The president thinks the distinction between justice and politics is for suckers


#1

If he is not careful, the spectacle of an unhinged, unprincipled president treating the DOJ as his personal law firm may yet persuade voters, or even members of Congress, that Trump does not belong in the White House.


#2

BS on a shingle. Do you “honestly” think that the DOJ is serving the public interest by the shenanigans we KNOW it’s engaged in during the Obama years and since the election in 2016? If you do, then you’re not worth a bucket of spit…or my time.


#3

Mueller’s counsel is “special,” but that doesn’t mean “above reproach.” Why must we assume he’s honest, not politically motivated and working for America’s best interests? What does he have to show for a year’s work at great expense? If he found anything, it surely would have leaked.

And what was Mueller’s mandate? What was he tasked with investigating? There seems to be some difficulty in rounding up the document tha’s supposed to state it. By law, he MUST have s specific charge to investigate. Was that fraudulent Democrat dossier used to obtain FISA warrants? Is his investigation politically motivated?

And if the Democrats deem it acceptable for the Obama FBI to have secretly placed spies in the Republican party campaign, is it OK for the Trump FBI to secretly place spies in Democrat party campaigns? Hmm?


#4

Here’s a link to Chuck Grassley’s letter to Rod Rosenstein, essentially asking the same question.

The law providing for the appointment of a “Special Prosecutor” specifies (in Mr. Grassley’s words) “a criminal predicate” and " that investigation or prosecution by a U.S. Attorney’s office or litigating unit of DOJ would present a conflict of interest or other extraordinary circumstance. "

No crimes (to my knowledge) are specified in the appointment order; it is predicated on a counterintelligence investigation based on a made up dossier carefully fed to a complicit media through multiple channels to make it seem as if it came from more than one source.

Mueller’s mandate, in my opinion, is pretty simple: bring down Trump by hook or by crook, by any means, fair or foul. High ranking members of the intelligence community, FBI and DOJ all participated in an illegal operation to smear Trump as compromised by the Russians, and felt totally safe to do so since Hillary was the ‘inevitable winner’ of the election and they would be in her good graces. Now they have no choice except to bring down the duly elected president or be called to account for their corruption.


#5

I think you guys are being partisan hacks. Let’s say you’re the FBI and you’re looking at the 2016 election. You know Putin is actively trying to interfere with the election to help Trump. You look at the Trump campaign and see them bringing in just about every shady character with slimy Kremlin ties they can get their hands on. Trump gets elected, and then fires the FBI director over “that Russia thing” and because Comey wouldn’t agree to let one of Trump’s shady Kremlin contacts off the hook for criminal activity. Now you’re the DOJ looking at all of this…of course the objective move here is to investigate. If this were Obama or Clinton you guys would be screaming bloody murder about all of this, let’s get real. Trump is dirty, and not looking into all of this shady activity would be a violation of their oath to defend the country.


#6

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/375262.php#375262

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/375238.php#375238

That’s just 2 quick examples of the investigating authority and the research firm that compiled the fake dossier that started the investigation being “shady characters with slimy Kremlin ties”. Imagine that…

Not that you’re objective about this, but what crime is being investigated? Ken Starr’s investigation at least began with an actual criminal predicate: real estate fraud. Best I can tell, no criminal conduct is identified in Mueller’s appointment order, as is required by law.


#7

I don’t understand your point about the dossier. It’s just a fact that Trump was surrounding himself with shady characters with sketchy Kremlin ties.


#8

Let’s say that you’re looking at the 2016 election from the perspective of a highly partisan FBI “leadership.” The FBI has NEVER “known” that Putin was “actively trying to interfere in our election,” at least not more actively than the Russians have ALWAYS done so…and CERTAINLY not to protect the opponent of their good friend and business partner, Hillary Rodham Clinton.


#9

What “shady characters with sketchy Kremlin ties” are those, J. Anderson? International businessmen have ALL done business in Russia and dozens of other countries. After all, until very recently, Russia was the principal supplier of natural gas to virtually ALL of Europe.


#10

It was made up bs contracted by Fusion GPS (whose owner has slimy Kremlin ties) while that company was working for the Clinton campaign.

I think J.J. Sefton summed it up nicely this morning: “It all boils down to our national law enforcement and intelligence leadership, with the help of an unknown number of underlings, used their power under the cover of national security, to infiltrate the campaign of a presidential candidate with the express purpose of sabotaging it. And I will add, more than likely at the behest or minimally with the approval of both the outgoing President of the United States and the opposition candidate.”


#11

The corruption of the Obama administration and Clinton campaign is a shock to no one. I still don’t see what any of that has to do with the brute fact that Trump was surrounding himself with shady characters with slimy Kremlin ties, or the point that it’s understandable to be concerned about these facts in an election where we know (again, for a fact) that Putin was attempting to influence the election in Trump’s favor. This was not just all fake made up stories…they’re accepted bi-partisan facts. The FBI would have to be crazy not to look into that.


#12

Who is it who’s “accept[ing] bi-partisan ‘facts’?” Where is the EVIDENCE that Putin attempted to influence the 2016 election in favor of Trump? We’ve seen NOTHING except left-wing accusations that this even happened…let alone with the help of anyone IN the Trump campaign. The DNC CLAIMS that their servers were hacked by Russians, but wouldn’t allow the FBI to EXAMINE their servers–and the FBI never bothered to INSIST.

Try to remember: It wasn’t Trump who was friendly towards the Russians. HE didn’t approve the sale of 20% of our uranium to Russian interests. HE didn’t get $145 million in donations to HIS phony “foundation” from the Russians. HIS spouse didn’t receive half a million dollars for a 35-minute speech in Moscow, followed by a private meeting with Putin. To believe that Putin favored Trump over Hillary is counterintuitive in the extreme.


#13

Wasn’t Comey fired upon recommendation from both Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein?

I have never understood this. If Putin could have voted in our 2016 election, is there any chance he would have wanted Trump, the America-first candidate, to win?

He already had a working relationship with Hillary from the uranium deal, he knew she could be bought by donating to her fraudulent charity, and he knew she was extremely lax with security, so he could have access to many top secret documents. What more could a Russian leader want in an American President? She’s arguably a Communist soul-mate.

However, there is a theory that says Putin would want to help Trump because he “knew” there was no chance he could win, but he wanted the election close so there would be more rancor. But even if that’s true, why would he tip his hand by telling Trump about his efforts?