Posted on 05/20/2018 10:43:58 AM PDT by doug from upland
Donald J. Trump Verified account
@realDonaldTrump 6m6 minutes ago More I hereby demand, and will do so officially tomorrow, that the Department of Justice look into whether or not the FBI/DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes - and if any such demands or requests were made by people within the Obama Administration!
Sometimes I wonder if there are posters that assume the identity of deceased Freepers.
Why did he include the phrase “for political purposes.”? You know they’re just going to say, “oh, well it was for national security purposes, not political.”
Agreed.
The only “Out” for Mueller is to leave his entire investigation hanging on assumptions and accusations.
Which is purely political.
Is Mueller investigation subject to oversight?
We will see this play out on many levels.
I love the fact that both Manafort’s and the “13” Russians attorneys seem to be taking a scorched earth tactic.
Why Flynn’s attorneys didn’t do the same is beyond me.
Mueller is trying to “Sell” everyone a complete hoax. The MSM desperately wants to buy it.
Thank you for calling. You have reached the office of Attorney General of the United States, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III. You call is important to us, so please stay on the line until Mr Sessions finishes his nap.
For Spanish, press 1
For Ghetto, press 2
For clean towels, press 3
For somebody who actually gives a damn, hang up the phone and talk to yourself.
Where we are now is because Sessions failed to perform his duty by exercising his authority to stop it: hence Trump's livid posts about same.
My understanding is if Trump fires Sessions, Rosenstein takes over until a new SOS is named and approved. If a firing occurs, both should happen, not just one. Politically, it makes more sense then coming out and firing just Rosenstein.
I’m not sure who would take over if both were fired.
Ugh... the public doesn’t have to know all the evidence in a criminal case before indictments. Perhaps what you are implying is that in political situations the public needs to have the information in front of them in order to understand the actions Trump is taking.
1. If a prosecutor recuses himself in a case when a recusal isn't really necessary, then someone else just does his job in that case.
2. If a prosecutor doesn't recuse himself in a case when a recusal is warranted, then the successful prosecution of the case is jeopardized.
This is why a prosecutor who actually wants to prosecute a case and doesn't want the charges to be thrown out later will usually decide in favor of a recusal if there is a legitimate question about a potential conflict of interest.
Now go back and look at the apparent conflicts with Rosenstein and Mueller in this context. Do you get the impression that they ever expected any criminal charges that came out of Mueller's investigation to stick? After seeing how amateurish Mueller's team has been in the Concord Management case, I'd say: absolutely not.
The problem with doing things legally vs. illegally is when you’re doing illegal things, process doesn’t matter. If you’re doing things legal and with high profile individuals like Hillary, Comey and company, everything has to be by the book.
I have seen no direct evidence of it, but it seems obvious to me. If (as we’re seeing reported even in left-wing media outlets like the NYT and WP) the Obama administration had orchestrated an illicit surveillance program against the Trump campaign, then surely all of the major players in the campaign were under surveillance.
Thank you for posting your thoughts. Very good stuff to ponder.
He wants to get them on the record as saying it was for counter intel purposes when they refuse to open an investigation.
Not Alberta............ Zambia.
I've been through this nonsense before on FreeRepublic -- and not all that long ago, either.
In fact, we are arguing over nothing because Donald Trump isn't really the President of the United States. I know this because I heard from plenty of Freepers in December 2016 who told me the "obvious fact" that the Electoral College vote would be rigged so that Trump would not win.
But that's not true, either ... because in late November 2016 Freepers laid out the "obvious fact" that Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin in Hillary were going to be moved from Trump to Clinton as a result of the Jill Stein recounts in those three states.
But that couldn't have happened, either. You see, we didn't have an election in 2016 because a bunch of Freepers explained the "obvious fact" that Barack Obama was going to declare martial law, cancel the election, and make himself president for life.
Doesn't this get tiresome after a while? LOL.
Mueller gathered evidence on Cohen in his own investigation and handed it off to the SDNY. I have seen nothing to indicate that he had anything to do with what happened afterward.
I've been here for over 17 years and have more than 75,000 posts to my name. I've been around the block here a few times, and this stuff is really repetitive.
He may be gone if he doesn’t. This is sounding like an order, and the DOJ is under the Executive branch.
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.
I think so too.
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.