EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:Setting aside your apparent lack of concern over a casual declaration that a president can violate any law without fear of prosecution... we were not talking anout prosecutions. We were talking about SUBPOENAS.

The Supreme Court made it absolutely clear that the president is NOT immune to subpoenas in a criminal investigation in US v Nixon when HE tried to claim the president didn't have to comply with one and they shut him the hell down.

Because the president is not a king, he is subject to the laws of the nation. Being the chief executive of law enforcement doesn't make the laws not apply to him.

The White House appears to be trying to take the route that that only counts for subpoenas for documents but not testimony. Which is, absolutely, *absurd*. There is no difference between the two concepts involved.

SCOTUS acknowledged that there is Presidential Immunity, only that it was not absolute. Providing documents doesn't interfere with the President doing his job.

Neither does answering questions.

Answering untold number of nuisance sobpoenas

1.

There would be 1.

There, now it's not "untold".

from every anti-Trump lawyer, like Avanati, is quite another matter.

Apparently you missed the CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION part of the Supreme Court finding. Avenatti is not prosecuting a criminal case.

Mueller is.

And the president is not allowed to impede an investigation into a crime by refusing to cooperate when he has critical information to that investigation just because he says he's busy. (and if we're playing the odds based on his record so far, what he would be busy doing would be golfing)

Mueller is running a criminal investigation? Really? What predicate crime is the President being charged with again? Colluding with a foreign government to interfere with a US election? Where is the evidence of collusion that prompted the investigation? Did it come from the planted spies....er, confidnetial imformants? So they planted spies to discover the initiating evidence?

There enough questions concerning this that a subpoena may well be seen as a nuisance action. That you don't believe this is self evident. That it is not truely a nuisance is not to my view and likely not to SCOTUS.

PeterZ wrote:Mueller is running a criminal investigation? Really? What predicate crime is the President being charged with again?

Charges come AFTER the investigation. You do understand that right?

And the crimes being INVESTIGATED are, among others...

* Obstruction of Justice
* Perjury
* Coordination with a foreign government to influence a US presidential election

Colluding with a foreign government to interfere with a US election? Where is the evidence of collusion that prompted the investigation? Did it come from the planted spies....er, confidnetial imformants? So they planted spies to discover the initiating evidence?

You being off in Fox News land and not paying attention to anything going on here for the last many months is really showing.

For one thing, multiple allied intelligence services tipped off the FBI that something funny was going on.

For another, Page was under scrutiny for his contacts with Russian operatives for YEARS before he even joined the campaign. Since at least 2013. When he was funneling info on US sanctions to Russian contacts. The first FISA warrant issued against Page was in 2014, want to try telling me it was done for political purposes to undermine the Trump campaign for president that hadn't even started yet? Because if the FBI has time machines I want t know about THAT.

For another the Russians HACKED THE FREAKING DNC.

Etc...

Is any of this ringing a bell?

There enough questions concerning this...

No. There really are not, as much as Sean Hannity and Devin Nunes and the rest of the gang of Trump sycophants would like to convince you otherwise.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Mueller is running a criminal investigation? Really? What predicate crime is the President being charged with again?

Charges come AFTER the investigation. You do understand that right?

And the crimes being INVESTIGATED are, among others...

* Obstruction of Justice
* Perjury
* Coordination with a foreign government to influence a US presidential election

Colluding with a foreign government to interfere with a US election? Where is the evidence of collusion that prompted the investigation? Did it come from the planted spies....er, confidnetial imformants? So they planted spies to discover the initiating evidence?

You being off in Fox News land and not paying attention to anything going on here for the last many months is really showing.

For one thing, multiple allied intelligence services tipped off the FBI that something funny was going on.

For another, Page was under scrutiny for his contacts with Russian operatives for YEARS before he even joined the campaign. Since at least 2013. When he was funneling info on US sanctions to Russian contacts. The first FISA warrant issued against Page was in 2014, want to try telling me it was done for political purposes to undermine the Trump campaign for president that hadn't even started yet? Because if the FBI has time machines I want t know about THAT.

For another the Russians HACKED THE FREAKING DNC.

Etc...

Is any of this ringing a bell?

There enough questions concerning this...

No. There really are not, as much as Sean Hannity and Devin Nunes and the rest of the gang of Trump sycophants would like to convince you otherwise.

Obstruction for firing Comey? He deserved to be fired according to the IG.
Perjury? Investigating FBI agents didn't believe he did purjure himeself. Besides, there was no purjury until after the investigation was launched.
As for the coordination with foreign government, what evidence was there to suggest this was happening? You know the evidence needed to actually launch the investigation?

If you needed to plant a CI into the capaign to get this information, then what evidence did they use to plant the CI? The CI was planted well before the prujury or obstruction charges were even considered.


As for Page, he was an FBI informant in a previous Russian investigation. They knew about those contacts. There aren't even any allegations Carter Page did anything wrong.

As for the Russians hacking the DNC, what the fisk did that have to do with the trump campaign? Hillary took hunderds of millions of dollars from Russians firms with close connections to Putin and no one was worried that they planted anyone on Hillary. Certainly not enough to plant a CI in her campaign.

So pardon me, but there is a good chance this is a nuisance action by Mueller and the President is well within his rights not to waste his talking with Meuller. Between wasting his time and opening himself up for another perjury trap like the one Strzok laid out for Flynn, speaking with Meuller is a bad idea.

Btw (for all the foreigners), perjury trap is when the investigator discovers the slightest inconsistency between how you answer a similar question on two different occasions. Could be a minor discrepancy, but that's enough.

As for media in general 53% of Democrats believe our media provides inaccurate reporting. That tells me that your Dem focused news sources are as suspect as mine. 72% of all Americans believe that of the media and 92% of conservatives.

http://www.worldtribune.com/poll-americans-of-both-parties-agree-major-media-reports-are-fake-false-purposely-misleading/

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:Charges come AFTER the investigation. You do understand that right?

And the crimes being INVESTIGATED are, among others...

* Obstruction of Justice
* Perjury
* Coordination with a foreign government to influence a US presidential election

....

You being off in Fox News land and not paying attention to anything going on here for the last many months is really showing.

For one thing, multiple allied intelligence services tipped off the FBI that something funny was going on.

For another, Page was under scrutiny for his contacts with Russian operatives for YEARS before he even joined the campaign. Since at least 2013. When he was funneling info on US sanctions to Russian contacts. The first FISA warrant issued against Page was in 2014, want to try telling me it was done for political purposes to undermine the Trump campaign for president that hadn't even started yet? Because if the FBI has time machines I want t know about THAT.

For another the Russians HACKED THE FREAKING DNC.

Etc...

Is any of this ringing a bell?

.....

No. There really are not, as much as Sean Hannity and Devin Nunes and the rest of the gang of Trump sycophants would like to convince you otherwise.

Obstruction for firing Comey? He deserved to be fired according to the IG.

Questionable reading of the IG report conclusions... and irrelevant to an obstruction charge. That only matters if it is determined that is WHY Trump fired him. If on the other hand the REASON Trump fired him was to try and hamper the Russia investigation that is obstruction, whether there were other grounds to terminate him or not.

Guess who went on national television and told the entire country he was thinking of the Russia investigation when he fired Comey?

Guess who told the Russians in the Oval Office that firing Comey took pressure off of him on the Russia investigation front?

There is more than grounds for an investigation.

Perjury? Investigating FBI agents didn't believe he did purjure himeself.

You get Mueller isn't only investigating Trump personally and individually right? They have already secured guilty pleas on perjury charges from more than one Trump campaign official.

Besides, there was no purjury until after the investigation was launched.

But before Mueller was appointed to run HIS investigation. Which encompassed the apparent, and now confirmed, acts of perjury.

As for the coordination with foreign government, what evidence was there to suggest this was happening? You know the evidence needed to actually launch the investigation?

What part of "warned by multiple allied intelligence services it was happening" are you having trouble following?

As for Page, he was an FBI informant in a previous Russian investigation. They knew about those contacts. There aren't even any allegations Carter Page did anything wrong.

He *turned* informant after he got caught.

That doesn't make him someone they aren't going to keep a close eye on especially when they get tipped off he's back in contact with the Russians AGAIN.

As for the Russians hacking the DNC, what the fisk did that have to do with the trump campaign?

Hence the investigation. You do understand that the reason we have these things is to answer exactly those questions right?

What do you think investigations are for? Only confirming things we already know?

Hillary took hunderds of millions of dollars from Russians firms with close connections to Putin and no one was worried that they planted anyone on Hillary.

Because that didn't happen.

So pardon me, but there is a good chance this is a nuisance action by Mueller and the President is well within his rights not to waste his talking with Meuller. Between wasting his time and opening himself up for another perjury trap like the one Strzok laid out for Flynn, speaking with Meuller is a bad idea.

Btw (for all the foreigners), perjury trap is when the investigator discovers the slightest inconsistency between how you answer a similar question on two different occasions. Could be a minor discrepancy, but that's enough.

Yeah.... "minor discrepencies" like having your entire campaign staff spending months denying any and all contacts of any kind with the Russians then having it turn out your entire campaign was in constant contact with the Russians...

Nothing you mentioned warrants sicking the FBI counter espionage on a candidate. That you are comfortable with this sort of intrusion tells me that you are less concerned about civil liberties than political power. Just my opinion, YYMV.

I am glad you are still up to your neck in this. I had hoped the left would still be leading into the midterms. Gives me hope you guys are just going to implode, again. That's remaining a very likely scenario. Cheers.

PeterZ wrote:Nothing you mentioned warrants sicking the FBI counter espionage on a candidate.

Bull. Shit.

1. Nobody "sicced FBI counter espionage on a candidate". They went in looking at people in the campaign, not Trump himself. At first.

2. If multiple allied intelligence agencies tell the FBI the Russians are interfering in the election, they are in contact with people in the Trump campaign while they are doing it, multiple people known to have questionable ties to the Russians are working in that campaign, and the FBI then finds out the Russians hacked the DNC... it would be INCONCEIVABLE for them not to launch an investigation and you know it.

Even Trey freaking Gowdy admitted that.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Nothing you mentioned warrants sicking the FBI counter espionage on a candidate.

Bull. Shit.

1. Nobody "sicced FBI counter espionage on a candidate". They went in looking at people in the campaign, not Trump himself. At first.

2. If multiple allied intelligence agencies tell the FBI the Russians are interfering in the election, they are in contact with people in the Trump campaign while they are doing it, multiple people known to have questionable ties to the Russians are working in that campaign, and the FBI then finds out the Russians hacked the DNC... it would be INCONCEIVABLE for them not to launch an investigation and you know it.

Even Trey freaking Gowdy admitted that.

I think we have a three monkey situation here regarding how some people reason what was going...

I find it telling that even after it was discovered that people had "forgotten" contacts with assorted Russians, no one did a scrub of their calendars to volunteer any other meetings they'd forgotten about. Even if you believe that they didn't realize those contacts were significant, you'd think they'd have been in a hurry to correct the record once the scandals started.

"Under the criminal law, everyone should be treated the same, and I know there are some people that say the president should be treated stricter. We used to have an era where the president was treated much more leniently. But I think the right answer is the president should be treated — as far as the criminal law is concerned, the president is a citizen.”