What does the right think will happen when their president talks to Mueller in three weeks.

[apdst]

That didn't in any way contradict what I said. Anyway, I can see I'm just entering another apdst rathole, so I'll just bow out with the hope that trump's lawyers are as uninformed as yourself.

Well, of course it did. Report to your Daily KOS handler and he will explain how you cocked it up.

 

[Mycroft]

Yeah that or prison time for trump and company....

Oh...I know a lot of people WISH that'll happen, but I don't see it happening at all.

 

[Rexedgar]

That didn't in any way contradict what I said. Anyway, I can see I'm just entering another apdst rathole, so I'll just bow out with the hope that trump's lawyers are as uninformed as yourself.

At least you learned that! :2razz:

 

[GDViking]

So you guys are all turgid hoping for a process crime?


You know the guy spent half his life being deposed in various lawsuits. Don't think it's going to work out the way you are hoping for.

No he will not go down for a process
Crime. He is going down for high crimes and treason. Tbe process crime will only be more evidence.

 

[Cardinal]

No he will not go down for a process
Crime. He is going down for high crimes and treason. Tbe process crime will only be more evidence.

Treason in a legal sense refers to giving aid and comfort to an enemy in time of war [with that enemy]. We're not at war with Russia so if anybody goes down for a crime it won't be treason. Fun fact: nobody's been convicted of treason since around WWII, and those cases had to do with treason vis-a-vis abetting Japan and Germany. Not one single American was convicted of treason throughout the entire Cold War.

 

[GDViking]

Oh...I know a lot of people WISH that'll happen, but I don't see it happening at all.

Really there are already four going in that direction do you really believe that is the end of the chain gain???

 

[GDViking]

Treason in a legal sense refers to giving aid and comfort to an enemy in time of war [with that enemy]. We're not at war with Russia so if anybody goes down for a crime it won't be treason. Fun fact: nobody's been convicted of treason since around WWII, and those cases had to do with treason vis-a-vis abetting Japan and Germany. Not one single American was convicted of treason throughout the entire Cold War.

Very true, I doubt he will be convicted of actual treason as we are only legally at war with north Korea. However I do not know the proper legal term for an American coordinating with a hostile foreign country to influence our election.

I am not a lawyer so maybe you can tell me what the correct wording of the charge should be.

 

[Cardinal]

Very true, I doubt he will be convicted of actual treason as we are only legally at war with north Korea. However I do not know the proper legal term for an American coordinating with a hostile foreign country to influence our election.

I am not a lawyer so maybe you can tell me what the correct wording of the charge should be.

There are multiple charges that could be brought as a result of the scope of the investigation, including money laundering, obstruction of justice, and no doubt a bit of lying to the FBI along the way, an act that appears to have been quite popular among the Trump campaign and administration.

On the point of collusion: collusion...in and of itself...isn't actually a crime. However, there are certainly other crimes that may have been committed along the way, such as violation of the computer Fraud and Abuse Act, conspiracy to commit a computer crime, and the somewhat nebulous conspiracy to defraud the United States by coordinating with Russia.

"Collusion is not a crime, but basically the criminal equivalent is conspiracy," said former federal prosecutor Randall Eliason. "You could have a conspiracy to defraud the U.S. by interfering with our election."

While all the above crimes are serious, the results of any charges will be largely political: will Congress and the public deem any of those crimes meaningful? If Mueller concludes that Trump was only guilty of lying to the FBI, Congressional Republicans will most likely shrug and dismiss it as irrelevant (don't get worked up over the hypocrisy -- you'll just upset yourself). Violation of computer fraud and abuse is somewhat bigger, but still nebulous and the public will most likely not call for heads to roll. Conspiracy against the United States is better yet, but still rather nebulous. The truth is that for any meaningful result to come out of the investigation, Mueller will need to prove crimes that the public at large can wrap its head around -- crimes that can't just be spun as "process crimes." Obstruction of Justice is one, as abuse of power is something most people can understand. Even more meaningful is money laundering. That's straight-up mob stuff and the public is going to understand that one very well. I'm in the camp that believes that if Mueller is ultimately able to take down Trump, it will because of that one.

Collusion is not a crime by itself. Here are the charges Mueller could be exploring. - Chicago Tribune

Trump is also violating the Emoluments Clause in open sight, but that's extremely unlikely to fall within Mueller's purview so I wouldn't bet on seeing any results on that front.

 

[Mycroft]

Really there are already four going in that direction do you really believe that is the end of the chain gain???

Yeah...I think Mueller has gotten all he's going to get, which isn't much.

 

[GDViking]

There are multiple charges that could be brought as a result of the scope of the investigation, including money laundering, obstruction of justice, and no doubt a bit of lying to the FBI along the way, an act that appears to have been quite popular among the Trump campaign and administration.

On the point of collusion: collusion...in and of itself...isn't actually a crime. However, there are certainly other crimes that may have been committed along the way, such as violation of the computer Fraud and Abuse Act, conspiracy to commit a computer crime, and the somewhat nebulous conspiracy to defraud the United States by coordinating with Russia.

"Collusion is not a crime, but basically the criminal equivalent is conspiracy," said former federal prosecutor Randall Eliason. "You could have a conspiracy to defraud the U.S. by interfering with our election."

While all the above crimes are serious, the results of any charges will be largely political: will Congress and the public deem any of those crimes meaningful? If Mueller concludes that Trump was only guilty of lying to the FBI, Congressional Republicans will most likely shrug and dismiss it as irrelevant (don't get worked up over the hypocrisy -- you'll just upset yourself). Violation of computer fraud and abuse is somewhat bigger, but still nebulous and the public will most likely not call for heads to roll. Conspiracy against the United States is better yet, but still rather nebulous. The truth is that for any meaningful result to come out of the investigation, Mueller will need to prove crimes that the public at large can wrap its head around -- crimes that can't just be spun as "process crimes." Obstruction of Justice is one, as abuse of power is something most people can understand. Even more meaningful is money laundering. That's straight-up mob stuff and the public is going to understand that one very well. I'm in the camp that believes that if something ultimately takes down Trump, it will be that one.

Collusion is not a crime by itself. Here are the charges Mueller could be exploring. - Chicago Tribune

Trump is also violating the Emoluments Clause in open sight, but that's extremely unlikely to fall within Mueller's purview so I wouldn't bet on seeing any results on that front.

Thank you that was a very good assessment of where we are currently at.

 

[Cardinal]

Very true, I doubt he will be convicted of actual treason as we are only legally at war with north Korea. However I do not know the proper legal term for an American coordinating with a hostile foreign country to influence our election.

I am not a lawyer so maybe you can tell me what the correct wording of the charge should be.

Also, let me just add that everybody who wants Trump out of power should look upon the Mueller investigation as nothing more than a side show: you have no say over what the investigation turns up, you have no control over how long the investigation lasts, and you have no control over how Congress will respond to the investigation's findings. This is completely and utterly out of your hands.

If you want Republicans gone, then the mindset you need to adopt is that it will be up to voters to mob the voting booths this November and vote them out. If you operate under the mindset that Mueller is coming to your rescue, you will be lost.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

No he will not go down for a process
Crime. He is going down for high crimes and treason. Tbe process crime will only be more evidence.

Any day now. Right?

 

[SirGareth]

You should let Mueller know. He only has 28 years of law experience and 12 years of being an FBI director, so he probably hasn't heard that obstruction of justice isn't a crime.

With his vast experience in law enforcement he can ask Trump if his wife is a good lay as well as ask why he fired Comey; Trump's answer will be the same: None of your GD business.

The FBI director serves "at the pleasure" of Trump, and if Trump didn't like the way Comey parted his hair that's a good enough reason to fire him. He can also ask Comey who he voted for in the last election as well ask Comey if he will be loyal to him.

Sorry, but thems are the rules for "political appointments" and the FBI as well as the AG are "political appointments"

If Mueller doesn't know this he is as mal-informed as you are.

The President has held the power to appoint and dismiss the director of the FBI at his or her discretion since 1968.

The current nomination and confirmation process for the FBI director was created by an amendment to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. The amendment established that the position of FBI director was to be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

Congress can also remove an FBI director by impeachment if it so chooses. Under Article II of the Constitution, the Senate can remove any civil officer if it convicts him of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" with a two-thirds vote.

 

[SirGareth]

Mueller's interview will be a perjury trap. Mueller already has gathered all the evidence. Now he wants Trump to lie under oath.

Mueller already has Flynn talking and probably providing proof. Now if Trump contradicts Flynn under oath and there is proof Trump is lying, it's perjury. And it's not like Clinton's perjury about a sexual affair. It's perjury about an investigation into a political matter.

This interview will absolutely never happen unless Trump is an idiot. Ok, Trump is an idiot but I think his lawyers will tackle him and prevent him from totally screwing himself.

You are overplaying this. If the "Russian collusion" BS turns out to be what we already know it is, ie the fraudulent criminal use of government agencies to spy on political opponents, then Obama and crew will be lawyering up while this impeach Trump BS goes nowhere.

If Trump lies about an affair with a chorus girl there is no "perjury trap" since the entire reason for the special prosecutor was obtained by fraudulent means

The principle is called "the fruit of the poisonous tree" (fraudulent mean cannot be used to convict anyone, regardless of guilt)

 

[Roadvirus]

Presidents didn't like Hoover being there, but thought he had too much political power to get rid of.

Not "thought". Knew. He held their dirty laundry over their heads...more so JFK and his sexcapades.

 

[Vetplus40]

The "Trumpsters" will simnply say: "FAKE NEWS"1............LMAO

 

[chuckiechan]

The reason Nixon was fired because the MSM was telling the story and the Republicans turned on him, Nixon burned 18 minutes off his own tape recorder, that was why he was impeached. Clinton bit-bleached 30,000 subpoenaed emails but it was an "accident" and besides her intentions were really good in destroying evidence. Nixon did not fire any FBI director

Trump can fire any FBI director he wants to for any reason he wants to or no reason at all. He doesn't own an explanation to anyone for doing so and if the corrupt deep state Mueller asks him why he did, Trump only needs to tell him: "none of your f'ing business, now what's your next question a-hole?"

If he is not charge with a crime, his lawyer can have his client only answer questions to do with the crime he is investigating. IOW, there never was a crime, just an investigation to find one.

 

[Manc Skipper]

He won't talk to Mueller. Not willingly. He's already backing off from his promise suggesting his legal team won't let him. If his legal team has any common sense they won't ever let him. He'll go down, but in a different way.

 

[gdgyva]

Mueller's interview will be a perjury trap. Mueller already has gathered all the evidence. Now he wants Trump to lie under oath.

Mueller already has Flynn talking and probably providing proof. Now if Trump contradicts Flynn under oath and there is proof Trump is lying, it's perjury. And it's not like Clinton's perjury about a sexual affair. It's perjury about an investigation into a political matter.

This interview will absolutely never happen unless Trump is an idiot. Ok, Trump is an idiot but I think his lawyers will tackle him and prevent him from totally screwing himself.

This

The interview will not occur....at least under oath

No way his attorneys are opening him up tp process issues