Let The Investigations Begin

How many indictments in 8 years of Obama? Originally Posted by themystic

A dead ambassador and three dead heroes.

A dead ambassador and three dead heroes. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

How many FBI agents lost their jobs?

How many indictments in 8 years of Obama? Originally Posted by themystic

Obama DOJ was never going to indict and convict any of their allies for wrong doing. they gave them a pass.


-- the firearms walking thing which got an agent killed. anyone get punished for that??? nope.


-- illegal suppression of the tea party groups by the IRS. anyone get punished for that? nope!


they are couple of other ones tho I forget what.

The thread title is "Let The Investigations Begin".
If you want to rehash old ones, go back to other threads or start new ones.

If the past investigations are bothering you, blame the repubs.
And of course, it's asking too much for a presumption of innocence.
Because somewhere, sometime, someone went against what the Constitution says. So now y'all are justified in talking shit about the Constitution, forever, but only when it supports your view.

And PS,

I pray to God they don't find any collusion at all. All the trumpys will squeal with delight. It will be something they can continue to say.
It won't be collusion that rips the bottom out of this boat. Collusion is way too tough to prove. I believe they have decided not to go with that charge and go with one trump has already talked himself into a sticky wicket.

Remember, that's just the Russia investigation. There are all kinds of other shit.

So what? Is collusion the only charge you think will fuck trump?

none of it related to russian collusion. try again. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

There are all kinds of other shit. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

In violation of U.S. law which requires that there has be a crime committed before a special council is named.

28 CFR § 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel. The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted

And Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein said he'd found no such crime when he appointed Mueller:

“My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted."

A dead ambassador and three dead heroes. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

I like live heroes, not the dead ones. The Military failed to do their job. They had an investigation

Why didn't you include the whole quote?
I believe the term for you is disingenuous.

"In my capacity as acting Attorney General, I determined that it is in the public interest for me to exercise my authority and appoint a Special Counsel to assume responsibility for this matter,” said Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein. “My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination. What I have determined is that based upon the unique circumstances, the public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree of independence from the normal chain of command.

Nice try.

In violation of U.S. law which requires that there has be a crime committed before a special council is named.



And Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein said he'd found no such crime when he appointed Mueller: Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Why didn't you include the whole quote?
I believe the term for you is disingenuous.

"In my capacity as acting Attorney General, I determined that it is in the public interest for me to exercise my authority and appoint a Special Counsel to assume responsibility for this matter,” said Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein. “My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination. What I have determined is that based upon the unique circumstances, the public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree of independence from the normal chain of command.

Nice try.
Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

It's trivially obvious to see that the relevant and important part of Rosenstein's remark was quoted. The part where he admitted that he couldn't identify an articulable crime as required by the Federal statute that mandates that the crime has to be stipulated before a special prosecutor can be legally appointed.

Hence, the Mueller investigation is unlawful, as no crime was identified.

Pretty straight forward.
"Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel. The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted." He decided it was warranted.

The most important part is the reason used to make the decision. Even though you don't consider the reasoning behind the decision to be important, since it doesn't support your erroneous conclusion, it is never the less the reason he made the decision he did.
As for the legality of the appointment, your opinion is duly noted as well as being not relevant in this case. Or any case I'm aware of.

It's trivially obvious to see that the relevant and important part of Rosenstein's remark was quoted. The part where he admitted that he couldn't identify an articulable crime as required by the Federal statute that mandates that the crime has to be stipulated before a special prosecutor can be legally appointed.

Hence, the Mueller investigation is unlawful, as no crime was identified. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

let's boil this down to the essential stew ...

ILLEGAL/UNAUTHORIZED WITCH HUNT!!!

Pretty straight forward.
"Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel. The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted." He decided it was warranted.

The most important part is the reason used to make the decision. Even though you don't consider the reasoning behind the decision to be important, since it doesn't support your erroneous conclusion, it is never the less the reason he

made the decision he did.
As for the legality of the appointment, your opinion is duly noted as well as being not relevant in this case. Or any case I'm aware of. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

let's boil this down to the essential stew ...

ILLEGAL/UNAUTHORIZED WITCH HUNT!!!


BAHAHAHAAHAHAHAA

Pretty straight forward.
"Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel. The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted." He decided it was warranted.

The most important part is the reason used to make the decision. Even though you don't consider the reasoning behind the decision to be important, since it doesn't support your erroneous conclusion, it is never the less the reason he made the decision he did.
As for the legality of the appointment, your opinion is duly noted as well as being not relevant in this case. Or any case I'm aware of. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Quaint how you deceitfully ignored Rosenstein's remark about having found no "crimes ... or that any prosecution is warranted" on which to justify -- as required by the statute -- the appointment of a Special Counsel to conduct a criminal investigation.

To hell with all the Bolshevik zionists. We need to round em up and gas em with zyklon B.

Wrong.

There is no requirement for proof of a crime. That's what investigations are for.
From the statute you posted.


§ 600.2 Alternatives available to the Attorney
General.
When matters are brought to the attention
of the Attorney General that
might warrant consideration of appointment
of a Special Counsel, the Attorney
General may:
(a) Appoint a Special Counsel;
(b) Direct that an initial investigation,
consisting of such factual inquiry
or legal research as the Attorney General
deems appropriate, be conducted
in order to better inform the decision;
or
(c) Conclude that under the circumstances
of the matter, the public
interest would not be served by removing
the investigation from the normal
processes of the Department, and that
the appropriate component of the Department
should handle the matter. If
the Attorney General reaches this conclusion,
he or she may direct that appropriate
steps be taken to mitigate
any conflicts of interest, such as
recusal of particular officials

You claiming the investigation is illegal doesn't make it so.

Quaint how you deceitfully ignored Rosenstein's remark about having found no "crimes ... or that any prosecution is warranted" on which to justify -- as required by the statute -- the appointment of a Special Counsel to conduct a criminal investigation. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Wrong.

There is no requirement for proof of a crime. That's what investigations are for.
From the statute you posted.


§ 600.2 Alternatives available to the Attorney
General.
When matters are brought to the attention
of the Attorney General that
might warrant consideration of appointment
of a Special Counsel, the Attorney
General may:
(a) Appoint a Special Counsel;
(b) Direct that an initial investigation,
consisting of such factual inquiry
or legal research as the Attorney General
deems appropriate, be conducted
in order to better inform the decision;
or
(c) Conclude that under the circumstances
of the matter, the public
interest would not be served by removing
the investigation from the normal
processes of the Department, and that
the appropriate component of the Department
should handle the matter. If
the Attorney General reaches this conclusion,
he or she may direct that appropriate
steps be taken to mitigate
any conflicts of interest, such as
recusal of particular officials

You claiming the investigation is illegal doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

No. You're wrong. The government cannot launch a "criminal investigation" with out naming the "crime" any more than the government can obtain a search warrant without specifying the specific purpose for the search warrant.