- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Mueller: Trump is still under investigation but not a criminal target
Posted on 4/4/18 at 10:41 am to PsychTiger
Posted on 4/4/18 at 10:41 am to PsychTiger
quote:
I hope he didn't run afoul of the wrong manicemopixie girl.
Or her father. And his shotgun.
0
Posted on 4/4/18 at 10:42 am to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
Comey was referring to the FBI investigation Pre Mueller in that quote. Mueller is running a CRIMINAL investigation.
It’s the same investigation, although the scope may have since expanded.
Posted on 4/4/18 at 10:44 am to Decatur
quote:
Ok we’re in hypothetical land. Let’s assume criminal/corrupt intent is present and provable.
Can a President commit a crime when some of the conduct involved is within the authority of his office but the conduct implicates criminal/corrupt intent?
Man, that's way out in hypothetical lol
Let me put this way.
Suppose Trump walked into Mueller's offices , as the law would certainly allow him to do, and started removing evidence. Even though from a legal perspective the President can fire Mueller (indirectly, but still) he doesnt have the legal authority to remove evidence , so THAT would be an attempt to obstruct justice. Now the question on whether a sitting President could even be charged with a crime is up in the air, personally I don't think he could be, but for the sake of argument, yes the President CAN obstruct justice, I just gave you one example of how . Firing the people investigating him is not.
Posted on 4/4/18 at 10:47 am to Decatur
quote:
scope may have since expanded
Ya think? Hell, Mueller's scope will keep expanding until it expands enough that he can actually find something to charge Trump with. Unpaid parking ticket, unreturned library book, tearing the tag off a mattress... something.
Posted on 4/4/18 at 10:48 am to Decatur
quote:
It’s the same investigation, although the scope may have since expanded.
No, the investigation turned into a criminal investigation. Everything Mueller is investigating is potential crimes, the special counsel wouldn't have been needed and the law wouldn't have applied in the case of a national security investigation, because no conflict exists there, that's why Comey did what he did, he felt a crime was committed and that there would be a conflict of interest for the Justice Department to investigate.
Either that, or the special counsel was a sham right from the day Rosenstein named one.....
Special Counsels investigate crimes when there is a conflict of interest within the regular Justice Department. Or the appearance of one.
Posted on 4/4/18 at 10:50 am to Godfather1
Mueller would have to prove that Trump was intimately aware of Kushner's finances and financial dealings over the years. That would be a hard case to prove for Mueller if none of his transactions involved the Trump organization
Trump already threw Flynn under the bus by firing him because he lied to the VP about his setting up back channels with the Russians post election. Why Flynn did this boggles the imagination because doing something like this is not illegal.
Trump already threw Flynn under the bus by firing him because he lied to the VP about his setting up back channels with the Russians post election. Why Flynn did this boggles the imagination because doing something like this is not illegal.
Posted on 4/4/18 at 11:00 am to Iosh
quote:
My suspicion is that this leak is part of a fight between Sekulow and Cobb as to whether Trump should interview or not.
Even more likely is it is from Dowd.
Who was counseling him against interviewing with Mueller or getting too excited over that statement, and got fed up with the president not taking the advice of his counsel.
Posted on 4/4/18 at 11:03 am to KiwiHead
quote:
Why Flynn did this boggles the imagination because doing something like this is not illegal.
As I've said before, you would be shocked at how many innocent people lie to investigators. Either intentionally or inadvertently . This is why speaking to federal agents without a lawyer present is STUPID.
Posted on 4/4/18 at 11:40 am to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
Man, that's way out in hypothetical lol
I don’t think so just trying to generically present the issue as I see it. In the particular instance of a President firing people in order to impede an investigation into him I’ve seen reasonable disagree or claim it’s a political issue to be settled by Congress. Personally I don’t see how a President can legally prevent an investigation into his conduct by firing anyone who endeavor to continue the investigation. That’s obstruction in my book, even if the question is novel/untested.
quote:
Now the question on whether a sitting President could even be charged with a crime is up in the air
Separate issue and I don’t think we need to go there yet.
This post was edited on 4/4/18 at 11:41 am
Posted on 4/4/18 at 11:50 am to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
This is why speaking to federal agents without a lawyer present is STUPID.
Yes it is...monumentally so. When I was practicing and we had a case where it entailed speaking to a US Attorney in either a civil or criminal case ( in my mind all aUSA's are always fishing for the criminal) I would tell my client to always refer any questions to me or the lead attorney.
USA : What's your name?
Client: I'll need to refer you to my attorney, here's his number
Conversation over, then it's my job to tell him whether to frick off....my old boss in the 90's was a former aUSA, he loved doing this would drive the US Atorney's office nuts
Posted on 4/4/18 at 11:55 am to ItsMuellerTime
quote:I don't think Dowd leaked this. The spin was designed to make Trump think he isn't at risk, when Dowd thought he was.
Even more likely is it is from Dowd.
Posted on 4/4/18 at 12:41 pm to flyAU
quote:
Mueller: Trump is still under investigation but not a criminal target
Mr. Mueller, JUST STOP, you all have been pursuing this for over a year, you haven't found squat to implicate 45, collusion is not a crime with exception to antitrust issues, President Trump's not going to agree to talk to you unless you severely limit the scope of questions you'll ask and he's fully supported by his legal team, the basis of this whole witch hunt investigation is a "salacious and unverified" dossier that amounts to bullshite, nothing that's been revealed ties to Trump in a criminal or incriminating way, so much taxpayer money has been wasted on this, Rosenstein announced that no Americans had any knowledge they were involved in the Russian voting hacking scheme in the indictments, it's very unlikely you will find anything to implicate President Trump in anything criminal relative to your investigation, and YOU'RE RUINING YOUR LEGACY WITH THIS. At some point, common sense and logic will have to kick in and inform these idiots of the futility of this endeavor/witch hunt. I mean, MY GAWD.
Posted on 4/4/18 at 12:48 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
Yes it is...monumentally so. When I was practicing and we had a case where it entailed speaking to a US Attorney in either a civil or criminal case ( in my mind all aUSA's are always fishing for the criminal) I would tell my client to always refer any questions to me or the lead attorney.
USA : What's your name?
Client: I'll need to refer you to my attorney, here's his number
Conversation over, then it's my job to tell him whether to frick off....my old boss in the 90's was a former aUSA, he loved doing this would drive the US Atorney's office nuts
I did it myself as a CID agent. Once someone lies, you use that to squeeze them for any information they might have that you aren't aware of.
And you can't get mad at me/them for doing so, that's their job, just like it's a defense attorney's job to make sure their client doesn't lie, or at least doesn't get caught lying.
Posted on 4/4/18 at 1:41 pm to Decatur
quote:
Well that’s why I added the hypothetical tweet basically admitting he’s trying to shut down an investigation that includes a piece focused on him
No need for hypotheticals. He came right out on national television and told Lester Holt he fired Comey because of Russia.
Posted on 4/4/18 at 2:08 pm to mmmmmbeeer
quote:
No need for hypotheticals. He came right out on national television and told Lester Holt he fired Comey because of Russia.
Two things
1. Firing Comey obviously didn't obstruct any investigation
2. The POTUS has the authority to do exactly that. Now if Congress wanted to , they could amend the law to read that the President does not have the authority to fire a person who is investigating him or her, but for now , and probably forever, that is not the case.
You can't simply make up new laws in your head simply because you don't like what has been done.
Posted on 4/4/18 at 2:10 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
You can't simply make up new laws in your head simply because you don't like what has been done.
Agreed HeyHey, that person is a judicial activist, proceed with extreme caution or avoid at all possible cost
Posted on 4/4/18 at 2:39 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
Firing Comey obviously didn't obstruct any investigation
Yes...obviously
Posted on 4/4/18 at 3:02 pm to mmmmmbeeer
Which investigation was obstructed?
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News