FBI raids Trump lawyer Michael Cohen's office

[carpedm9587]

MM, a foreign power interfered with our election process. There was reason to believe one of our campaigns cooperated with or enabled that effort. That effort included hacking private electronic systems of two parties. If you do not see anything in any of that as problematic, then I don't know what to tell you. Personally, I do not want to see, in power, a group of people willing to treat with foreign powers, especially regularly hostile ones led by a demagogue. The investigation is to determine if any engagements with Russia rose to the level of "criminal." That is the point. That is why it's called a "criminal investigation." It is clear in the letter and conforms to the requirements in the act setting up the Special Counsel role. So is investigation of any other crimes uncovered during the investigation (which is common language for a special counsel), and investigation into obstruction.

I think you have to be pretty willfully looking the other way not to see the basis for the criminal investigation. Now that I have answered your question a total of four times, I'm going to let you wrap this up. No doubt I will be told (again) that I didn't answer, it's not a criminal act, I am dodging, I am spinning (or whatever new word you'll come up with), replete with appropriate emojis.

You're at least predictable.

[Mountain Man]

Wiki?

Yeah, citing Wikipedia as a source is about as credible as linking to random post on a message board. it's a "community encyclopedia" that anybody can change, and quite often, it's those with the most stamina in Wikipedia's infamous "edit wars" who get the last word.

[carpedm9587]

Wiki?

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

I believe this is called the "genetic fallacy."

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 don't think ANY source should be simply dismissed because it is left/right/center. As I noted above, that is the genetic fallacy. I find some sites less useful than others because the effort it takes me to weed out their spin and misleading headlines/terminology is just not worth my time. Mother Jones is a great example on the left, and Breitbart on the right. Daily Beast is another one on the left.

However, if you are looking for "right of center" sources that I commonly use, my list would include WSJ, Bloomberg, Forbes, Washington Times, LA Times, and the Cato Institute. They lean right, but not so far right that it is a heavy lift to parse out their spin.

[Charles]

Yeah, citing Wikipedia as a source is about as credible as linking to random post on a message board. it's a "community encyclopedia" that anybody can change, and quite often, it's those with the most stamina in Wikipedia's infamous "edit wars" who get the last word.

Since it seems you disagree with what is written about Gateway Pundit on wikipedia why don't you go ahead and change the content of it and send us a link to the changed text now telling a true story with references, sources and so on? You will have far more readers than you get in here and if it is as easy as you describe, it will be rather quick. Or if it is an "edit war" let's see how much you can change it. It would be really interesting.

[Mountain Man]

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.

There is no evidence that Flynn conspired with Russia. He was indicted for and plead guilty to lying to investigators, not for conspiracy, which is a big, big deal, because the latter would have allowed Mueller to use Flynn's guilty plea as evidence that the conspiracy existed while the former simply impeaches his credibility as a witness.

But none of that was in Rosenstien's letter to Mueller.

Trump had every right to fire Comey. A president enacting his executive powers is a not a crime.

But again, none of that was in Rosentien's letter to Mueller.

Further, Comey conceded in his testimony before Congress that Trump never asked him to drop the investigation against Flynn:

Source: Comey Testimony

He did not direct you to let it go?

COMEY: Not in his words, no.

RISCH: He did not order you to let it go?

COMEY: Again, those words are not an order.

RISCH: He said, I hope. Now, like me, you probably did hundreds of cases, maybe thousands of cases, charging people with criminal offenses and, of course, you have knowledge of the thousands of cases out there where people have been charged. Do you know of any case where a person has been charged for obstruction of justice or, for that matter, any other criminal offense, where they said or thought they hoped for an outcome?

COMEY: I don't know well enough to answer. The reason I keep saying his words is I took it as a direction.

RISCH: Right.

COMEY: I mean, this is a president of the United States with me alone saying I hope this. I took it as, this is what he wants me to do. I didn't obey that, but that's the way I took it.

RISCH: You may have taken it as a direction but that's not what he said.

COMEY: Correct.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...stimony-239295

© Copyright Original Source

So clearly no obstruction of justice took place.

You said that "Once a special prosecutor is appointed the scope of the investigation is broadened," but that's not what the law says, kiddo. "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."

According to THE LAW, once a special prosecutor is appointed, the scope of the investigation needs to be narrowed to a SPECIFIC crime.

[Mountain Man]

There was reason to believe one of our campaigns cooperated with or enabled that effort.

No there's not. After two-years of intensive scrutiny, liberals are still no closer to linking Trump to Russia than they were the day that Hillary and her cronies cooked up the "Russia Russia Russia" false narrative to distract from Trump making mincemeat of her on the campaign trail.

Dirty Cop Mueller isn't even pretending to investigate Russian collusion any more. The recent raid on Cohen's office was related to the Stormy Daniels nothing-burger and has nothing at all to do with the election.

[Mountain Man]

Since it seems you disagree with what is written about Gateway Pundit on wikipedia why don't you go ahead and change the content of it and send us a link to the changed text now telling a true story with references, sources and so on? You will have far more readers than you get in here and if it is as easy as you describe, it will be rather quick. Or if it is an "edit war" let's see how much you can change it. It would be really interesting.

Because frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

[Charles]

Because frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

You seem to give a damn when you write about it on tweb. It would be a very easy way to prove your point.

[JimL]

No there's not. After two-years of intensive scrutiny, liberals are still no closer to linking Trump to Russia

By liberals I take it you mean all the republicans, mostly Trump appointee's, leading the investigation into Trumps corrupt administration

than they were the day that Hillary and her cronies cooked up the "Russia Russia Russia" false narrative to distract from Trump making mincemeat of her on the campaign trail.

And this is what your brain looks like on Breitbart.

Dirty Cop Mueller isn't even pretending to investigate Russian collusion any more. The recent raid on Cohen's office was related to the Stormy Daniels nothing-burger and has nothing at all to do with the election.

Mueller doesn't have to pretend to only be investigating the original FBI collusion/conspiracy/obstruction investigation. Muellers scope is much wider than that, and thank the god I don't believe in for that. And btw, you can blame that on Trump himself for his idiotic act of firing Comey in attempting to obstruct that original investigation. Its also a good thing that atty gen J sessions lied to the FBI in that investigation and so had to recuse himself, otherwise Trump, with Sessions help, may have pulled it off.

[Starlight]

Wiki?

Is there something wrong with you?

Question for all you left-of-center folks out there: Is there any site you'd characterize as 'center-right' or merely 'right'?

Wall Street Journal is the most common one that I see regularly. Also the Economist but I don't use that one.

Personally I'd also consider WaPo and NYT to be "right-wing" but that's more nuanced and a matter of which right-left spectrum we are talking about. They cheer-led the way into the Iraq war, they viciously and continuously attacked Bernie Sanders when he ran, etc.

[Tassman]

I've noticed that neither of you has addressed even a single fact in the article and have instead attacked the source.. I'm sure by now you know the name of this particular fallacy. I've called you guys out on it often enough.

The problem with you MM, is that your sources are invariably suspect. Pointing this out is not a 'fallacy', but highlighting your bias.

[Roy]

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...

Again, who says that the law/statue needs to be referenced in the letter? You've ducked this once, and I expect you to duck it again, because if the law/statute does not need to be specified, only the action that is or may be illegal, you have nothing.

[Roy]

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.

No, you're the pigeon, strutting around declaring victory in defiance of reality.

[Charles]

You said that "Once a special prosecutor is appointed the scope of the investigation is broadened," but that's not what the law says, kiddo. "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."

According to THE LAW, once a special prosecutor is appointed, the scope of the investigation needs to be narrowed to a SPECIFIC crime.

In the text you quote from the law I see no reference to "a SPECIFIC crime". It does talk about "criminal investigation of a person or matter" and "a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated." How do you come to the conclusion that the matter must be a specific crime?

[Roy]

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'?

The Daily Telegraph site comes to mind.

I expect MM will ignore your use of the genetic fallacy.