Oink Robert Mueller "liberal spec prosecutor"... hires staff of clinton/obaMao donors

[calfoxwc]

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/robert-mueller-stocks-staff-democrat-donors/

 

who the hell is this guy to be appointed to anything?

 

Sessions should never have stepped down.

 

Drain the swamp.

[calfoxwc]

A former FBI agent is troubled by Mueller being buddies with Comey

 

Trump should fire him.... get an INDEPENDENT, FAIR spec prosecutor.

 

not a liberal hackass.

 

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/06/12/former-fbi-agent-says-hes-troubled-by-comeys-relationship-with-special-counsel-mueller/

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Fire him. Appoint a fair and balanced special investigator, Newt Gingrich comes to mind.

[jbluhm86]

Steve Deace, CRTV host and Conservative Review columnist, said it better than I can: https://twitter.com/SteveDeaceShow/status/874413894369935360

[Westside Steve]

But if he doesn't find some Mickey Mouse charge to hang on president trump JB, and the rest of the Democrat faithful, will think hes a worthless piece of shit.

WSS

[jbluhm86]

But if he doesn't find some Mickey Mouse charge to hang on president trump JB, and the rest of the Democrat faithful, will think hes a worthless piece of shit.

WSS

I can't speak for the rest of the "Democrat faithful" as you call them, but as for me, if he finds nothing, then he finds nothing. I'm not a Democrat congressman, nor am I a member of the MSM, and I didn't vote for Trump or Clinton in the election, so my skin in this game is very limited.

[Westside Steve]

I can't speak for the rest of the "Democrat faithful" as you call them, but as for me, if he finds nothing, then he finds nothing. I'm not a Democrat congressman, nor am I a member of the MSM, and I didn't vote for Trump or Clinton in the election, so my skin in this game is very limited.

Whether or not you voted for Hillary these days it at-least appears you are carrying water for the Democrat party. Whether you consider yourself to be one or not is up to you. But let me ask you an honest question. Exactly what type of charges would you expect to be proven that would make this witch hunt a 'valid investigation?

WSS

[DieHardBrownsFan]

[OldBrownsFan]

This whole thing is the biggest joke I have ever seen in politics in my life. Now that it has been pretty well established there was no evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign the dems are focusing on obstruction of justice for a crime that never happened.

 

Trump made one huge mistake when he didn't fire Comey on day one in office.

[jbluhm86]

Whether or not you voted for Hillary these days it at-least appears you are carrying water for the Democrat party. Whether you consider yourself to be one or not is up to you. But let me ask you an honest question. Exactly what type of charges would you expect to be proven that would make this witch hunt a 'valid investigation?

WSS

 

Personally, I don't think any specific charges have to be proven in order for me to consider this a valid investigation; at this point, I really just want clarity of any potential connections between Trump, his campaign/administration staff, and the Russians. That's it.

 

Look, it's no secret that i'm not the biggest fan of Trump or the way he does business, but, frankly, if this investigation by Mueller turns up bupkis, then it turns up bupkis, and Trump should be exonerated of all the accusations being levied against him. If the investigation turns up that Trump and/or co. did something malicious or illegal with the help of Russian's hostile to the interests and security of the US, then I would hope that he'd be disciplined in a manner commensurate to the severity of his or their actions.

 

At this point, unless the investigation turns up something undeniably damning, i'd say its safe to assume that Trump personally did not work with the russians to "hack" the election, as the MSM puts it; Jim Comey said so himself. His campaign and administrative staff, however, might be a different matter, and hopefully the investigation will bring clarity to that. I'm also curious as to the degree, if any, that Trump's policies towards Russia are dictated, in part, to Russian investments in his real estate businesses - that's why it seems a bit fishy to me that Trump refuses to release his tax returns. Hopefully that will also be examined in this investigation.

 

So Steve, in short, what I want from this investigation is definitive proof whether or not Trump or his admin did anything improper enough with the Russians to warrant disciplinary actions against them, up to and including impeachment if they did, or for them to be totally and definitively exonorated if they did nothing.

[calfoxwc]

I think then, that obamao should be investigated for running a secret global child slavery ring.

 

after all, there doesn't have to be a smoking gun or any evidence, then the courts on both sides

can conduct politically undermining witch hunts in case they might find something.

 

also, since he lived in Kenya...Indonesia...we should investigate him for genocide in Africa and Asia.

Was he a child member of pol pot? or a similar genocidal group later on?

 

We need to know. Should have investigated these things as soon as he was elected...but that would have

led to what the deep state leftist socialist sombietches are already doing ... undermining a president

that wasn't THEIR party's choice.

[Westside Steve]

So, JB, If the only thing this investigation actually uncovers is some Mickey Mouse charge that somebody forgot some chance meeting they had with the bartender that serve them a shot of Stoli, you would agree with me that this has been nothing more than a witch hunt?

 

Let me be clear if there is no hard evidence that trump or his staff actually planned the leaks with the Russian government then this investigation is bulshit?

 

Because you are not a fool and you realize how special prosecutors work, correct? Their job is to find something come anything no matter how minute.

People including scooter Libby Bill Clinton Martha Stewart and al capone were never proven to have done what the investigation set out to find.

WSS

[jbluhm86]

So, JB, If the only thing this investigation actually uncovers is some Mickey Mouse charge that somebody forgot some chance meeting they had with the bartender that serve them a shot of Stoli, you would agree with me that this has been nothing more than a witch hunt?

 

Let me be clear if there is no hard evidence that trump or his staff actually planned the leaks with the Russian government then this investigation is bulshit?...

 

I wouldn't necessarily call it a bullshit investigation if it turns up nothing, because it would have then clearly demonstrated that Trump and co. had done nothing wrong or illegal and would exonerate them. The onus would then be on the Democrats, the MSM and anti-Trump Republicans to admit as such, which will still be highly unlikely, given the current political climate.

 

 

 

...Because you are not a fool and you realize how special prosecutors work, correct? Their job is to find something come anything no matter how minute.

People including scooter Libby Bill Clinton Martha Stewart and al capone were never proven to have done what the investigation set out to find.

WSS

 

Indeed, I do know that is how special prosecutors operate, but, technically, that is their job. Let me explain:

 

First, we need to look at how how a special prosecutor's investigation is initiated. The current special counsel regulations specify that:

 

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—

"a. That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

b. That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter."

So, in this case, I'd suspect that Rosenstein called for a Special Prosecutor because he believed that it was in the public's interest to do a through investigation to definitively demonstrate whether or not Trump or anyone in his campaign and administration worked with the Russians to disrupt the 2016 election. Lets continue:

The attorney general sets the subject jurisdiction of the special counsel:

"The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted."

 

 

 

Now, lets look at the Special Prosecutor's marching orders issued by Acting AG Rod Rosenstein to see how that lines up with what I highlighted in red above:

 

b. The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confinned by then-FBI

Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on

Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals

associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

c. If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is

authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

d. Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are

applicable to the Special Counsel.

 

So, in short, yes, it is Mueller's job at this point to investigate anything and everything pertaining to Trump and Russia, but unless Trump did something major, I wouldn't worry about impeachment. The Constitution clearly states that in order for the President to be removed from office, the House of Representatives must first impeach him, and then the Senate would have to vote to remove him based on that impeachment. Seeing as how Republicans control both houses of Congress - even if Mueller tries to bring some rinky-dink charge against Trump - it'll be pretty hard for his own party to impeach him unless what Mueller discovers is so egregious that it'd be political suicide not to.

[StinkHole]

So, JB, If the only thing this investigation actually uncovers is some Mickey Mouse charge that somebody forgot some chance meeting they had with the bartender that serve them a shot of Stoli, you would agree with me that this has been nothing more than a witch hunt?

 

Let me be clear if there is no hard evidence that trump or his staff actually planned the leaks with the Russian government then this investigation is bulshit?

 

Because you are not a fool and you realize how special prosecutors work, correct? Their job is to find something come anything no matter how minute.

People including scooter Libby Bill Clinton Martha Stewart and al capone were never proven to have done what the investigation set out to find.

WSS

 

Stuart

 

 

And they will find something, you can count on it.

 

It is the responsibility of the prosecutors to find something. It is not their job to try and vindicate someone.

 

And if I heard correctly from Mark Levin I believe it was, that historically no special prosecutor appointed in such cases ever came up empty.

[calfoxwc]

iif nothing else, they will use the investigation for political gain....

even just that it exists.

 

it will only be closed when he loses the next election, or can't run

for a third term.

 

[OldBrownsFan]

How Will Trump Deal With a Stacked Deck?

From the June 26, 2017 issue of THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

In theory, the appointment of Mueller as special counsel should be reassuring that the probe will be fair, objective, and nonpartisan. In his years as FBI director and as a Justice Department official, Mueller gained a reputation for honesty, integrity, and being a "straight-shooter."

 

But already there are troubling signs. For openers, the history of such counsels—formerly known as special prosecutors—is not encouraging. Yet Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein reacted to the first bit of pressure—chiefly from Democrats—and appointed Mueller. And this without much evidence of a crime to justify it.

 

The problem is that special counsels tend to expand their investigations beyond any underlying crime (if there is one) and keep going until they find someone to indict. This is what Patrick Fitzgerald did during the second Bush administration, finally settling for a flimsy charge of perjury against Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. Fitzgerald declined to prosecute anyone for the supposed crime he was investigating, the outing of a CIA agent.

 

Mueller has already broadened the scope of his investigation to include whether Trump attempted to obstruct justice in his dealings with then-FBI director James Comey, Trump's leading antagonist. Possible financial crimes by Trump associates are also to be examined, according to leaks by "officials."

 

Mueller's sterling character has eased concerns about the fact that he and Comey are longtime friends. But some of the investigators and advisers he's hired have had the opposite effect. Paul Mirengoff, a Washington lawyer and contributor to the Power Line blog, looked into the political backgrounds of some of them and found a left-winger, donors to Hillary Clinton's campaign, and a lawyer named Jeannie Rhee who "provided legal services for the Clinton Foundation."

 

Rhee also donated $5,400 to Hillary Clinton's campaign PAC. Mirengoff writes: "As bitter as the Clintonistas are about losing the election (or rather having it 'stolen' by the Russians), it seems unconscionable that Rhee would be on a team that will decide whether to prosecute President Trump at the end of a 'Russian interference' election." Indeed, it does.

 

In politics, there's a saying that no politician can survive a frisk. The Mueller probe hasn't gotten to that point. But it appears to be headed in that direction.

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/how-will-trump-deal-with-a-stacked-deck/article/2008502

[Westside Steve]

And let us not forget that all they need to do is keep this going for another year-and a 1/2 and pray that the democrats take the house and senate. Of course that could easily happen with the help of the fake news media.

Not that the republicans had been much help. Frustrating that they've pistol way the opportunity to make positive change in the US.

 

WSS

[Westside Steve]

And unfortunately there's no one to hold the Prosecutors responsible for anything. No matter how dirty.

WSS

[calfoxwc]

"This is what Patrick Fitzgerald did during the second Bush administration, finally settling for a flimsy charge of perjury against Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. Fitzgerald declined to prosecute anyone for the supposed crime he was investigating, the outing of a CIA agent."

 

yes, refused to prosecute, because they found out it was not Bush or Cheney. It was Richard Armitage...

and there was no political benefit for the left in that prosecution.

 

dirtier and dirtier. so is their base.

 

big serious trouble.

[Westside Steve]

ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

 

iii) any other matters within the sc

 

Well JB that pretty much says it all.

Basically just fuck with these people until you find something come or anything and go with-it whether makes any difference or not no matter how picayune.

 

WSS