have a HUGE PROBLEM with this stuff coming out when it goes against the party they affiliate themselves with.

 

That's the problem with parties. They're not America.

 

I'm an American, proudly Independent. Prosecute 'em all.

 

The only problems I have with the investigation were/are with the shenanigans that went on to get it started, the numbers of Hillary-supporting Trump-haters on the Mueller team, and the clear double standard where everything possible was done to exonerate Clinton while everything possible is being done to go after Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

The only problems I have with the investigation were/are with the shenanigans that went on to get it started, the numbers of Hillary-supporting Trump-haters on the Mueller team, and the clear double standard where everything possible was done to exonerate Clinton while everything possible is being done to go after Trump.

 

These party politics talking points are largely irrelevant when crimes and crimes and crimes and crimes and crimes are being exposed.

 

I suppose a person could argue that the whole investigation is criminal in itself.

 

But to argue that, a person would have to show proof. 

 

If they can't... that falls under Hitchens Law.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

The only problems I have with the investigation were/are with the shenanigans that went on to get it started, the numbers of Hillary-supporting Trump-haters on the Mueller team, and the clear double standard where everything possible was done to exonerate Clinton while everything possible is being done to go after Trump.

You mean like an 11th hour decree that they were reopening the investigation into her emails while staying silent about Trump and Russian. You mean like the eleventy billion investigations into Benghazi that find nothing. Come on. If there was something, anything there on Clinton you can bet your sweet ass that Republicans, with control of the legislature, would have tore her apart.

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Irregardless. It's funny how people of a certain political lean have a HUGE PROBLEM with this stuff coming out when it goes against the party they affiliate themselves with.

 

 

It's disgusting. No one should want to associate with the Republican party until they get rid of these people. I'm sure there are good but not as good reasons to also not associate with the Democratic party. Way less people should be registered with a party than are, and people should stop treating this like a sport where they just want their candidates to win points by annoying people in the other party. That's all a vote for Trump was for many people. He upsets the Democrats so he should be president!

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

 

I’m saying it should be investigated and prosecuted. Just not by Mueller. That’s not in his job description.

 

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Rosenstein’s order is illegal and unconstitutional. No order that is so broad in scope would withstand a court challenge. Mueller knows that, which is why he has referred matters outside the scope of his investigation to federal prosecutors. 

 

In your hypothetical, Trump would have committed murder. Mueller’s team isn’t set up to investigate and prosecute a murder, which is completely outside their authority or areas of expertise. I have no doubt that he would refer the matter to outside federal prosecutors to deal with. 

 

This really isn’t complicated folks. It doesn’t take a law degree to think this sort of thing through.

 

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Special prosecutors have a likited and clearly defined scope of authority. Numerous legal scholars have opined that Rosenstein exceeded his authority by making Mueller’s authority so broad. Seriously...Google it and do a little reading,

 

Mueller himself realizes that his scope is limited. That’s why he refers cases to others to handle rather than trying to handle them himself.

If in your opinion Mueller should refer matters outside his scope to federal prosecutors and then you say he is doing that, then why aren't you supporting the fact he's doing exactly what you say he should do?

  • Plus1 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

 

The only problems I have with the investigation were/are with the shenanigans that went on to get it started, the numbers of Hillary-supporting Trump-haters on the Mueller team, and the clear double standard where everything possible was done to exonerate Clinton while everything possible is being done to go after Trump.

 

 

James Comey, more than any other influencing factor, cost Hilary Clinton the election.

 

How many proven "Hillary-supporting Trump-haters" were on the Mueller team? Like...two?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, knapplc said:

Further, I am an American patriot, not a party partisan, and I can tell you I'd be cheering on Mueller/Rosenstein if this investigation uncovered the same things about:

 

Clinton

The other Clinton

Obama

Bush

The other Bush

Reagan

Carter

Ford

Nixon - wait, they *did* find this kind of stuff on Nixon

 

 

 

 

 

Irregardless. It's funny how people of a certain political lean have a HUGE PROBLEM with this stuff coming out when it goes against the party they affiliate themselves with.

 

That's the problem with parties. They're not America.

 

I'm an American, proudly Independent. Prosecute 'em all.

 

A true American patriot would not use "irregardless" in conversation.

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would venture to guess that Mueller has handed information regarding many different criminal activities to several other law enforcement entities, but unless there is an immediate national security issue or safety issue, that stuff will not come out until the time is right. Knowing the kind of battle he is immersed in, he will have certainly prepared for any number of legal challenges and contingencies. I'm sure he has prepared all of the info he has gathered to strategically go into the right hands, or has created some kind of truth bomb waiting to explode to the public if and when Trump finally fires him.

 

When Mueller plays "Uno", he saves all of his Wild-Draw 4 cards until the end of the game.

  • Plus1 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Rosenstein’s order is illegal and unconstitutional. No order that is so broad in scope would withstand a court challenge. Mueller knows that, which is why he has referred matters outside the scope of his investigation to federal prosecutors. 

 

In your hypothetical, Trump would have committed murder. Mueller’s team isn’t set up to investigate and prosecute a murder, which is completely outside their authority or areas of expertise. I have no doubt that he would refer the matter to outside federal prosecutors to deal with. 

 

This really isn’t complicated folks. It doesn’t take a law degree to think this sort of thing through.

 

4 different judges, including one appointed by President Trump, have upheld the Mueller investigation!  https://www.wsj.com/articles/fourth-judge-upholds-mueller-appointment-1534179190

 

Where have you been?

 

 

  • Plus1 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some really, REALLY big news yesterday. All the main news outlets are covering it.

 

 

Well... except Fox. They're focusing on something else.

 

  • Plus1 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, knapplc said:

Some really, REALLY big news yesterday. All the main news outlets are covering it.

 

 

Well... except Fox. They're focusing on something else.

 

briefbarf was also focusing on the illegal alien

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, commando said:

missed this yesterday...but it's a good point.  

 

 

 

 

 

i.e. if the GOP keeps fighting against investigations, we know why.

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, FrankWheeler said:

 

4 different judges, including one appointed by President Trump, have upheld the Mueller investigation!  https://www.wsj.com/articles/fourth-judge-upholds-mueller-appointment-1534179190

 

Where have you been?

 

 

 

And a variety of legal scholars have said it’s unconstitutional. I’d love to hear what the Supremes’ view of it is. 

8 hours ago, commando said:

my guess is he has been at Q-Anon 

 

Well that wasn’t very nice.

 

:lol:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

 

And a variety of legal scholars have said it’s unconstitutional. I’d love to hear what the Supremes’ view of it is. 

 

Well that wasn’t very nice.

 

:lol:

 

You make a claim that the probe is illegal, that Mueller is far outreaching his jurisdiction. Several posters provide sources confirming he is well within his defined bounds (job description as you called it), is doing what you have suggested with unrelated crimes he is uncovering, and that there is even precedence on his side.

 

Do you think that you're refuting everyone else's sources with this kind of response? 

  • Plus1 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

 

And a variety of legal scholars have said it’s unconstitutional. I’d love to hear what the Supremes’ view of it is. 

 

Can you let me know who they are?  I'm interested in reading about their arguments and why we should hold their opinion in higher regard than the four judges that have ruled that it is constitutional.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, FrankWheeler said:

 

Can you let me know who they are?  I'm interested in reading about their arguments and why we should hold there opinion in higher regard than the four judges that have ruled that it is constitutional.  

Jeanine Pirro, judge Jeanine, justice Jeanine, and judge pirro

  • Plus1 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, mrandyk said:

You make a claim that the probe is illegal, that Mueller is far outreaching his jurisdiction. Several posters provide sources confirming he is well within his defined bounds (job description as you called it), is doing what you have suggested with unrelated crimes he is uncovering, and that there is even precedence on his side.

 

Do you think that you're refuting everyone else's sources with this kind of response? 

 

I’m pointing out there are opinions on both sides on that issue. Jonathan Turley and Alan Dershowitz have been particularly outspoken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FrankWheeler said:

 

Can you let me know who they are?  I'm interested in reading about their arguments and why we should hold their opinion in higher regard than the four judges that have ruled that it is constitutional.  

 

All you have to do to find that sort of information is go to google.com and type: mueller probe unconstitutional into the search bar.

 

Here are some examples.

 

http://time.com/5292170/robert-mueller-special-counsel-unconstitutional-steven-calabresi/

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/23/levin-mueller-probe-unconstitutional/

 

https://www.newsweek.com/can-trump-fire-mueller-if-he-was-never-hired-696499

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"The President's entitled to having an attorney general he has faith in, somebody that is qualified for the job and I think there will come a time sooner rather than later where it will be time to have a new face and a fresh voice at the Department of Justice. Clearly, Attorney General Sessions doesn't have the confidence of the President," Graham said.

 

Less than 1 month ago Graham said there “would be holy hell to pay” if Trump fired Sessions.

 

What happened in the interim?

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we go from Trump didn't do anything to its illegal to look into this. How can you defend that position? Clearly, its a grey area at best and clearly something jenky is afoot. Why don't you want to know what happened? You'll say because this is a witch hunt designed to slander our President. But if that is true, why is there mountains of evidence against Manafort, why did Cohen flip in the face of mountains of evidence against him? 

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, FrankWheeler said:

 

Can you let me know who they are?  I'm interested in reading about their arguments and why we should hold their opinion in higher regard than the four judges that have ruled that it is constitutional.  

 

 

I was going to quote this saying, "All you have to do is just go to google and look it up yourself", in a sort of predictive humorous way, and then I went to bed forgetting.

 

But after seeing the expected response I'm sad I didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

 

I’m pointing out there are opinions on both sides on that issue. Jonathan Turley and Alan Dershowitz have been particularly outspoken.

I could claim that I invented the question mark, and without any backing evidence it will be just as valid as the claims you've posed here. Your right to an opinion doesn't make it a valid one.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

It is a sad day in the Republican Utopia. This man is an American hero and icon. He will not be forgotten.

 

 

he knows the end is near and he is facing it with dignity and courage.   salute 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Clifford Franklin said:

It is a sad day in the Republican Utopia. This man is an American hero and icon. He will not be forgotten.

 

 

 

I worked for his Presidential campaign back in 2000 and met him briefly. He is a great guy and a true American hero. I didn’t always agree with him, but always respected the hell out of him. I can’t fathom what he went through. Sad to see his time here coming to an end. 

  • Plus1 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

 

I worked for his Presidential campaign back in 2000 and met him briefly. He is a great guy and a true American hero. I didn’t always agree with him, but always respected the hell out of him. I can’t fathom what he went through. Sad to see his time here coming to an end. 

 

My thoughts exactly. Well said.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×