Originally posted by JimL
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
No Collusion!
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostThere seems to be a lot of disagreement over this, so I dug up the actual letter where Rosenstein, indeed, appointed Mueller "Special Counsel". That doesn't actually benefit Jimmy's nutty arguments, however, because he still gets confused over impeachment and indictment.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]36898[/ATTACH]
Thank You, Cow Poke for the correction and the Citation.
JimL where I the letter does it say that Mueller reports to Congress?
Since Rosenstein appointed Mueller, means Mueller reports to Rosenstein, since Barr is Rosenstein's boss and has not recued himself than Mueller reports to Barr. The next level of Management is Trump but since Trump is a subject he is out of the loop for conflict of interests. I don't seem to see Congress in this chain.Last edited by The Pendragon; 05-06-2019, 12:01 PM."Any sufficiently advanced technology, is indistinguishable from Magic!"-- Arthur C. Clark
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Pendragon View PostI was wrong with my first statement, but is still does not change the scope or what Mueller was tasked to do.
*unlike Jimmy's claim that "law" and "policy" are the same thing.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostThere seems to be a lot of disagreement over this, so I dug up the actual letter where Rosenstein, indeed, appointed Mueller "Special Counsel". That doesn't actually benefit Jimmy's nutty arguments, however, because he still gets confused over impeachment and indictment.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]36898[/ATTACH]Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostAs far as I know, there is no difference between a special prosecutor and a special counselor. Regardless of label, the job description is the same: investigate, gather evidence, and present recommendations to the Attorney General.
So what is a special counsel? And what is the difference between a special counsel, a special prosecutor, and an independent counsel? The terms are largely interchangeable to refer to someone appointed to investigate allegations that could involve a conflict of interest within the Department of Justice. But the manner in which they are appointed and why has changed over time.
The president has always had the authority to name a special prosecutor. After the crisis brought on by the Watergate scandal, Congress passed a law creating an "independent counsel" who could be appointed by a three-judge panel. After the experiences of the Iran-Contra investigation and the probe into the Clinton's Whitewater land deal, there was bipartisan support to abandon that law. Now, the attorney general, in addition to the president, has the power to appoint a special counsel.
The statute regarding the grounds for appointing a special counsel says the attorney general, or acting attorney general in cases where the attorney general is recused, can appoint a special counsel when a case presents a "conflict of interest" for the Justice Department, or "other extraordinary circumstances." In this case, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was able to appoint Mueller because Attorney General Jeff Sessions has recused himself.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostActually, his title was "Special Counsel" - A special counsel is a government prosecutor who has been appointed to oversee a criminal investigation where the Justice Department has a conflict of interest or under certain circumstances where it would be "in the public interest" to appoint a investigator outside the department.
Citation, please.
Comment
-
What if they threw a war, and nobody came?Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by dirtfloor View PostWe already know that Mueller had enough evidence to indict Trump...Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Let's put it this way, if a prosecutor says, "Based on the evidence, I can't conclude that the accused committed a crime, but I can't exonerate him, either," you know what the judge will say?
"Not guilty."Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostLet's put it this way, if a prosecutor says, "Based on the evidence, I can't conclude that the accused committed a crime, but I can't exonerate him, either," you know what the judge will say?
"Not guilty."
Comment
-
Originally posted by firstfloor View PostI am not too sure what the issue is but it may be helpful to recognize the difference between investigation and prosecution. A person is not being prosecuted until legal proceedings are initiated.
Last edited by Cow Poke; 05-06-2019, 04:25 PM.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by dirtfloor View PostNot so. Mueller had already explained why he was unable, regardless of the evidence, to conclude that a crime had been committed. All he has done is preserve evidence and pass the buck. You may have to read or listen to the introduction to Vol. II a few times before it makes sense to you.
Or don't. Barr, Rosenstein, and other DOJ officials confirmed that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a corruption charge, so it's a moot point.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Ok, I'll play tour game. If I intend to commit a crime but the crime never happens am I guilty of a crime? A person can't be convicted of a crime that never happens, this is not the minority report.
So can you cite from the Mueller report where Trump of one of his team actually "Obstructed Justus". And if you are citing a witness convicted lying to the FBI or Congress, please provide supporting evidence to prove the veracity of the witness, because the witness is compromised. If there is no crime, there can be no guilt.
On top of that give me the citation where Mueller tells Barr that he feels that the issue should be handled by Congress.
The report was not written for Congress (As JimL keeps asserting), the report is written for AG Barr, so that Barr can make a decision on how to proceed. If Mueller felt that this should be taken up by Congress it should be plainly written down in the Report, Not a history lessen in the preamble to a section of the report. Without an actual recommendation by Mueller, He leave that decision up to Barr. AG Barr's decision "No Obstruction of Justus" stands.
I think this is what firstfloor is using.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology, is indistinguishable from Magic!"-- Arthur C. Clark
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostCongres, (a co-equal branch) has oversight responsibility and so it is the job of Congress to examine the evidence and come to it's conclusion based on the evidence gathered by the special prosecutor. According to OLC policy, "The special prosecutor can not indict." a sitting president. A fact you continue to ignore! It seems what you want is a president who is above the law."Any sufficiently advanced technology, is indistinguishable from Magic!"-- Arthur C. Clark
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Pendragon View PostCongress does not have the right to uses it's 'Oversight' responsibility to go on a fishing expedition into the executive branch. Endless investigations with out end, investigating the same thing over and over again because they did not get the result they wanted the first 4 times. Asking for all the documents that are ever written. What would you say if a republican Congress asked for every email, all finical records, interviewed any lawyer, and, any confidence communication; of any thing the President or his family ever did. All in the name of "Oversight". You would cry Harassment.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 09:42 AM
|
0 responses
3 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Today, 09:42 AM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 08:04 AM
|
14 responses
52 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 09:52 AM | ||
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 07:47 AM
|
12 responses
36 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Today, 09:57 AM
|
||
Started by Starlight, Yesterday, 10:22 PM
|
12 responses
79 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Today, 08:49 AM
|
||
Started by seer, Yesterday, 01:39 PM
|
13 responses
53 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:27 AM
|
Comment