Posted on 04/12/2018 3:08:37 PM PDT by Rusty0604
NY Times Editorial: If Trump “has nothing illegal or untoward to hide, why does he care about the [attorney-client] privilege in the first place?”
There isn’t much of a pretense anymore that the Mueller investigation is about alleged Russian campaign collusion.
Maybe it started out about collusion, but it veered off course within a couple of months, when Mueller decided that Paul Manafort needed to be investigated for conduct many years ago having nothing to do with the campaign, or even Russia. Rod Rosenstein created the paperwork in early August 2017 to retroactively expand Mueller’s investigation and justify Mueller conduct that already had taken place.
The raid on Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen’s law office by the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York, was at the referral of Mueller, and signed off by Rosenstein. That raid was a frontal assault on Trump’s business and personal history.
If reporting is accurate, the records seized concerned not just payments to Stormy Daniels, but also the Access Hollywood tape revealed during the campaign. It’s fair to assume that a wide range of records going beyond those salacious topics were grabbed by
(Excerpt) Read more at legalinsurrection.com ...
Their question is equivalent to “If you are innocent why do you care if the government illegally listens to your phone calls?”. Yeah. Hell. If you are innocent who needs the stinking Bill of Rights?
The FISA warrant was used to get surveillance on everything Trump did that was technically possible. The Russia Collusion investigation is being used to get surveillance on everything Trump did that was technically possible. It reminds me of teenagers trying to get the family car out of the ditch.
If you were to question every single law enforcement officer in the land, local and federal, and ask them if they would freely speak to another officer without their rep, allow them to search their vehicle or home without a warrant, or question them about a crime without a lawyer present, 100% would say, “Hell no!”
Dear NYT, if we stormed your lawyers office looking for anything untoward, illegal or names of secret informers how would you react? Now change that from you to Trump. I think you speak with forked tongue.
I can imagine the adolescent glee of Muller as he receives pillow talk audio from his hack of Trump’s cell phone. He is not obsessed with Trump. It’s a cover for his adolescent obsession with Melania’s voice.
Is that a serious question?
1) Fourth Amendment. (That alone should be enough.)
2) Fishing expedition (= witch hunt).
3) Public leaking of private information.
4) Planting evidence.
Those are just a few.
If you were a teenager who lived an upright life, yet your parents invaded every aspect of your private life, and your room, whenever they wanted and without your permission, would you care?
Ask Manafort how he feels after the cops raided his home at 3 AM (terrorizing his wife). Ask Flynn how he feels after the cops raided his mind without warning (devious interrogation without attorney present).
Cops are cops, Federal or not. They are not our friends.
For this reason I have opposed the so-called Patriot Act from the start. Michael Savage endorsed it at the start, asking the very question you posed. He has finally caught on to the inherent potential for abuse.
i consider sitting and staring at a piece of used toilet paper a better option than reading the New York Slimes.
Sure. But it also about protecting the Queen Bee, because if they don’t the colony might die.
It will be epic.
Uh, because they are not like the Merry Maid cleaning crews.
The author gets an important point wrong here. Mueller didn’t just decide to pursue Manafort several months after his appointment. Manafort was already being investigated by the FBI long before Mueller got involved. If anything, the events that have unfolded since mid-2017 would suggest that Manafort was a bigger target than Trump ever was.
He wouldn't, if those pledged to uphold the law were unbiased, not seeking to abuse the law to his detriment, and run up the bill during the process.
It reminds me of this comment about the NSA: "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."
Don’t be stupid
OK, I’m sorry.
I think Donna was asking a rhetorical question.
Some things point to Manafort being a plant.
That has been their game for decades. Project Democrat constitutional violations on the Republicans. Project Republican constitutional violations on the Democrats. Who both reply, but the other party does it too. In the meantime, they have passed laws making it illegal to contribute to organizations funding terrorism, while at the same time they are funding terrorists.
I was being a smart aleck; but, it doesn’t hurt to be reminded that straight talk is better.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.