• 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!

Mueller Knowingly Lied to Us (2 Viewers)

Thorgasm said:
Where do you get this propaganda?
Click to expand...

§ No forensic evidence has ever been produced to support the allegation that Putin’s Kremlin hacked the DNC in 2016 and gave the incriminating e-mails to Wikileaks. Indeed, then –FBI Director James Comey did not even examine the DNC computers. Nor, so far as is known, has the FBI ever done so. On the other hand, a group of former US intelligence officials known as VIPS has twice produced its own forensic conclusion that the e-mails stolen from the DNC were not a hack but an inside job, a leak. If so—thus far VIPS’s findings have yet to be given the expert scrutiny they require—there never was any “Russia” in Russiagate.

§ Mueller indicted a group of Russian intelligence officials for hacking and other social-media misdeeds during the election. This allegation has become widely known as the “Russian hacking of the 2016 presidential election.” But indictments are not proof, only accusations. Moreover, two independent journalists examined Mueller’s evidence and found it seriously lacking. Still more, no one has shown that any Russian social-media “attack” had any effect on the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.
Click to expand...

The Fictitious ‘Russian Attack’ vs. the Real Imperative to ‘Cooperate With Russia’ | The Nation
 
Condor060 said:
Oh pleeeeeease. Seems you are the only one who might even consider that. The headlines from day one were Trump collusion, 24 hours a day for 2 solid years and how Mueller would take Trump down. We now know this investigation was bought and paid for up front hence why you are going to see the declassification of the FISA warrant information.

I still get a chuckle out of Dems lobbing this big ball of BS because Trump stated at a rally in jest (Hey Russia, if you're listening, how about sending over Hillarys emails) Thats about the biggest streatch I have ever heard for colluding with Russia. Like I said then and I will say now, if thats all you got, you got nothing. Turns out I was right.
Click to expand...

5 hours after he said that they started hacking.
 
Thorgasm said:
5 hours after he said that they started hacking.
Click to expand...

Heard that as well. First it was 3 days, then 1 day, and now we are down to 5 hours. Interesting. What is really interesting, is the DNC refused to turn over there allegedly hacked computers to the FBI and had a 3rd party come in and provide a report to Comey. And our then leader of the FBI (Instead of confiscating those computers for the sake of national security) decided a 3rd party report would be just fine with him.

Maybe its why it was time for Comey to be fired. No FBI director would even consider allowing a 3rd party to intervene with so much at stake and Democrats just swooned on and on about this hacking. So we will find out what really happend.
 
bongsaway said:
The great thing about your response, reading further down the list you were answered and now you can dismiss the answer between the difference and continue repeating your inaccurate rant.
Click to expand...

I never got the answer as it pertains to this thread so I posted for those of you who don't know the difference.

Independent counsel is appointed by a Federal Judge and is not mandated to follow DOJ procedures. Special Counsel in appointed by the DOJ and is mandated to followed DOJ criteria. Thats pretty much it in a nutshell.

My distinction here is not the differences between the two, but the common denominators between the two being EITHER counsel can recommend criminal activities and charges to the Attorney General. Any other differences have no value to this determination.
 
apdst said:
Nothing, except about 20 years.

Special prosecutor - Wikipedia

You didn't know that, did you?
Click to expand...

It seems most who disagree don't really read the thread. I asked how the differences between the two counsels (pertaining to this thread) would make a difference. None of them knew the answer so I provided it for them.

Independent counsel is appointed by a Federal Judge and is not mandated to follow DOJ procedures. Special Counsel in appointed by the DOJ and is mandated to followed DOJ criteria. Thats pretty much it in a nutshell.

My distinction here is not the differences between the two, but the common denominators between the two being EITHER counsel can recommend criminal activities and charges to the Attorney General. Any other differences have no value to this determination.
 
Thorgasm said:
Adults are talking.
Click to expand...

You try to derail a thread with a smartass post, claiming there's a difference between a special counsel and an independent counsel. :lamo
 
Condor060 said:
It seems most who disagree don't really read the thread. I asked how the differences between the two counsels (pertaining to this thread) would make a difference. None of them knew the answer so I provided it for them.

Independent counsel is appointed by a Federal Judge and is not mandated to follow DOJ procedures. Special Counsel in appointed by the DOJ and is mandated to followed DOJ criteria. Thats pretty much it in a nutshell.

My distinction here is not the differences between the two, but the common denominators between the two being EITHER counsel can recommend criminal activities and charges to the Attorney General. Any other differences have no value to this determination.
Click to expand...

When Leftists disagree, it's usually because they don't have a clue. Posts #2 and #4 think there's a difference between a special counsel and an independent counsel. That's literally their argument. :lamo
 
Lutherf said:
Rosenstein gives a decent overview of the differences but, frankly, nothing he says answers the question at hand.

Condor is right. Mueller WAS NOT prohibited by the OLC guidance from presenting the AG with a finding that Trump had committed crimes warranting prosecution. Since Mueller worked for Barr it would have been Barr's call whether OLC guidelines prevented indictment or not. Furthermore, if Mueller had come up with a reasonable basis for prosecution and if Barr had agreed with Mueller's findings the whole case could have been brought to the appropriate House and Senate committees. Those committees could have then initiated the impeachment process and, if impeached and removed from office, the president could be criminally prosecuted.

Condor posted the entire 39 page OLC advice for everyone to read. It should also be noted that there really weren't any substantive changes to this advice between 1973 and the present other than the fact that after Clinton it incorporated guidance regarding the prosecution of a sitting president for crimes committed BEFORE he took office.
Click to expand...

- Mueller’s job was to investigate and report his findings to the AG, period. Mueller’s job was not to make recommendations for or against prosecuting the president. As Mueller was a Justice Department employee, he was bound by the existing OLC rule that precludes indicting a sitting president. Understanding that very important point, Mueller chose not to make any judgment as to his belief of the president’s guilt or innocence because he believed it unfair (and un-Constitutional) to accuse the president without offering him legal recourse to defend himself.

Seriously, how friggin hard is it to understand that?

- Justice Department and Congress are not bound together to investigate or charge the president.
 
Condor060 said:
I never got the answer as it pertains to this thread so I posted for those of you who don't know the difference.

Independent counsel is appointed by a Federal Judge and is not mandated to follow DOJ procedures. Special Counsel in appointed by the DOJ and is mandated to followed DOJ criteria. Thats pretty much it in a nutshell.

My distinction here is not the differences between the two, but the common denominators between the two being EITHER counsel can recommend criminal activities and charges to the Attorney General. Any other differences have no value to this determination.
Click to expand...

Think what you wish, it won't stop the investigations of this horrible man. He is making a mockery of the presidency and his base cheers him on while the mitch senate helps him destroy our rule of law. Great job republicans.
 
Mueller’s job was to investigate and report his findings to the AG, period. Mueller’s job was not to make recommendations for or against prosecuting the president. As Mueller was a Justice Department employee, he was bound by the existing OLC rule that precludes indicting a sitting president.
Click to expand...

Yet all evidence to contrary to include Barr clearly stating yesterday that Mueller was wrong and he could make recommendations to the AGs office.

Maybe if you knew what an indictment was, it would help. To indict a sitting president you have to convene a grand jury, present a one sided case, and get a criminal charge so you can indict and make criminal charges. Telling the AG that you found criminal activities is not indicting a president.
 
bongsaway said:
Think what you wish, it won't stop the investigations of this horrible man. He is making a mockery of the presidency and his base cheers him on while the mitch senate helps him destroy our rule of law. Great job republicans.
Click to expand...

Well, it stopped the only one with any significance. After 2 years, 30 million spent, thousands of subpoenas, and hundreds of witnesses, The Attorney General states no collusion, no obstruction so that case is closed. Now if you want to move forward with an investigation or Impeachment motion with no criminal charges in the wake of every witness already deposed, and every document provided, best of luck on that front. You might get a few Loony Liberals in the house to go along but that will be the end of it.

As for Trump being such a horrible man. I will take his economy, stock market, unemployment, and 5 million new jobs over anything Democrats have offered in over 60 years.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
- Mueller’s job was to investigate and report his findings to the AG, period. Mueller’s job was not to make recommendations for or against prosecuting the president. As Mueller was a Justice Department employee, he was bound by the existing OLC rule that precludes indicting a sitting president. Understanding that very important point, Mueller chose not to make any judgment as to his belief of the president’s guilt or innocence because he believed it unfair (and un-Constitutional) to accuse the president without offering him legal recourse to defend himself.

Seriously, how friggin hard is it to understand that?

- Justice Department and Congress are not bound together to investigate or charge the president.
Click to expand...

The OLC guidance states that a sitting president has immunity from prosecution. However, it also says that impeachment is entirely Constitutional and is the appropriate method for dealing with a president who has committed a criminal act. Nowhere in those 39 pages does it say that the president can't be accused of criminal activity, can't be investigated for criminal acts or can't have the findings of such an investigation brought to the appropriate committees in the House and Senate.

With regard to it not being Mueller's job to make recommendations regarding criminal acts, that's an absurd argument to make. He did exactly that in the first half of his report. The fact that he chose not to do that in the second half of his report has nothing to do with the OLC advice. It really looks like he used the OLC memo as a cop out.
 
Lutherf said:
The OLC guidance states that a sitting president has immunity from prosecution. However, it also says that impeachment is entirely Constitutional and is the appropriate method for dealing with a president who has committed a criminal act. Nowhere in those 39 pages does it say that the president can't be accused of criminal activity, can't be investigated for criminal acts or can't have the findings of such an investigation brought to the appropriate committees in the House and Senate.

With regard to it not being Mueller's job to make recommendations regarding criminal acts, that's an absurd argument to make. He did exactly that in the first half of his report. The fact that he chose not to do that in the second half of his report has nothing to do with the OLC advice. It really looks like he used the OLC memo as a cop out.
Click to expand...

I find it so amazing how these Liberals will just cling to anything no matter what the law states. They have no understanding of how a special counsel works but will tell you how it works in their minds and you should just accept it because its what they believe. They actually think you hire a special counsel, spend 30 million but at the end of the day, this special counsel can't tell you they found criminal activities.

Where in the hell do these idiots come from
 
Condor060 said:
I find it so amazing how these Liberals will just cling to anything no matter what the law states. They have no understanding of how a special counsel works but will tell you how it works in their minds and you should just accept it because its what they believe. They actually think you hire a special counsel, spend 30 million but at the end of the day, this special counsel can't tell you they found criminal activities.

Where in the hell do these idiots come from
Click to expand...

I don't know that they're "idiots" exactly. A lot of people simply have a deep seated emotional aversion to Trump. He scares them and they want to get rid of him. To that end, they are willing to grab on to anything that resembles an opportunity for their "salvation".
 
Lutherf said:
The OLC guidance states that a sitting president has immunity from prosecution. However, it also says that impeachment is entirely Constitutional and is the appropriate method for dealing with a president who has committed a criminal act. Nowhere in those 39 pages does it say that the president can't be accused of criminal activity, can't be investigated for criminal acts or can't have the findings of such an investigation brought to the appropriate committees in the House and Senate.

With regard to it not being Mueller's job to make recommendations regarding criminal acts, that's an absurd argument to make. He did exactly that in the first half of his report. The fact that he chose not to do that in the second half of his report has nothing to do with the OLC advice. It really looks like he used the OLC memo as a cop out.
Click to expand...
At the risk of being redundant, Mueller explained in both his written report, and in person on Wednesday why he chose not make a determination. His reasoning makes perfect sense. It isn’t right or Constitutional to make an accusation that cannot be defended against by the accused. Regardless, it was Barr’s choice ultimately to decide if criminal charges were warranted.

Congress operates separate from the Justice Department and is free to do it's duty irrespective of the Mueller report.

Reread Mueller’s Mueller’s language regarding the outcome of the conspiracy side of the investigation. He doesn’t make any accusations or recommendations. He simply says there’s no reason to investigate conspiracy any further. Pay close attention to the language used.
 
Condor060 said:
So now you know more than Barr does, Got it. Still waiting on those differences between special and independent counsel claims.
Click to expand...

How did you miss Thorgasm's post 13. It links to a video where Rod Rosenstein makes that differentiation. Which is: "A judge appointed Ken Star the independent counsel, and as such the independent counsel is NOT accountable to the DOJ. I appointed the special council which made him accountable to DOJ rules and Regulations."

Condor060 said:
Only difference is accountability to the DOJ. Nothing here precludes Mueller from recommending criminal activities to the AG
Click to expand...

EXCEPT the DOJ's position that a sitting President can NOT be indicted.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
At the risk of being redundant, Mueller explained in both his written report, and in person on Wednesday why he chose not make a determination. His reasoning makes perfect sense. It isn’t right or Constitutional to make an accusation that cannot be defended against by the accused. Regardless, it was Barr’s choice ultimately to decide if criminal charges were warranted.

Congress operates separate from the Justice Department and is free to do it's duty irrespective of the Mueller report.

Reread Mueller’s Mueller’s language regarding the outcome of the conspiracy side of the investigation. He doesn’t make any accusations or recommendations. He simply says there’s no reason to investigate conspiracy any further. Pay close attention to the language used.
Click to expand...

Its not that I disagree with your statement. The problem exist where no criminal referrals were made by Mueller as no evidence exist to support them. Instead of just stating those facts, Mueller tried to convince everyone he couldn't make a criminal referral because of the OLC. This isn't a true statment and has already been confirmed by Barr. All this did was gin up all these individuals who just live to take down Trump and this will now go on for months.

Forget about Trump or the existence of criminal or non criminal activities for a second. What is the result of Mueller making this BS statement? Millions will be spent, nothing in Nadlers committee is going to addresses our border emergencies, and we will have more separation between the parties. Thats the big problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top Bottom