Mid-air Collusion (Mueller Thread v. 19)

Status
Not open for further replies.
You're dodging the fundamental question: what specific circumstances justify the appointment of special counsel?

If it's clear to LangfordBarrow than a special counsel should be appointed? Should we also make foreign policy and tax policy this way?

The West has traditionally been strong in large part because it did a better job of adhering to rules/structure than other regions. It seems like you're happy to throw away procedure in favor of going after your political opponents based on feelings.


"Federal law makes it a crime for any person to "solicit, accept or receive" a contribution or "anything of value" from a foreign person for a U.S. political campaign or "for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office."

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-russians-legal-analysis-20170711-story.html#
 
You don't just randomly investigate people for some crime or another.

This happens all the time in nations with weak or no legal restrictions on what qualifies as "evidence". How do you think Lee Kuan Yew kept his iron grip on political power for so long? Any time a promising political prospect emerged, the government would find "evidence" to launch an investigation into that prospect.
 
None of us know the details of what evidence Mueller is acting on, or where the investigation is going to end up. But Trump could not act more like a guilty person, from everything he says. That's not evidence of any kind, but it is a strong indicator. Anybody, in any circumstance, who acts like he does regarding an investigation involving himself, would be seen by any unbiased person as giving off strong signals of guilt.

Several top Republicans did say that there was good reason to continue Mueller's investigation, after seeing what was presented to them in private. We have no idea what they saw, but it must have been pretty convincing.

We can argue all year long about it, but we will all have to wait and see where it leads. Until then, it's all speculation on our part.
that is true I am so glad we have so many running threads on this topic all the daily speculation tweets have done wonders I can't wait until V.20
 
We aren't even having the same conversation at this point.

My question to you was: who gets to decide if it's "enough evidence"?

Since you have repeatedly refused to even attempt to answer, I'm assuming the answer is: whatever Langford Barrow deems "enough evidence" is enough evidence. No legal standard required, let's just shoot Langford Barrow a Sherdog PM every time we're not sure.

Imagine if we ran the rest of our government this way:

No need to have laws about when the death penalty is applicable, we'll just call up Langford Barrow and ask him if we should bust a cap in that guy's ass.

No need to have speed limits. After a fatal traffic accident, we'll send Langford Barrow a PM and ask him if the driver was going too fast for Barrow's taste.

Now you are just being absurd.....
 
Like paying a foreign ex spy agent to gather intel from Russia on a candidate ? Damn she and the DNC in trouble



I'm still waiting on President Trump to keep his word on this...

You want some Grey Poupon on your nothingburger whilst we wait?
 
We aren't even having the same conversation at this point.

My question to you was: who gets to decide if it's "enough evidence"?

Since you have repeatedly refused to even attempt to answer, I'm assuming the answer is: whatever Langford Barrow deems "enough evidence" is enough evidence. No legal standard required, let's just shoot Langford Barrow a Sherdog PM every time we're not sure.

Imagine if we ran the rest of our government this way:

No need to have laws about when the death penalty is applicable, we'll just call up Langford Barrow and ask him if we should bust a cap in that guy's ass.

No need to have speed limits. After a fatal traffic accident, we'll send Langford Barrow a PM and ask him if the driver was going too fast for Barrow's taste.
Very weak. The AG gets to decide, or his deputy if the AG is has been shown be unreliable, who both happen to be a Trump appointees.
 
The AG gets to decide, or his deputy

Correct. You appear to be endorsing this system. In the future, this system might harm someone you like. At that point, you will flip sides to oppose the system and I will welcome you to my side.
 
This happens all the time in nations with weak or no legal restrictions on what qualifies as "evidence". How do you think Lee Kuan Yew kept his iron grip on political power for so long? Any time a promising political prospect emerged, the government would find "evidence" to launch an investigation into that prospect.
I'm not really interested in that guy. We're talking about this specific case.
 
I'm not really interested in that guy. We're talking about this specific case.
I mean this with no malice. I think you are better suited to living in a dictatorship. The views you are expressing are anti-American, where "American" refers to the principles on which the United States of America was founded---limited government, protection of individual liberties, separation of powers, federalism.
 
Correct. You appear to be endorsing this system. In the future, this system might harm someone you like. At that point, you will flip sides to oppose the system and I will welcome you to my side.
No. Investigate the person I like. If he's guilty I will stop liking him.
 
No. Investigate the person I like. If he's guilty I will stop liking him.
Investigate him....for any reason that the AG gives, and with an unlimited purview? It's easy for you to say that now, but I think you would change your tune were this scenario to occur.
 
High-quality post. Would read again.

You are doing nothing but spewing nebulous nonsense, as if someone, at some point, has to be the decider on certain issues. It is childish, on your part, to sit here and pretend as if the AG, or anyone else has unlimited purview. Hilarious actually.
 
You are doing nothing but spewing nebulous nonsense, as if someone, at some point, has to be the decider on certain issues. It is childish, on your part, to sit here and pretend as if the AG, or anyone else has unlimited purview. Hilarious actually.
I never said the AG has unlimited purview.

Have you actually read the Rosenstein's order appointing Mueller? Mueller's purview is infinite.
 


I'm still waiting on President Trump to keep his word on this...

You want some Grey Poupon on your nothingburger whilst we wait?

Wasn't that about her mishandling classified emails being deleted, servers being acid washed, devices being destroyed by hammers along with her staff having a few immunity deals?
 
Wasn't that about her mishandling classified emails being deleted, servers being acid washed, devices being destroyed by hammers along with her staff having a few immunity deals?

You would think that would be enough for Trump to keep his word, and for an investigation to find lots of wrongdoing. What happened?
 


I'm still waiting on President Trump to keep his word on this...

You want some Grey Poupon on your nothingburger whilst we wait?


They support a senile cunt who literally is against working out and eats his steaks well done. Luckily the cunt baby boomers who raised them are going to die soon and they'll find themselves alone in an alien land. Our revenge will be the jajajajas of the children.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top