Posted on 12/18/2017 6:56:48 AM PST by Golden Eagle
J. Edgar Hoover used to say that “justice is just incidental to law and order.” It was a telling quote from someone who routinely abused his power in seeking what he viewed as enemies of law and order. Hoover is now a pariah at the FBI and the Justice Department, but his attitude toward the use of federal power lingers like a dormant virus. Too often investigators interpret uncertain legal questions as a license for action.
That seems to be the case with a new and troubling controversy over a massive seizure of emails by special counsel Robert Mueller from the General Services Administration (GSA). Mueller did an end run around Trump transition officials and counsel by seizing tens of thousands of emails from the GSA despite claims of privilege. The move was legally unprecedented and strategically reckless. In a gratuitous muscle play, Mueller may have added a potential complication to the use of evidence that could contaminate much of his investigation in any later trial.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
He's not there to gather evidence for a trial.
His job is to get Trump to fire him, so Ryan and McConnell can remove Trump from office.
That's not what this is about.
Makes me think he’s TRYING to be fired....wonder if that’s the leftist play...Mueller does such outrageous things that demand firing but if he does fire him the left is ready to pull the trigger on obstruction of justice.
Most any evidence they have gathered is irretrievably tinted by the Fruit of the Poisoned doctrine and therefore inadmissible in a court of law.
That’s not what this is about.
Of course not.
Mueller’s goal is to entrap Trump associates in manufactured process crimes and then extort damaging(and probably false) testimony against Trump under duress and threat of personal and financial ruin caused by Martha Stewart style prosecutions
Mueller’s ability to extort testimony via manufactured process crime prosecution just got gutted
The current plan seems to be as follows:
1. Force DOJ/FBI officials to testify to Congress (happening this week).
2. Use their tesimony (or refusal to testify) to pressure Sessions to follow through on existing Congressional request for new special counsel investigating DOJ.
3. If Sessions refuses, have those in Congress support Trump firing Sessions.
4. New special counsel appointed investigationg DOJ including Mueller and Rosenstein, leading to them having to resign.
New article/interview. Possibility exists Mueller tried to get a warrant for the e-mails, but couldn’t due to lack of probable cause.
http://insider.foxnews.com/amp/article/59472?__twitter_impression=true
Dershowitz Says Mueller ‘Playing Into Trump’s Hands,’ Should Have Obtained Warrant for Emails
They could try but they would be unable to point to the e-mail as evidence since they obtained it illegally.
thanks
“.....both the WP and NYT reported last night that Trump does not plan to fire Mueller, but instead is setting his sights on Sessions and Rosenstein...”
I did read several reports quoting Trump as saying that he will not consider firing Mueller.
However, none of these quotes included anything like the second part of your paraphrase, namely, “....but instead is setting his sights on Sessions and Rosenstein...”
Do you have a link?
Yes, I put one in the thread just after the one you replied to.
“.....both the WP and NYT reported last night that Trump does not plan to fire Mueller, but instead is setting his sights on Sessions and Rosenstein...”
I did read several reports quoting Trump as saying that he will not consider firing Mueller.
However, none of these quotes included anything like the second part of your paraphrase, namely, “....but instead is setting his sights on Sessions and Rosenstein...”
Do you have a link?
It’s true; he linked it for me, I asked too.
“It’s true; he linked it for me, I asked too.”
Not really.
He answered your question and provided a link regarding Trump calling Sessions “weak” and Rosenstein “a democrat”, which I was already aware of.
My question was different, I had not heard Trump say anything like he was “...instead setting his sights on Sessions and Rosenstein....”
I wanted to know whether that phrase was actually part of what Trump said, or was simply a conjecture by Golden Eagle.
It makes a yuge difference, because if Trump actually followed his statement about not planning to fire Mueller with a phrase like “I’m instead setting my sights on Sessions and Rosenstein..”, now that would be newsworthy!
The fact that Trump called Sessions “weak” and Rosenstein “a democrat” would not surprise me - he’s said such things already.
What in the world are you talking about LOL?
What conjecture? I clearly said in the very first words of my post quote “It may be fake news but the WP and NYT are reporting...”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3614703/posts?page=21#21
I was clearly only passing on what was reported, and if anything, passing my own doubts on about it.
Then I answered your question for the link, yet you asked for it again, so it clearly doesn’t appear that I am the one confused.
And if I rememnber correctly, you’re one of the last of those Mueller supporters here, so whenever Trump slams Rosenstein or others in the DOJ, I guess it sets you off. Too bad it’s almost daily now, but don’t blame me, I’ve done nothing but try to bring you the truth.
Today is the day the deep state ~ admitted defeat, the day I’ve been dreaming/nightmaring about for so many years. Tons more sqirmishes to come, but their main attack weapon of Lawfare was crushed. Course, they may take the war hot now, but we’ll win that too.
I’m afraid they’re nowhere near admitting defeat, because none have been charged yet, or in the past.
When McCabe didn’t testify last week, he said it was a scheduling conflict, so I expect a similar excuse again this time from Ohr.
Nunes need to follow through on his threat to hold the DOJ in contempt, and really blow this thing open. Because then the DOJ would quit cooperating with Congress at all, giving Trump the green light to get an AG who would setup a new Special Counsel to investigate THEM for conspiracy and obstruction.
Your original post contained the phrase “.....but instead is setting his sights on Sessions and Rosenstein...” I was merely trying to find out whether that exact wording came from the WP or NYT reports, or whether you were paraphrasing.
I’ve since read the WP piece and found the original wording was “Rather, Trump appears to be contemplating changes in Justice Department leadership”. Close enough to your paraphrasing - which answered my question, thanks.
“Then I answered your question for the link, yet you asked for it again, so it clearly doesn’t appear that I am the one confused.”
This was your first response to me on this thread, you must have provided the link in answer to someone else’s question.
“And if I rememnber correctly, you’re one of the last of those Mueller supporters here, so whenever Trump slams Rosenstein or others in the DOJ, I guess it sets you off.”
I am not and never have been a Mueller “supporter”, although you have repeatedly called me that.
All I’ve ever said about Mueller is that since I believe there’s no Trump/Russian collusion dirt to be found, Mueller’s continued digging has no downside for Trump and if anything, is more likely to expose Democrat corruption, and ironically work to Trump’s advantage.
That’s all I’ve ever said - but when I do, it sets you off and you call me a Mueller supporter, you put words in my mouth, saying I believe that Trump and Mueller are secretly best buddies, - that I believe Mueller is secretly working for Trump to expose Democrats. I never thought those things and I never said them.
On the contrary, I believe Mueller hates Trump’s guts and would have loved to destroy him if he could have. I also believe Trump sees this as one of those “keep your enemies closer” situations, and that Mueller will probably wind up (unintentionally) serving some strategic purpose for Trump.
I hope this time you pay me the respect of hearing what I actually said instead of scanning it, making assumptions and repeating your boilerplate nonsense about me being “one of the last of those Mueller supporters here”. I’m really tired of hearing you say that.
You need to look again, FRiend. I did reply to your post 71 with number 72. Then you asked me for it again in number 73.
Thankfully now it appears you are at peace that I only reported what was reported in the post you originally had an issue woth. Combined with your losing track of my respnses in 71-73 hopefully you’ll be more careful before calling me to the carpet next time. Thanks.
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.