So, Mueller, What Say You?

Nov 10, 2010
2,819
1,133
113
UT
#2
That is the problem with a special prosecutor he can look and look and look until he finds something. Even if it is totally unrelated.
 

supercorndogs

Professor Dickweed
Feb 17, 2014
2,333
488
83
#9
I saw a story earlier that Mueller was going to focus on other aspects of his probe. I thought they might be trying to get out in front of something like this.
 

ArmyJerry

Staff Sergeant
Nov 22, 2012
5,054
3,047
113
54
#10
He is the cleaner for the democrat crimes, he is actually uncovering evidence on Hilary and tying it up so it cant be investigated by others who want to hang that cunt.
 
Last edited:
Feb 14, 2017
792
90
28
AR
#11
It's a fucking joke, if every dipshit in the MSM knows about it (collusion), and the Special Counsel can't find jack shit for proof..................................
 
Jan 28, 2011
2,639
408
83
GA
#12
See you now; Your bait of falsehood takes this carp of truth,
And thus do we of wisdom and of reach,
With windlasses and with assays of bias,
By indirections find directions out.


- Hamlet Act 2 Scene 1, by William Shakespeare

The argument by Schiff, et al is that Russia liked/preferred Trump. This may or may not be true but it is not the same thing as collusion.

What has gotten my attention is the speed and off-handedness with which Mueller has dropped the Russia part of the Russia investigation. Mueller packaged that segment into an indictment that holds no teeth, has no future, put the indicted on notice to steer clear of anything that might put them in danger of being served a subpoena, and dropped that package out the window. To pound upon the weight of that package, these are the people who are alleged to have actually done the meddling at the behest of the Kremlin. Chew on that for a moment. It's as if he was dumping excess baggage to go after something more pressing.

Recall that Mueller's mandate includes an examination of "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." This has the sound of a grand fishing expedition. The indicted Russians are left safely bobbing in the wake of the SS Mueller as it sails into the distance and probes the waters of political intrigue I can only imagine their relief. My question is whether or not they are surprised. And we are left to continue wondering what it is that Mueller is after.

I have heard from the left that Mueller is making a go of tracing the origins of Russia's interest in the Trump campaign to determine whether Moscow holds any leverage over Trump or his associates. The primary source of that supposed leverage is video of Trump going at it with Russian models. This too may or may not be true but it is not the same thing as collusion. This is the Stormy Daniels gambit, and it is not playing very well to the audience.

I have zero doubt that someone will be held to account for something in the aftermath of all of this. But I hope that at some point Mueller will be held to account for not going after the indicted Russians. He and his apologizers will likely say that he did what prosecutors do and could not have been expected to do any more than wave some toilet paper in the air under the guise of legal action. That paper waiving was either surrender to a foreign power or warning them off.
 
Last edited:

FS1

Sergeant
Mar 24, 2014
1,818
1,272
113
Earth
#13
Hillary is in India bad mouthing Red States and Republicans. I think she either got her target letter or her associates have been being interviewed by someone and they clued her in. Hillary sees the walls closing in and is getting bitchy or at least bitchier than normal. The IG report is supposed to drop soon that will tell us a lot. I don't think the report will drop till they have an Ironclad case. There will be a lightning strike and then years of slow rolling thunder. JMHO
 

Rthur

Philomath
Apr 16, 2010
6,034
2,031
113
49
Divernon, Illinios
#18
Mueller is a rat in a stable.
He will scratch and pick until he finds a discarded and forgotten kernel covered in shit, lick it clean, and then declare himself victorious.
Metamucil has painted himself into a 5 cornered room.
He has had relevance and is clutching tightly to rumor and innuendo.
I believe he labors under the thought that if he can deliver a large blow to Trump he's a shoe in for 2020.

R
 
Oct 17, 2009
267
161
43
Shelbyville, TN
#19
For a special prosecutor to be appointed, an actual crime must be suspected. The only time "collusion" apperars in the legal code is anti-trust law.

What is the underlying "crime" being investigated?
 
Likes: FatBoy

ArmyJerry

Staff Sergeant
Nov 22, 2012
5,054
3,047
113
54
#20
None, no crime at all, its a coup, when they go to remove trump it will be game on. I hope they cuff him soon. The silliness will end shortly afterwards. So many problems will be solved in a short period of time.
 

FS1

Sergeant
Mar 24, 2014
1,818
1,272
113
Earth
#21
There are crimes, but not Trumps. We only know what Mueller wants us to know. Let him finish. The end will show whether Mueller is a good guy or bad guy. I still have hope. But I am prepared to be wrong.
 

ArmyJerry

Staff Sergeant
Nov 22, 2012
5,054
3,047
113
54
#22
There were no crimes until Mueller entrapped people by corrupting the law even more. This is an Overt Coup Attempt against a duly elected president of the United States. The second they cuffs clip on his wrists the world as they think they know it will end.
 
Jul 29, 2012
230
15
18
39
Las Vegas, NV
#23
Conway's report is little more than G.O.P. sucking up to President Trump and doesn't reflect either the full findings or analysis of the committee. Bunch of bullshit.
 

ArmyJerry

Staff Sergeant
Nov 22, 2012
5,054
3,047
113
54
#24
Who cares what the report says, there is no crime here, and none alleged against Trump, the question is why is there an investigation? What crime is alleged?

The only actual crimes I see here are all committed by Obama, Killary, and the FBI. Lying to courts, destroying evidence, perjury, leaking classified info.
 

Veer_G

The Cunning Linguist
Jun 15, 2008
7,818
4,119
113
SEPA
#25
None, no crime at all, its a coup, when they go to remove trump it will be game on. I hope they cuff him soon. The silliness will end shortly afterwards. So many problems will be solved in a short period of time.
Droopie Dawg* will be in shortly to tell you that you're a bad, bad revolutionary.


* Bang Bang Blat Blat -> BBBB -> Quadruple B -> 'Drup B -> Droopie -> Droopie Dog
 
Likes: ArmyJerry

ArmyJerry

Staff Sergeant
Nov 22, 2012
5,054
3,047
113
54
#27
I see very clearly, and call it how I see it. What I see is very dangerous to our republic. So dangerous that many good men willingly blind themselves and deceive themselves to a point that they can clearly deny reality of the situation to themselves. Fortunately, I have faith in my fellow citizens, they will do the right thing when all the other options have failed, I just hope it aint too late by then.

We (citizens) are a good and great people at the end of the day.
 

Tucker301

Groundskeeper
Staff member
Feb 13, 2015
6,794
2,520
113
Southern VA
#28
For a special prosecutor to be appointed, an actual crime must be suspected. The only time "collusion" apperars in the legal code is anti-trust law.

What is the underlying "crime" being investigated?
Some even argue that there is no Constitutional basis for a "Special Prosecutor" under any circumstances.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...pecial-prosecutor-driven-by-politics-not-law/



Independent counsels do not exist anymore because they were unconstitutional.

Another fake-news strawman echoed by various outlets this week is the talk about an independent counsel. They do not exist. They did for a couple of decades, until both parties decided that they were a bad idea, and on a bipartisan basis allowed the federal statute authorizing independent counsels—the Ethics in Government Act of 1978—to expire in 1999. Independent counsels have been illegal for 18 years now.

In fact, even when they were authorized by statute, independent counsels were always illegal. They are unconstitutional, for all the reasons the late Justice Antonin Scalia explained in his historic dissent in the 1988 Supreme Court case Morrison v. Olson.

“The Founders conspicuously and very consciously declined to sap the Executive’s strength in the same way they had weakened the Legislature: by dividing the Executive power,” Scalia explained. “Proposals to have multiple executives, or a council of advisers with separate authority were rejected.”

Astounded by such an explicit violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers, Scalia continued:

Frequently an issue of this sort will come before the Court clad, so to speak, in sheep’s clothing: the potential of the asserted principle to effect important change in the equilibrium of power is not immediately evident, and must be discerned by a careful and perceptive analysis. But this wolf comes as a wolf.​
Article II of the Constitution begins, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” The iconic Scalia emphasized that when Article II vests the executive power of the government in the president, “this does not mean some of the executive power, but all of the executive power.”

The majority of the Court in Morrison unanimously agreed with several of Scalia’s points, with Chief Justice William Rehnquist acknowledging, “There is no real dispute that the functions performed by the independent counsel are ‘executive.’ ”

No reasonable person could deny that such operations must be part of the Executive Branch. “Governmental investigation and prosecution of crimes is a quintessentially executive function,” Scalia wrote.

That being so, every federal prosecutor must answer to the president. “We should say here that the President’s constitutionally assigned duties include complete control over investigation and prosecution of violations of the law,” Scalia continued, “and that the inexorable command of Article II is clear and definite: the executive power must be vested in the President of the United States.”

So for a time there were prosecutors acting independently from the president and attorney general, but were in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. After Scalia’s passing, Justice Elena Kagan remarked in a tribute that his Morrison dissent gets better every time you read it. Liberals and conservatives alike hold a consensus view that there is no such thing as an independent counsel under the U.S. Constitution.
 
Top Bottom