• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Newly Revealed Memo Details the Scope of Robert Mueller's Investigative Mandate

Lord Tammerlain said:
He could only look at your tax returns if something arose from the investigation that made it look like it was part of the Russian efforts to interfere in the election or you were potentially involved in a federal crime, that was reveled during the investigation. A warrant to look at bank records would have to be sought, and that would require probable cause. Your name just being mentioned in a communication would not support that. Your name being mentioned along with an indication of money being transferred would
Click to expand...

The charges against Manafort have nothing to do with any sort of collusion in the 2016 election.
Its not entirely accurate that Mueller cant go after non 2016 stuff.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
He could only look at your tax returns if something arose from the investigation that made it look like it was part of the Russian efforts to interfere in the election or you were potentially involved in a federal crime, that was reveled during the investigation. A warrant to look at bank records would have to be sought, and that would require probable cause. Your name just being mentioned in a communication would not support that. Your name being mentioned along with an indication of money being transferred would
Click to expand...

You just described Manafort's logic in his dismissal motion.
 
MrMike said:
Ahem...

Actually, the Clintons took payments from Russia/Russian interests (see below). Sadly, your investigation has found no evidence of this for Trump. yet it continues. However, I will start another thread on this subject so you guys can stick with the one-sided narrative in this thread that the Left is desperately clinging to! lol

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...689a9f2d84e_story.html?utm_term=.8e7f282e8362
Click to expand...

You might want to note that the referenced article is an "opinion" piece rather than a "news" piece.

The referenced article called for an "investigation into" and was not a "report of" BUT I will agree that an "investigation into" MIGHT clear the air IF both sides were prepared to accept whatever findings the investigation made AND if the investigation is conducted in an unbiased and non-partisan manner. However, the odds that any investigation (regardless of whether conduced by a "Republican controlled" or "Democrat controlled" Congress will NOT be accepted by the side which does not "control" Congress, and, accordingly, will do nothing whatsoever to clear the air.

Quite frankly I am incredibly amused at the knee-jerk belief that Ms. Clinton "controlled" ALL of the members of the review panel that approved the sale of a CANADIAN company to "Russian interests" as well as the complete absence of any thought being given to the fact that those "Russian interests" would have bought the company even if it had absolutely no interests in American Uranium refining (the Russians wanted the Tajikistan Uranium concession that Uranium One owned MUCH more than they wanted "control" over 3% of America's Uranium refining capacity).

PS - As of the 2012 figures, the Russians would have had to pay Mr. Trump $1,500,000 to give a speech, so Mr. Clinton's $500,000 looks pretty puny in comparison.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
You might want to note that the referenced article is an "opinion" piece rather than a "news" piece.

The referenced article called for an "investigation into" and was not a "report of" BUT I will agree that an "investigation into" MIGHT clear the air IF both sides were prepared to accept whatever findings the investigation made AND if the investigation is conducted in an unbiased and non-partisan manner. However, the odds that any investigation (regardless of whether conduced by a "Republican controlled" or "Democrat controlled" Congress will NOT be accepted by the side which does not "control" Congress, and, accordingly, will do nothing whatsoever to clear the air.

Quite frankly I am incredibly amused at the knee-jerk belief that Ms. Clinton "controlled" ALL of the members of the review panel that approved the sale of a CANADIAN company to "Russian interests" as well as the complete absence of any thought being given to the fact that those "Russian interests" would have bought the company even if it had absolutely no interests in American Uranium refining (the Russians wanted the Tajikistan Uranium concession that Uranium One owned MUCH more than they wanted "control" over 3% of America's Uranium refining capacity).

PS - As of the 2012 figures, the Russians would have had to pay Mr. Trump $1,500,000 to give a speech, so Mr. Clinton's $500,000 looks pretty puny in comparison.
Click to expand...


Well, we have a winner. We agree (item in red). That is exactly what is needed to clear the air. That's all.

You have a great day!

Mike
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Hence the authority provided Mueller by Rosenstein with regards to the second allegation against Manafort I listed in the OP.
Click to expand...

Yes, which has the problem of being written after the indictments were applied, but that isn't what's needed by the government to argue against the dismissal. But like I said earlier, Mueller can follow whatever breadcrumbs he wants to any charge for anyone so long as it starts with a list of about 1,000+ people in the Trump campaign.
 
Samhain said:
Yes, which has the problem of being written after the indictments were applied, but that isn't what's needed by the government to argue against the dismissal. But like I said earlier, Mueller can follow whatever breadcrumbs he wants to any charge for anyone so long as it starts with a list of about 1,000+ people in the Trump campaign.
Click to expand...

That depends as to the scope of COMEY'S investigation.
 
American said:
How many people have been convicted of treason in the history of the US?
Click to expand...

Thirteen - including those subsequently pardoned.

That's either higher, in proportion, or lower, in proportion, to the two convicted of treason in Canada.

Nine who were never pardoned.

That's lower, in proportion, than the one so convicted and never pardoned in Canada.
 
Athanasius68 said:
So what? The concern is Russian interference in the election.
Click to expand...

Bull ****! This is all about removing Trump from office in any way possible!
"Collusion"..."Whores"...whatever it takes. Gawd...at least be honest.
 
Samhain said:
Yup, which means this memo isn't anything new.Technically Mueller could investigate anyone for anything under his scope
Click to expand...
No, you have missed the point, which is understandable, as these things are literally kept out of the public for the most part, and some parts are kept as secrets with the department of justice. It has to do with sources/methods, and ongoing investigations.

Manafort's argument is similar to your unqualified claim, that he could investigate anyone without political oversight which is false.
You seem to argue he could investigate anyone not just without political oversight, but without any oversight and all, and that is also false.

The first big tool used is a grand jury, you're familiar with that? I wasn't, I had to read up on them, typically 23 people who are privy to the evicence/testimony, etc., who have to basically sign off at various stages for various reasons.
The investigatory functions of grand juries include obtaining and reviewing documents and other evidence, and hearing sworn testimonies of witnesses who appear before it; the accusatory function determines whether there is probable cause to believe that one or more persons committed a certain offence within the venue of a district court.
Click to expand...
So in addition to that, Special Counsel is constrained by the politically appointed AG or deputy AG in this case. Their response:
Initially, the Acting Attorney General set forth the “scope of the [Special Counsel’s] original jurisdiction” in the public order. Rosenstein Testimony at 29. “[T]he specific matters” assigned to the Special Counsel, however, “are not identified in that order.” Id. Recognizing the need for confidentiality about the subjects of a criminal investigation, id. at 30, the Acting Attorney General “discussed that with [the Special Counsel] when he started” and has continued to have “ongoing discussion about exactly what is within the scope of his investigation,” id. at 29. To the extent that the Special Counsel has uncovered evidence of other crimes beyond the original scope, the decision on how to allocate responsibility for further investigation has been “worked out with[in] the [D]epartment.” Id. at 40. The Acting Attorney General has confirmed that he is “accountable” and “responsible for” the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation, and “know what [the Special Counsel] is investigating.”
Click to expand...


So much for the claim that Mueller is operating outside of political oversight. Rosenstein has testified to the fact that he's providing proper oversight, and evidences it.

Yes, he has to convince a grand jury of probably cause, has to get explicit, periodic approval from the AG. No, Mueller cannot just follow any breadcrumbs of the 1000 people that know Trump.

Barnacle said:
According to the FOX news article, the memo was dated August 2, 2017.The FBI raided Manafort's home on July 26, 2017.?
Click to expand...
Manafort's defense is not that they didn't follow procedure in raiding for evidence, it's that the special counsel is not operating inside the scope of the AG's order/authority.
The memo in question was just one piece of evidence provided that establishes the fact that the deputy AG is providing oversight, specially in this case on pursuit of a variety of crimes Manafort may have committed. In other words, as far as timelines go, this memo has to have been filed before Manafort was indicted on those charges listed in the memo, for the memo to be evidence that Rosenstein was providing oversight on those specific charges.
Which it is. Which he was.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Manafort doesn't really have much of a legal recourse anymore, so it'll be interesting to see what he tries next.
Click to expand...

I don't know what his NEXT step is going to be but the one after that is going to be the telephone call asking Mr. Trump to pardon him for State level offences if Mr. Trump pardons him for Federal level offences.

That the actions and evidence regarding the State level offences are highly likely to be the same as the actions and evidence regarding Federal level offences, I rather suspect that someone is telling Mr. Trump that he is going to look like a real dolt if he pardons Mr. Manafort for the same offences which he is subsequently found guilty of (at the State level) and tossed into jail as a result of those convictions.

However Mr. Trump might just conclude that his "Presidential Finding" that it would be "contrary to National Security interests" for the State level charges to be prosecuted would be sufficient to stop a State government prosecuting Mr. Manafort for actions that were in violation of State law.
 
MrMike said:
Then why quote me to get me to return? All you have to do is quit quoting me and realize that when you do it, I'll remind you the Clinton's took cold hard cash from Russia and the Left is perfectly okay with it!

Weird hypocrisy there no?
Click to expand...
No, just partisan crap on your part.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
I don't know what his NEXT step is going to be but the one after that is going to be the telephone call asking Mr. Trump to pardon him for State level offences if Mr. Trump pardons him for Federal level offences.

That the actions and evidence regarding the State level offences are highly likely to be the same as the actions and evidence regarding Federal level offences, I rather suspect that someone is telling Mr. Trump that he is going to look like a real dolt if he pardons Mr. Manafort for the same offences which he is subsequently found guilty of (at the State level) and tossed into jail as a result of those convictions.

However Mr. Trump might just conclude that his "Presidential Finding" that it would be "contrary to National Security interests" for the State level charges to be prosecuted would be sufficient to stop a State government prosecuting Mr. Manafort for actions that were in violation of State law.
Click to expand...

What powers are you citing that the president has allowing him to do this?
 
Buzz62 said:
Bull ****! This is all about removing Trump from office in any way possible!
"Collusion"..."Whores"...whatever it takes. Gawd...at least be honest.
Click to expand...

If this is your way of admitting that there are several very legitimate reasons why Trump should be removed from office - I would agree.
 
haymarket said:
If this is your way of admitting that there are several very legitimate reasons why Trump should be removed from office - I would agree.
Click to expand...

Noooo...its my way of saying...you lost so grow up.
 
MrMike said:
Well, we have a winner. We agree (item in red). That is exactly what is needed to clear the air. That's all.

You have a great day!

Mike
Click to expand...

I did put the word "MIGHT" in capital letters for a reason.

Are we also in agreement that the odds on having an investigation that is conducted in an unbiased and non-partisan manner are not ones that would entice you into betting the rent on it happening?

Are we also in agreement that the Republicans would NOT accept an investigation conducted by a "Democrat controlled" Congress?

Are we also in agreement that the Democrats would NOT accept an investigation conducted by a "Republican controlled" Congress?
 
MrMike said:
Ahem...

Actually, the Clintons took payments from Russia/Russian interests (see below). Sadly, your investigation has found no evidence of this for Trump. yet it continues. However, I will start another thread on this subject so you guys can stick with the one-sided narrative in this thread that the Left is desperately clinging to! lol

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...689a9f2d84e_story.html?utm_term=.8e7f282e8362
Click to expand...

Hey mike, you’re in luck. I have the smoking gun in the Uranium 1 scandal. Don jr met with Russians because he was promised dirt on Hillary from the Russian govt (we know this from his emails). His third version of the meeting he said the “dirt” was vague and specious. THAT’S THE SMOKING GUN. If the Russian govt has nothing on Hillary concerning uranium 1 then it’s just another lying conservative narrative. Your welcome.

Vern said:
The president's son also said Veselnitskaya mentioned she had information about the Democratic nominee.
"Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense," he said. "No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information."
After that discussion about Clinton, Trump Jr. said, the conversation pivoted to the topic of the adoption program.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/11/tim...and-when-he-said-it-about-russian-lawyer.html
Click to expand...
We return you to your regularly scheduled deflections.
 
haymarket said:
What powers are you citing that the president has allowing him to do this?
Click to expand...

The President of the United States of America has the power to make "Presidential Findings" and has had the specific ability to do so since 1954.

IF Mr. Trump did make the "Presidential Finding" I postulated, then the Federal government's lawyers would be able to use that "Presidential Finding" as the basis for an application to the State courts to have the case dismissed.

That doesn't mean that the Federal lawyers would inevitably succeed, but it does mean that the Federal lawyers could keep the issue of whether or not the case should proceed to trial tied up in appeals for (at least) six years - after which Mr. Trump won't care any longer.
 
Vern said:
His third version of the meeting he said the “dirt” was vague and specious. THAT’S THE SMOKING GUN. If the Russian govt has nothing on Hillary concerning uranium 1
Click to expand...

Now that's an interesting (and plausible) interpretation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom