117 days from Inauguration to Special Counsel
- Thread starter davidallen
- Start date
It says a lot to me when Dianne Feinstein isn't willing to climb out on that limb.
It was a rhetorical question. The answer is simple enough. There isn't evidence of a crime to be prosecuted. Maybe that will develop into something that we can all be excited about together in the future. But it isn't there now.
You clearly don't know the difference between a Special Prosecutor, Independent Counsel, and Special Counsel. A hint, there is none, they are fundamentally the same.
A prosecutor would prosecute a case in court, meaning that charges have been filed. RIght? Mueller is an investigator. I just think you're getting ahead of yourself in your zeal to crucify all things Trump.
Laugh away. I'm experiencing Russia fatigue. I'm tired of hearing how Russian hookers pissed on a Moscow hotel bed. I'm tired of hearing about a super secret trump server connected to a Russian bank. I'm tired of hearing how anonymous sources are the new gold standard in journalism. I'm sick and tired of rumors getting treated as though they are credible.
If you have credible information about crimes that have been committed and who committed them, please list the offenses and the statutes which were broken. All you have to have is the probable cause standard: would a reasonable person believe a crime has been committed and would a reasonable person believe a certain person committed the crime.
I'm willing to be persuaded. Seriously. Ready? Go!
I can't believe you consider me digging a hole when all I'm asking for is proof. Did Senator Feinstein dig herself the same hole?
So, back to my employee. She didn't show up. She is very dependable. No one can reach her. Should the police investigate? There is no concrete evidence that a crime has been committed. But isn't investigation a good idea?
NO! Because then they call the ambulance, fire department, and police department because she didn't answer the door. Then we find out she's just hungover at a friend's house. Then she wants to sue us all for smashing her door into a million pieces. Then I have to field the complaint that we smashed her door into a million pieces because the police and fire departments told her it was our decision.
No, don't send anyone to her house. Just assume she's an irresponsible human and that way her front door is safe from our shenanigans and doesn't create work for me.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Because I need the break.
As an attorney, I would have thought you would take a more factual based approach to this. Maybe there's dozens of felonies that have been committed. Who knows at this point? The more convicted felons that are in prison, the better.
But nobody's in prison because anonymous sources heard a rumor that was given credibility by a rah rah media.
Not sure how all that translates into Nixon horseshit, but whatever.
There's going to be an investigation whether there needs to be or not. I'll wait and see what happens. That's not the same as saying Trump or anybody else is innocent. But what I really would hate to see is an investigation that will last for years with nothing to show for it except that the mere existence of an investigation that can be exploited for purely partisan purposes. When the criminal justice system is used for political purposes, then there is no justice. I hope that's not what we have here.
Time will tell.
Good grief.
Tonight @wyomingosualum is out behind the woodshed handing out whoopings to anybody looking for them.
Well. Except for the part where he thinks that investigations should only occur when there is definitive evidence that a crime has occurred. That's just dumb.
Full Investigation Law and Legal Definition
A full investigation refers to the careful search or examination with an intention to discover facts. This may include questioning of witnesses, forensic examination and investigation of financial records.
Full Investigation Law and Legal Definition
A full investigation refers to the careful search or examination with an intention to discover facts. This may include questioning of witnesses, forensic examination and investigation of financial records.
And Wyo, I agree that the system shouldnt be abused. 1. Poetic justice though, conservatives fretting about special persecutors, 2. Brad I've gotten bored doing this to you through the years:
Please disclose your financial records, then, so that we may see if any criminal activity has occurred.
You see, what is necessary before a search warrant is issued to allow the invasion of privacy into your personal finances, for example, is probable cause that a crime has been committed and that you committed it. Pretty dumb, huh?
Did you see the reddit cut and paste i posted a week or 2 ago with the list of Biff russia connections?
I don't know. Seems vaguely familiar but I'm not sure. Is it something that is footnoted with credible named sources or just the usual rumor bullcrap?
I have fallen behind recently on this board. I admit that I haven't read everything. If you direct me to the proper place, I'll try to take a look.
What does court admissibility have to do with what is going on? Do you think someone is wanting to charge or impeach with anonymous sources as the evidence?
For what it's worth, I'm an equal opportunity kind of guy. Let's see the outbox on Seth Rich's computer where he sent all the info to Wikileaks and then I'm on the murder conspiracy bandwagon.
No. As I said earlier, I'm just tired of rumor being treated as fact. "A source close to John Doe reported anonymously that it is possible that so and so may have done X" seems to be what we are getting in the court of public opinion and I'm just sick of hearing about Pizzagate and Russian Hookergate and whatever else somebody publishes on the internet to get extra clicks.
And frankly, when a hyper partisan elected official like Dianne Feinstein says there is no evidence to date that she's aware of, that carries a lot of weight with me. All she has to do is say "Oh there a shitload of evidence, Wolf, but I can't disclose it" and it's a different story. But that lady is in a position to know a lot.
Time will tell.
You, head, imp, mega, frank... Ya'll are ready for it under normal circumstances. Nobody else deserves to be publicly labeled.
That's only 5. Clearly you need better genetics and more fingers.
I got less than a quarter into the first article before I read "What did Trump know and when did he know it?" and the obligatory comparison to Nixon. No proof, mind you, but the smear job is already underway.
I'll continue to read the list as time permits. But what I really want to see is hard evidence and not a political burning at the stake because "He's a witch!"
And thanks for reposting that. It helps.
Dude... that is pretty personal. You guys should take this offline.
Nobody is fingering you but your wife. Your fantasies are gross and I'm a sooner fan saying this.
Maybe he can borrow your shovel.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/05/...s-russia-special-counsel-says-theres-no-crime
Similar threads
