FBI raids Trump lawyer Michael Cohen's office

[Mountain Man]

"coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump."

US Code 30121 (a)(2): "It shall be unlawful for a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation [of money or other thing of value] from a foreign national [in connection with a Federal, State, or local election]"

So the criminal investigation is into whether Trump campaign members solicited or accepted money, services or information from the Russian government.

This is not hard.

First of all "coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" does not define a specific crime, or any crime at all for that matter. There are any number of ways a political campaign could coordinate with a foreign government without violating the law, and broadly alluding to "coordination" does not seem to fulfill the legal requirement that "The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated."

Secondly, reference to US Code 30121 does not appear anywhere in the letter.

In fact, there is nothing specific about Rosentein's letter at all. It may as well read, "Go see if you can find out if Trump broke any laws."

[Mountain Man]

I've now answered this twice.

Really? You've given a direct quote from Rosenstein's letter where he specifies the exact crime to be investigated? Which post number was that?

Look, I'll make it easy for you. Here's the text of Rosenstien's letter. You don't even have to give commentary, just bold the section where he specifically identifies the crime to be investigated and click "Post Reply" -- note, I'm asking for a specific crime, not a hint or vague implication that a crime may have been committed, but the actual crime that was alleged to have been committed:

[Roy]

First of all "coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" does not define a specific crime, or any crime at all for that matter. There are any number of ways a political campaign could coordinate with a foreign government without violating the law, and broadly alluding to "coordination" does not seem to fulfill the legal requirement that "The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated."

There are also a number of ways that the campaign could co-ordinate with a foreign government in violation of the law. One might as well complain that an investigation into "the death of Joe Bloggs" wasn't specific because it didn't say he was murdered. I could say more, but I'm tired of pigeon-chess.

Secondly, reference to US Code 30121 does not appear anywhere in the letter.

Who says it needs to?

In fact, there is nothing specific about Rosentein's letter at all. It may as well read, "Go see if you can find out if Trump broke any laws."

The letter specifically mentions the Russian government and the election campaign, two specifics which are not in your non-paraphrase.

[JimL]

Really? You've given a direct quote from Rosenstein's letter where he specifies the exact crime to be investigated? Which post number was that?

Look, I'll make it easy for you. Here's the text of Rosenstien's letter. You don't even have to give commentary, just bold the section where he specifically identifies the crime to be investigated and click "Post Reply" -- note, I'm asking for a specific crime, not a hint or vague implication that a crime may have been committed, but the actual crime that was alleged to have been committed:

Are you nuts? Why do you need us to spell them out? The crimes that Mueller is authorized to investigate are spelled out for you in the above document and you use that self same document as evidence that there are no specific crimes that he is autthorized to investigate? He is authorized to investigat any Links/or coordination between Russian Government and Individuals associated with the Trump campaign.

That the Russians worked to undermine the elections doesn't have to be spelled out for you as well does it. That General Flynn pleaded guilty and is cooperating with the FBI doesn't need to be spelled out for you does it. That Trump tried and failed to get Comey to lay off of Flynn and then fired him for not playing ball doesn't need to be spelled out for you does it.

Mueller also can investigate any matters that arise directly from the investigation into the links/or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia. It's already spelled out for you!

[carpedm9587]

Really? You've given a direct quote from Rosenstein's letter where he specifies the exact crime to be investigated? Which post number was that?

Look, I'll make it easy for you. Here's the text of Rosenstien's letter. You don't even have to give commentary, just bold the section where he specifically identifies the crime to be investigated and click "Post Reply" -- note, I'm asking for a specific crime, not a hint or vague implication that a crime may have been committed, but the actual crime that was alleged to have been committed:

ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows:

(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.

(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii) any .

(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

(d) Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.

So far, 22 indictments.

[Mountain Man]

So far, 22 indictments.

[Mountain Man]

The crimes that Mueller is authorized to investigate are spelled out for you...

No they're not. Otherwise you or Roy or carpe or somebody could quote from the letter itself the specific law that was suspected of being broken, or the specific legal statute that was suspected of being violated, because things like "interference" and "coordination" are not crimes, nor do they so much as imply that a crime may have been committed.

The simple fact is this: Rosenstein's letter did not provide "a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated."

[Mountain Man]

There are also a number of ways that the campaign could co-ordinate with a foreign government in violation of the law. One might as well complain that an investigation into "the death of Joe Bloggs" wasn't specific because it didn't say he was murdered. I could say more, but I'm tired of pigeon-chess.Who says it needs to?The letter specifically mentions the Russian government and the election campaign, two specifics which are not in your non-paraphrase.

None of this changes the fact that according to the LAW there has to be evidence that a crime was committed, and the SPECIFIC crime has to be named in order to appoint a special prosecutor.

"The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted" and "The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated."

Rosenstien's letter does not meet this standard.

You say you're "tired of pigeon-chess". I guess this is your way saying that you've scattered the pieces, pooped on the board, and now you're flying off.

[One Bad Pig]

Wiki says: "The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is a fringe,[2] far-right,[3][4][5][6] pro-Trump[7] website. It was founded after the United States presidential election in 2004,[8][9] according to its founder Jim Hoft, to "speak the truth" and to "expose the wickedness of the left".[10]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gateway_Pundithttps://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...=.0fc49cb6bb86

Wiki?

WaPo is at least a news source, but it's not as if it's an unbiased one.

Question for all you left-of-center folks out there: Is there any site you'd characterize as 'center-right' or merely 'right'? I only seem to see sources with which you disagree as 'far right' - which conveniently categorizes them as fringe so you can safely ignore what they say, as is the case here.

[rogue06]

Wiki?

WaPo is at least a news source, but it's not as if it's an unbiased one.

Question for all you left-of-center folks out there: Is there any site you'd characterize as 'center-right' or merely 'right'? I only seem to see sources with which you disagree as 'far right' - which conveniently categorizes them as fringe so you can safely ignore what they say, as is the case here.

The problem with Wikipedia for such things is that I can simply edit their page then use what I wrote to support my position.

[Zymologist]

Wiki?

WaPo is at least a news source, but it's not as if it's an unbiased one.

Question for all you left-of-center folks out there: Is there any site you'd characterize as 'center-right' or merely 'right'? I only seem to see sources with which you disagree as 'far right' - which conveniently categorizes them as fringe so you can safely ignore what they say, as is the case here.

"Far right" is almost as tired as "Nazi," at this point.

[Charles]

The problem with Wikipedia for such things is that I can simply edit their page then use what I wrote to support my position.

That is true. However you can often see the sources the statements are based on, so if you take the time, you can get great insights to the topics and evaluate whether you trust the particual claims made. But it cannot be read like a traditional encyclopedia. And it has often been shown that if you actually edit their page to support your position it is going to be changed back rather soon because lots of people are reading it and they have the same possibility to edit as you and I have. But again, I don't disagree with you. I just don't find the idea completely laughable. If you look at old or even new traditional encyclopedias they - of course - are influenced by the writers position as well, though the situations don't compare completely.

[rogue06]

"Far right" is almost as tired as "Nazi," at this point.

Yup. When pretty much everyone and everything more conservative than you becomes "far right" it pretty much loses its meaning.

[element771]

Question for all you left-of-center folks out there: Is there any site you'd characterize as 'center-right' or merely 'right'? I only seem to see sources with which you disagree as 'far right' - which conveniently categorizes them as fringe so you can safely ignore what they say, as is the case here.

I really like the Economist and they lean slightly right IMO.

I would also say the Hill and possibly WSJ.

[JimL]

None of this changes the fact that according to the LAW there has to be evidence that a crime was committed, and the SPECIFIC crime has to be named in order to appoint a special prosecutor.

"The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted" and "The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated."

Rosenstien's letter does not meet this standard.

You say you're "tired of pigeon-chess". I guess this is your way saying that you've scattered the pieces, pooped on the board, and now you're flying off.

Yes it does, the original evidence of a crime was General Flynn conspiring with the Russia government which was under investigation by the FBI and then Trump admitting to have fired Comey because he wouldn't drop the investigation into Gen. Flynn brought on the appointment of the Special prosecutor. Once a special prosecutor is appointed the scope of the investigation is broadened, the specific and original crimes being investigated are already spelled out in the FBI investigation, which is made clear in the Rosenstein document. He doesn't have to spell that out just because dummies like you can't figure it out.