FBI raids office of Michael Cohen, personal attorney to Donald Trump

Status
Not open for further replies.
Real talk: only personal action by the AG can remove a Special Counsel, and it requires an actual valid reason. So we shall see what kind of fuckery ensues when the Trumpster finally flips the switch.
 
Classic bully mentality: "lock her up", constantly insult everyone, and then act like a victim when the tables get turned.
 
Surely you see how ridiculous you've been sounding throughout this thread.

No, I don't see. Tell me how ridiculous. Super ridiculous? Mega ridiculous? Dare I say...SAVAGE ridiculous?

You're basically saying that instead of operating according to the law and precedent, we need to radically change our system before we can look into corruption at the WH

No, I did not write that. The current investigation should continue or---as Alan Dershowitz has proposed---a nonpartisan commission should be established in its stead. Even if we were to amend the current system while the Mueller investigation is ongoing, I would advocate that the changes only apply going forward.

All of this said, it must be noted that Trump does have the legal authority to fire Mueller. He would probably face political consequences. All of this is more evidence supporting Dershowitz's view.

If you want to say that after the Mueller investigation concludes, we should change the process for investigating presidents, that would be a more reasonable argument

That's exactly my argument. It's also Dershowitz's argument.

It's also comical that the same people who were supportive of Republicans conducting eight separate investigations into the same matter in unsuccessful attempt to find wrongdoing by their opponent in the presidential election (zero indictments) are now freaking out about mission creep (which, NB, isn't like the Benghazi investigations in that they changed course after failing to find anything but is expanding after investigators have found multiple indications of criminal activity).

I completely agree. However, I will quibble with your final statement. We don't know the different directions Mueller has done in any detail because he's conducting a secretive investigation.
 
Last edited:
No, I understand, but Dershowitz is being totally impractical about how the justice system ought to be, Rosenstein had to work within the structure of the justice system.
Impractical? What's impractical about dividing the Justice Department into prosecutorial and advisory wings? The UK and Israel do the same thing.

Rosenstein did not "have to" do anything. Most of the voting public was already upset about the Comey firing. A nonpartisan commission could have been set up by the acting AG and Congress. This would have been similar to the 9/11 commission in scope, authority, and transparency.
 
No, I did not write that. The current investigation should continue or---as Alan Dershowitz has proposed---a nonpartisan commission should be established in its stead. Even if we were to amend the current system while the Mueller investigation is ongoing, I would advocate that the changes only apply going forward.

All of this said, it must be noted that Trump does have the legal authority to fire Mueller. He would probably face political consequences. All of this is more evidence supporting Dershowitz's view.

So we agree that the investigation should continue, and Trump attempting to stop it would essentially be an attack on rule of law in America?

Even if so, most of your posts in this thread have been attempts to minimize the findings and the possible corruption involved here.
 

giphy.gif
 
So we agree that the investigation should continue
Yes, although I would prefer that it be suspended so that a nonpartisan commission could take over. That's Dershowitz's suggestion.

Trump attempting to stop it would essentially be an attack on rule of law in America

No. Trump has that authority. It would be an "attack on the rule of law" only if Bill Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich had been the same. Both are cases of the president wielding his executive authority.
 
Yes, although I would prefer that it be suspended so that a nonpartisan commission could take over. That's Dershowitz's suggestion.



No. Trump has that authority. It would be an "attack on the rule of law" only if Bill Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich had been the same. Both are cases of the president wielding his executive authority.
Well now we know that at least one of Trumps legal advisors posts on teh Sherdogz
 
Yes, although I would prefer that it be suspended so that a nonpartisan commission could take over. That's Dershowitz's suggestion.
Yeah, good luck finding that when Mueller, Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein - all life long Republicans are considered liberal partisans out to get Trump now. "Non-partisan" only means people who think Trump is pure as the driven snow, otherwise your a liberal hack or deep state minion out to get him.
 
So we agree that the investigation should continue, and Trump attempting to stop it would essentially be an attack on rule of law in America?

Even if so, most of your posts in this thread have been attempts to minimize the findings and the possible corruption involved here.
IohlvB4.jpg
 
Yes, although I would prefer that it be suspended so that a nonpartisan commission could take over. That's Dershowitz's suggestion.

Do you believe that any investigation that finds criminal activity would be acknowledged to be nonpartisan by Trump and his defenders (Dershowitz being one)?

No. Trump has that authority. It would be an "attack on the rule of law" only if Bill Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich had been the same. Both are cases of the president wielding his executive authority.

So your view is that all "wielding of executive authority" is equal?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top