• 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!

Giuliani: Nothing wrong with getting information from Russians

What if...? said:
Because he said he didn't think he could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they had a general knowledge that what they were doing was against the law.
Click to expand...
In other words he felt he could not meet the burden of proof required. What does that tell you?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
Athanasius68 said:
But see, Mueller was not immune from being terminated.
So Trump can order somebody to fire him.
And that person can lawfully fire Mueller.
That person can be fired by Trump for not firing Mueller.

But none of that happened. So there was no obstruction.
Click to expand...

But in Mueller's case the law actually says that a Special Counsel can only be fired for just cause. White House Counsel Don McGahn knew that no such just cause existed and therefore was prepared to resign if Trump insisted upon following through with firing Mueller.
 
Last edited:
Athanasius68 said:
Yeah. So why are we assuming that the dossier is NOT part of that effort?
Click to expand...


For one thing the dossier came after the fact. Secondly no one assumed anything about it. The FBI took a serious look at it because they regarded Steele to be reliable and trustworthy source. But they and Steele even said that the intelligence was pretty raw, much of it second hand and as such could certainly contain disinformation. Which he knew was something the Russians like to engage in from his previous experience as an agent operating within Russia. The FBI knew they would have go through it and investigate each allegation separately to see which they can verify as being factual and which they can't. Which they did. They didn't just accept it at face value.
 
Last edited:
Athanasius68 said:
There is no 'try' in that circumstance.
The President either fires the person.
Or he doesn't.
No obstruction.
Click to expand...

Mueller made it clear in his report that he doesn't agree with Barr's assessment that a President is incapable of committing obstruction of justice when exercising his or her Article 2 powers.
 
Atomic Kid said:
But in Mueller's case the law actually says that a Special Counsel can only be fired for just cause. White House Counsel Don McGahn knew that no such just cause existed and therefore was prepared to resign if Trump insisted upon following through with firing Mueller.
Click to expand...

I suppose one could argue that as there was no collusion, just cause wouldbe the pointlessness of the investigation.
Or perhaps that Mueller hired DOJ employee as part of his team, or that there was no specified crime Mueller was appointed to investigate.

Trump can fire McGahan for not firing Mueller.
But regardless, McGahan did not fire Mueller, Trump did not press the issue, and Mueller completed his investigation.
 
Athanasius68 said:
The idea is that the kings can't prosecute the common folks for criminal violations of arcane election laws when the common guys challenge the kings.
You know, when a political neophytes like the Trump campaign challenges the Clinton kings.
Click to expand...

That's all total BS. It's not exactly flattering that the Special Counsel had to take into account the plausibility that Don Jr just might be stupid enough not to know that what he was doing was illegal. But Paul Manafort who was also present at that meeting in Trump Tower is certainly no political or national election neophyte and was certainly aware that first rule of national elections is that you don't accept contributions or offers of assistance from foreign nationals. Not that he really cares all that much about rules or laws anyway.
 
Atomic Kid said:
Mueller made it clear in his report that he doesn't agree with Barr's assessment that a President is incapable of committing obstruction of justice when exercising his or her Article 2 powers.
Click to expand...

That wasn't Barr's assessment. He said if there was no underlying crime, then the assumption must be the president is exercising his lawful authority.
 
Atomic Kid said:
That's all total BS. It's not exactly flattering that the Special Counsel had to take into account the plausibility that Don Jr just might be stupid enough not to know that what he was doing was illegal. But Paul Manafort who was also present at that meeting in Trump Tower is certainly no political or national election neophyte and was certainly aware that first rule of national elections is that you don't accept contributions or offers of assistance from foreign nationals. Not that he really cares all that much about rules or laws anyway.
Click to expand...

The law states that to be CRIMINALLY liable for election law violations, one must be aware that the law was being violated and that the person doesn't care.
Otherwise, it's treated as a civil violation.

Mueller found no liability on Manafort part as well.
 
Athanasius68 said:
I suppose one could argue that as there was no collusion, just cause wouldbe the pointlessness of the investigation.
Or perhaps that Mueller hired DOJ employee as part of his team, or that there was no specified crime Mueller was appointed to investigate.

Trump can fire McGahan for not firing Mueller.
But regardless, McGahan did not fire Mueller, Trump did not press the issue, and Mueller completed his investigation.
Click to expand...

Maybe someday you should read Rosenstein's letter of appointing Mueller as Special Counsel. It says;

"(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween 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.

(d) Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are
applicable to the Special Counsel."

And Trump did try more than once to get Mueller removed. Priebus and Sessions who refused to do so for pretty much the same reasons McGahn did. To me this is perhaps the most glaring example of Trump's malintent.
 
Atomic Kid said:
Maybe someday you should read Rosenstein's letter of appointing Mueller as Special Counsel. It says;

"(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween 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.

(d) Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are
applicable to the Special Counsel."

And Trump did try more than once to get Mueller removed. Priebus and Sessions who refused to do so for pretty much the same reasons McGahn did. To me this is perhaps the most glaring example of Trump's malintent.
Click to expand...

The codes cited merely discuss the office of special counsel. The law requires that a particular crime be named. How could it not? How else could a conflict be determined to exist?
 
DaveFagan said:
I'll tell you what's wrong with this picture. The Russians are a "MYTHICAL" adversary invented by the MIC, Military Industry Complex, to keep the trillion dollar spigot open for the largest business in the USA. That'd be the WAR business. Promote fear through a inept MSM using the fake Terror War, exaggerated enemies, false flag events, trolls, an army of paid propaganda specialists, and "alleged" think tanks that generate contrived issues to either Corporate or Gov't advantage. The USA has forced East Asian alliances to create larger future "mythical" enemies. US Monetary policy, sanctions, tariffs, embargos and assorted financial Central Bank skullduggery are our enemy.
/
Click to expand...

Tell us of the "False flag" events....
 
Athanasius68 said:
The codes cited merely discuss the office of special counsel. The law requires that a particular crime be named. How could it not? How else could a conflict be determined to exist?
Click to expand...

Guess that you can't read then because it does name the types crimes the Special Counsel was charged with investigating.
 
trouble13 said:
In other words he felt he could not meet the burden of proof required. What does that tell you?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That ignorance of the law is now an excuse.

Proving that that trumpco is an ignorant lot.
 
Atomic Kid said:
Guess that you can't read then because it does name the types crimes the Special Counsel was charged with investigating.
Click to expand...

Sec 600.4 says the SC is to be given a "specific factual matter" to investigate.
The sections indicated spoke of the authority for their to be a special prosecutor, but not the specific matter to be investigated.
The point being that lack thereof can be "just cause" reasons for termination.

And in any event, Mueller was never fired.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Click to expand...

Yet Mrs. Clinton, or the Obama Admin, was not raked over the coals for their wrong.
Note is anyone worried about the consequences of their wrong.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Sec 600.4 says the SC is to be given a "specific factual matter" to investigate.
The sections indicated spoke of the authority for their to be a special prosecutor, but not the specific matter to be investigated.
The point being that lack thereof can be "just cause" reasons for termination.

And in any event, Mueller was never fired.
Click to expand...

Jesus God Almighty! Is there ANYTHING that you CAN read correctly? That's not what it what it says! This is what it says;

"§ 600.4 Jurisdiction.
(a)Original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated."
 
CanadaJohn said:
Perhaps - I would say, however, that based on the Mueller report, Guiliani's interpretations are quite valid. Far more valid than those who claim positions, mostly those on the left, that are totally contrary to Mueller's findings.
Click to expand...

I would say that since Mueller report did not find that the Trump meeting offered any stolen emails to Trump associates, you are just speculating. If you want to make an argument abut how Mueller WOULD interpret the law about stolen goods and if stolen electronic documents with Hillary's emails would be considered a form of stolen goods by Mueller, do so, after actually reading the report so that you are more familiar with Mueller's legal thinking.

From page 186 of the report (or 194 in the pdf document) where Mueller discusses the legal issues regarding if opposition research information is a thing of value in relation to the law about foreign contributions to federal campaigns

Thing-of Value Element

A threshold legal question is whether providing to a campaign "documents and
information" of the type involved here would constitute a prohibited campaign contribution. The
foreign contribution ban is not limited to contributions of money.
...

Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulations recognize the value to a campaign of at least some forms of information, stating that the term "anything of value" includes "the provision of any goods or services without charge," such as "membership lists" and "mailing lists."
...
These authorities would support the view that candidate-related opposition research given
to a campaign for the purpose of influencing an election could constitute a contribution to which
the foreign-source ban could apply. A campaign can be assisted not only by the provision of funds,
but also by the provision of derogatory information about an opponent. Political campaigns
frequently conduct and pay for opposition research. A foreign entity that engaged in such research
and provided resulting information to a campaign could exert a greater effect on an election, and
a greater tendency to ingratiate the donor to the candidate, than a gift of money or tangible things
of value.

If membership and mailing lists are considered goods, it is hard to argue that opposition research material is not a type of good.
 
Atomic Kid said:
Jesus God Almighty! Is there ANYTHING that you CAN read correctly? That's not what it what it says! This is what it says;

"§ 600.4 Jurisdiction.
(a)Original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated."
Click to expand...

And factual statement refers to what CRIME was supposedly committed.
 
Athanasius68 said:
And factual statement refers to what CRIME was supposedly committed.
Click to expand...

LOL! Again, no it doesn't. It says a factual statement about the MATTER to be investigated.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Yet Mrs. Clinton, or the Obama Admin, was not raked over the coals for their wrong.
Note is anyone worried about the consequences of their wrong.
Click to expand...

For a little perspective who is actually President right now?

1. Trump

2. Obama

3. Clinton


If you feel the need to go after Obama and Clinton legally then by all means file with the courts. Perhaps you will do what the GOP would not do? Seriously why isnt the GOP filling with the courts on this? What are they waiting for? Why does it seem to be only rhetoric?

BTW I promote investigations into any politician that you can think of, as long as it is done legally. But not political reasons. ANd if you are here asserting that Trump has the right to get help from Russia to get elected, then so does the idiots that you mentioned.

I on the other hand assert that no politician has that right (no matter who they are are, or what party they work for). I also do not vote for any politician that engages in smear campaigns based on lies and rumors. In fact a lot of times I do not cast a vote for anyone running. I do not play the least worst politician game, everyone else does (and they are the main problem with the country right now).
 
Athanasius68 said:
There is no attempt. The president either fires the person or the president doesn't.
There is no refusal of being fired. There is no 'attempt' being made to fire.
Click to expand...
The president told people to do things that would obstruct justice.
They didn't follow his orders.

He attempted to obstruct justice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom