TRUMP TWEET -- demanding DOJ look into infiltration of his campaign!

twitter acct of Donald J. Trump ^ | 5-20-18 | POTUS

[JoSixChip]

I have seen nothing to indicate that he had anything to do with what happened afterward.

mueller orders the hit, but he is not responsible for the hit? You're a little selective in what facts you choose to consider in your little conspiracy theories. But then again, I guess that is the nature of conspiracy theories.

[Alberta's Child]

Why Flynn’s attorneys didn’t do the same is beyond me.

That's a really good question. One of the things I've considered is that Flynn was in a different position than the other defendants because he actually took a position in the Trump administration -- which meant the FBI gathered plenty of information about him legitimately (as part of a background check, for example) that could be used against him in a criminal case. The others are in a much better position to challenge every single piece of evidence brought out against them.

[Alberta's Child]

You're welcome. It's interesting to see how these questions get addressed by prosecutors who are facing different types of situations.

Since the biggest reason for a recusal is to protect the integrity of an investigation that is likely to result in criminal prosecution, this had to mean Jeff Sessions thought it was highly likely someone was going to be prosecuted as a result of what was happening.

[Alberta's Child]

I don't know that Mueller ordered anything at all. Do you?

Everything I've read indicates that Mueller collected evidence as part of his investigation, identified potential crimes that were outside his jurisdiction to prosecute, and handed it off to the appropriate U.S. Attorney.

[weston]

They cannot investigate themselves. SPECIAL COUNSEL now!!

[JoSixChip]

I should have been more clear in my post. When I say "public domain" what I'm really talking about is a legitimate source that can be supported in a public venue such as a criminal trial. Basically, it has to come from a source that will stand up to legal challenges over its admissibility in a legal proceeding. If someone in a prosecutorial or oversight role has access to information that wasn't obtained through legitimate means, he really can't act on it until he later gets it from a legitimate source. Otherwise, if there is a legal proceeding involving that information then any criminal charges may be thrown out on the basis of tainted evidence.

And what you are missing in all of that is that it has nothing to do with public perception. Nor is an impeachment a legal preceding, it's political. It will not matter weather the evidence is admissible or not. It does no good to challenge the admissibility of the evidence once it is out there. You can not call for a mistrial in an impeachment proceeding. In other words, what has been seen can not be unseen.

[JoSixChip]

That's a really good question. One of the things I've considered is that Flynn was in a different position than the other defendants because he actually took a position in the Trump administration -- which meant the FBI gathered plenty of information about him legitimately (as part of a background check, for example) that could be used against him in a criminal case. The others are in a much better position to challenge every single piece of evidence brought out against them.

Or maybe he was flat out bankrupted by legal fees and mueller threatened to prosecute his son if he did not confess and cooperate.

[Alberta's Child]

I agree with you.

I'm referring to information that has nothing to do with impeachment. I'm talking about information like the details of the FISA warrant abuse where the ultimate objective should be criminal charges against Obama administration officials, or details about the FISA surveillance that could be introduced as evidence for the defense in the Manafort, Concord Management or Mike Flynn cases.

[JoSixChip]

Everything I've read indicates that Mueller collected evidence as part of his investigation, identified potential crimes that were outside his jurisdiction to prosecute, and handed it off to the appropriate U.S. Attorney.

Sure, if you believe mueller is acting in good faith. I do not.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

This is his preamble to getting rid of Sessions et al.

How many RINOs are there in the senate, especially the judiciary committee? If Trump fires Rosenstein and Sessions, and they can't get replacements confirmed in the senate, who is #3 in the DOJ?

[for-q-clinton]

Of course they didn’t. In fact, you can’t indict a sitting president. This is all about their cover up and getting dirt on Trump so wound him or impeach him.

So why did Session’s refuse himself again? Using your logic he WANTS the charges to stick on Trump if they find some. So he recused himself. Otherwise don’t recuse and he could lead the investigation into Russian meddling and put the special prosecutor on a leash.

Keep in mind Mueller is only charged to look at Russian meddling. NOT crimes by the FBI and DOJ during the election. So I ask you what do we get by Session’s recusal?

[Alberta's Child]

Maybe he’s not. But I’ve seen no evidence (to date) that this Cohen situation wasn’t done “by the book” from a legal standpoint.

[JoSixChip]

Maybe he’s not. But I’ve seen no evidence (to date) that this Cohen situation wasn’t done “by the book” from a legal standpoint.

Really? And when was the last time you heard of the personal lawyer of the POTUS having his home, office and hotel raided? And then his client list and personal fiances being leaked to the msm almost immediately? I'm sure it happens all the time, but I have never heard of it.

[Alberta's Child]

As JoSixChip pointed out, an impeachment is a political process, not a legal proceeding. So there would have been no need to preserve the integrity of a criminal prosecution if that was the real objective here.

Keep in mind Mueller is only charged to look at Russian meddling. NOT crimes by the FBI and DOJ during the election. So I ask you what do we get by Session’s recusal?

You're probably not doing this deliberately, but you're overlooking a huge distinction between Sessions' recusal and Mueller's responsibilities. Don't confuse the two. One may have led to the other, but that doesn't mean the scope of both are the same. When Sessions announced his recusal he clearly said it covered EVERYTHING related to the 2016 election campaign, not just the "Russian meddling" that was part of Mueller's original charge.

[Alberta's Child]

I'm referring to the actions of Mueller in the Cohen affair, not the full process from start to finish.

And when was the last time you heard of the personal lawyer of the POTUS having his home, office and hotel raided?

The entire Trump presidency is filled with anomalies that may never happen in another 500 years in this country.

And then his client list and personal fiances being leaked to the msm almost immediately?

And yet didn't the same MSM actually suggest that it was Trump himself who leaked some of this information?

We have no idea who leaked that information. Heck -- I'm not even sure the "leaks" were accurate. I've assumed they were because they seemed very detailed, but the relationship between Trump and Cohen is such a strange one that I wouldn't dismiss anything as a possibility here.

[JoSixChip]

The entire Trump presidency is filled with anomalies that may never happen in another 500 years in this country.

Seems those "anomalies" are completely lost on you. Sometimes, things are exactly the way they seem to be. There is my conspiracy theory.

[Alberta's Child]

These anomalies aren't lost on me at all. In fact, they define Donald Trump as far as I'm concerned.

Here's an anomaly for you ...

Donald Trump is the only political candidate I've ever supported in my life -- at any level of government. That's true ... and I wouldn't have supported him if he WASN'T such an anomaly.

[Alberta's Child]

P.S. -- I mean financially supported there, in my last post.

[Golden Eagle]

I've been here for over 17 years and have more than 75,000 posts to my name

And in all that time, no one has ever mistaken you for a true conservative. Clever, perhaps. Conservative, not. I respect you as always, but you're a typical NY Republican. To the left of Rudy and Trump, now it appears.

[Alberta's Child]

I don't know why some Freepers believe that.

Lay out 5-8 issues that you would use to define a conservative vs. a liberal, and I'll tell you exactly where I stand on them.

From what you've posted there in your last message, you might be surprised at what you learn. Most people who know me will tell you I make the Freedom Caucus look like the Congressional Black Caucus.