• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mueller has evidence that Trump supporter's meeting with Putin ally may not have been a chance encou

if he sees a crime that has been committed, does he just ignore it?

If he "sees" it, no he doesn't. He can't go looking for it, without probable cause.
 
What is "unconstitutional" about any of Mueller's investigation pray tell?

:lamo

(Already getting an inner chuckle, this ought to be good....?)

:popcorn2:

Violation of the 4th Amendment. Paul Manafort's business dealings from 8 years ago have nothing to do with the Russians's propaganda operation during the campaign, nor the DNC hack.
 
Why in the hell would ANYONE, have a problem with Trump going down as president, say for something completely irrelevant, and totally unconnected, yet fully criminal and, fully prosecuteable, but, that happened, even well before the "scope" of Mueller's investigation?

Now granted, were I to put myself in the shoes of a supporter of Trump's policies, I'd be desperately hoping for him to be fully cleared, but, I can't even imagine myself, being too terribly upset with the actions of of removing "my guy" from office, if it was found that he'd done something really serious, even well before he ran for president. I can imagine myself being upset with the situation, and pissed at my guy and his team for having screwed themselves and ultimately the nation with such BS. What astounds and amazes me to no end though, is that it seems that most of his supporters would be ecstatic, if, exactly like Hillary, we all very strongly feel, he likely commited serious crimes, but nobody could prove it, yet he got off on a technicality or something.

If that's true for you (the bolded), I desperately urge you, to look deep within yourself, and try hard as you can to ignore the feeling,, that "oh but so, and so got away with same or worse" one, and try and learn and grow from the experience. No agenda is worth overlooking such scumbags who seek to serve only their own interests, law and justice be damned.

I don't know what in my comment triggered you, but what you are saying has nothing to do with the intent of mine. I found the thought amusing that because someone 'supports' Trump they are fair game for Mueller's team to investigate anything in their past and after the election.

I can't even imagine myself, being too terribly upset with the actions of of removing "my guy" from office, if it was found that he'd done something really serious, even well before he ran for president. I can imagine myself being upset with the situation, and pissed at my guy and his team for having screwed themselves and ultimately the nation with such BS

Yup agree. If they have proof to charge him, do it.

No, it's not true (the bolded) but I do think Hillary is corrupt and guilty as hell and got away with it.
 
If he "sees" it, no he doesn't. He can't go looking for it, without probable cause.

He can go wherever he is authorized to go, and to date that seems to be just what he has done.
 
He can go wherever he is authorized to go, and to date that seems to be just what he has done.

He can only go where The Constitution allows him to go.
 
He can only go where The Constitution allows him to go.

He can go where Rod Rosenstein allows him to go. Would you point out the part of the constitution you are referring to?
 
He can go where Rod Rosenstein allows him to go. Would you point out the part of the constitution you are referring to?

Rosenstein can only allow him to go where The Constitution says he can go.

The 4th Amendment.. and post exfacto law.
 
Rosenstein can only allow him to go where The Constitution says he can go.

The 4th Amendment.. and post exfacto law.

Are you saying that the 4th amendment isnt being followed?
 
I don't know what in my comment triggered you, but what you are saying has nothing to do with the intent of mine. I found the thought amusing that because someone 'supports' Trump they are fair game for Mueller's team to investigate anything in their past and after the election.



Yup agree. If they have proof to charge him, do it.

No, it's not true (the bolded) but I do think Hillary is corrupt and guilty as hell and got away with it.

Yeah I'm glad you didn't take that as aimed at you, but something made me think to say it. I am familliar enough with you to know you are not in that camp. I just wish this BBS had multi quote threading, it gets so complicated remembering exactly who said what during the course of a thread without it.

Edit: on second thought, now I recall what you said, and your sarcasm brought up the screen names of about 10 silly lil Trumplings around here, I suspect, in total there might be a total of 25 guys who post a lot that are that loopy in their unwavering defense of the president.
 
Last edited:
I'm talking about the left trying to protect and excuse him. Double standard time for the left.....as usual.

Really??? the 'left'... you love a broad brush... I was addressing the posters who shrug or applaud Trump committing adultery. Point to where I said I was 'ok' with Clinton's adultery???

I point out the GOP used to be ashamed of such conduct. I point out the GOP has a virtual rogue's gallery of adulters, closet gay predators and whore mongers...

I understand the discomfort this immoral occupant of the White House causes the rabid right. But 'the left'.... blah blah blah is weak deflection at best... :peace
 
Really??? the 'left'... you love a broad brush...

Hah! What was that, Mr. "rabid right"????

I was addressing the posters who shrug or applaud Trump committing adultery. Point to where I said I was 'ok' with Clinton's adultery???

People on the left sold their souls making excuses for Clinton. My favorite was one female commentator who, when ask about Clinton groping someone, said, "Well he stopped when she objected". Really? Does that mean I could grope her as long as I stopped when she said to? I seriously doubt it.

I point out the GOP used to be ashamed of such conduct. I point out the GOP has a virtual rogue's gallery of adulters, closet gay predators and whore mongers...

I understand the discomfort this immoral occupant of the White House causes the rabid right. But 'the left'.... blah blah blah is weak deflection at best... :peace

You know as well as I do that someone could make a list of lefty adulterers and scumbags to match those on the right. Hell, the Kennedy clan alone would provide a few pages.

My point is that there is a double standard at work here.
 
That's not true though, why are you not just referencing the actual legal document?

any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump;
and (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation;
and (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.
You say it's only (i), when there is obviously, factually, legally, more to his order.

Also note what 28 C.F.R. 600.4 refers to, jurisdiction, as follows:





Wait a minute. Ken Starr investingating Whitewater and then Lewinski (!), took around 4 years and half of that was so improper, even Ken Starr later agreed...

Benghazi redux, redux, redux - 4 years, with much of it an obvious partisan attack on Hillary that just repeated itself over and over and over for no apparent reason other than political partisanship.

In contrast, this is an investigation into a foreign adversary's attack on the united states, along with possible co-conspirators in the United States, where a crap ton of evidence casually linked the Trump administration to it. So based on that, you got 4 years total before you can lift a finger.



Just so you know, the wikileaks email leak, and the magnification of the Russian fake-news propaganda that people unwittingly re-tweeted, copied, referenced, etc., affected the election more than if a handful of votes were changed directly. Wikileaks was a bomb dropped right after access hollywood broke that not only spurred no Trump voters, but far more damaging it turned off Hillary voters, and REALLY pissed of Sanders voters, many likely deciding they would rather do nothing than support HRC given her underhanded tactics in gimping Sanders.[/QUOTE]


First off if I might.. the first thing I posted that this was my "OPINION"

That being said.... OK so you kinda offered more to my initial point that,

1) Usually there is a crime, that was committed, to initiate something right? What Crime was committed that initiated the investigation of Trump? What I mean is, Russian actors to disrupt our 2016 Elections? This was known by 17 agencies. So what crime or possible crime or Actual crime committed by a potential American Citizen related to Trump?

2) So the Special council was in fact created to investigate Trump without just cause just assumption?


I get the jurisdiction now... But it does seem like they are digging so deep just to find anything again OPINION.


"wait a minute"? White water was there NOT an initial crime committed by someone to question the involvement? WHAT crime was committed happened to initiate an investigation?

Benghazi, 4 AMERICANS DIED, 1 an ambassador? NO one was held accountable? While a direct crime was not committed Americans LOST their lives due to seemingly dereliction of duty upon request for higher security, Byt the HIGHEST ranking person in Benghazi? And then UH OH, an actual LAW was BROKEN, Private email server.


SO ..... Again..... What Crime..... happened did someone die? Did we find Russians and polling booths, Did we have trump paying someone money to change votes? Was there actual VOTE manipulation other than Dumb@$$ people being swayed by Social Media rather than doing their own homework.


AGAIN.... Its fine to investigate, but usually something indicates a crime was committed. HRC losing and Trump winning is NOT an indication of a crime......For the 10th milion NON sarcastic non disrespectful time.

I am scared that one day, I gain the courage to run for office in my state.... and someone brings up a claim that I colluded with a lobbying group, thus a special council is enacted and spends money to investigate a hunch with NOTHING else other then saying I colluded with someone. With NO other evidence.


Finally Wiki leaks and re-tweets YET again, if you take Twitter, Social Media/Facebook as your knowledge and educational point to VOTE for someone, thats on you and NO ONE else to blame, as a citizen and my responsibility is to research the candidates and vote based on the facts that they are able to meet my political beliefs.....Trump again is a scumbag, but meets my belief. HRC is a bigger scumbag and does not meet any of my political beliefs.
 
Back
Top Bottom