Special counsel Robert Mueller

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Burls

That's right!
Why don't people understand the simple fact that
a Special Prosecutor's Report into the conduct of a sitting US President
is for the EXCLUSIVE USE of that sitting US President?
Whether the public or any government officials get to see any part of that report
is ENTIRELY at the discretion of that sitting US President.
Remember when Slick Willy unilaterally suppressed the Kenneth Starr Report for weeks?
Those were the days!

Per Janet Reno. Why do nosy neighbors think they know more than the actual residents?

The dems had control of congress when they passed the Special Counsel laws, which requires the Special Counsel to make a confidential report to the AG.

Thanks for proving my point about you, a citizen of another country, advocating the limitation of U.S. citizen rights.

[Burls]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Per Janet Reno. Why do nosy neighbors think they know more than the actual residents?

The dems had control of congress when they passed the Special Counsel laws, which requires the Special Counsel to make a confidential report to the AG.

Thanks for proving my point about you, a citizen of another country, advocating the limitation of U.S. citizen rights.

Your mouth is in gear, but your brain is still in neutral.
Try actually reading the report instead of just spouting off on it.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Burls

Your mouth is in gear, but your brain is still in neutral.
Try actually reading the report instead of just spouting off on it.

If you want to stick your nose in our sovereign business, try understanding the laws, which control the disclosure of the report. Laws passed by dems, pursuant to a Janet Reno's recommendations. And the laws which require particular types of information, which cannot be disclosed.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by hcap

My position is legal experts at least as knowledgeable as you, Barr, and the DOJ outnumber you. Makes me wonder about you guy's expertise of legalese.

Or why is there a plurality on the Supreme Court?.

How about answering my question. Why are there no equal and opposite number of voices signing a letter in your support?

Most are not prone to childish displays of rage and fits like you are. They are confident in the process and the law and see no need to play childish games.

This is not sandlot pick 'em teams.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Burls

That's right!
Why don't people understand the simple fact that
a Special Prosecutor's Report into the conduct of a sitting US President
is for the EXCLUSIVE USE of that sitting US President?
Whether the public or any government officials get to see any part of that report
is ENTIRELY at the discretion of that sitting US President.
Remember when Slick Willy unilaterally suppressed the Kenneth Starr Report for weeks?
Those were the days!

Maybe it's the metric system,, but your reply seems to have 0 to do with what i posted.

Try getting an American to read my posts to you before you reply.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by hcap

My position is legal experts at least as knowledgeable as you, Barr, and the DOJ outnumber you. Makes me wonder about you guy's expertise of legalese.

Or why is there a plurality on the Supreme Court?.

How about answering my question. Why are there no equal and opposite number of voices signing a letter in your support?

The amount of signatures is totally irrelevant, there is no way to verify who is signing the letter. However, I said if these signers are correct and I am in error then Pelosi and her cohorts are committing the crime of obstruction.

What plurality are you referring to? The articles you personally cited stated the Court is skeptical of expanding the interpretation of the obstruction law (my position) or that Mueller is very, very wrong about his theory of obstruction.

Since Pelosi and her fellow members, who do not have Article II, presidential powers, have actual knowledge of current ongoing investigations and are advocating the jailing or removal of Barr, who is investigating, and whose removal will impede the investigation, shouldn't she and her cohorts should be charged with obstruction?

You can't have it both ways. If a general knowledge, by a person not holding the office of the president, that there are on-going investigations and the calling for the firing or removal of an investigator is sufficient to prove obstruction, then personal knowledge of investigations, while calling for the jailing and/or removal the investigators is certainly obstruction.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Tom

Maybe it's the metric system,, but your reply seems to have 0 to do with what i posted.

Try getting an American to read my posts to you before you reply.

Great suggestion

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

The amount of signatures is totally irrelevant, there is no way to verify who is signing the letter. However, I said if these signers are correct and I am in error then Pelosi and her cohorts are committing the crime of obstruction.

No, their signatures are on record and even if 1/2 are pretending and lying...and there is no reason to assume that....many have given interviews in person. I have witnessed many, including former acting Solicitor General of the United States Neal Katyal, who worked in that role during Barack Obama‘s presidency, argued that Special Counsel Robert Mueller‘s obstruction “road map” is “devastating” for President Donald Trump.

I doubt you have his experience or expertise.

You seem to be espousing another deep state conspiracy theory that all these 800+ signatures have been set up as a "coup" to depose rightfully ordained King Trump. Give me a break.

YouTube (Short URL)

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by hcap

.No, their signatures are on record and even if 1/2 are pretending and lying....there is no reason rto assume that....many have given interviews in person. I have witnessed many, including former acting Solicitor General of the United States Neal Katyal, who worked in that role during Barack Obama‘s presidency, argued that Special Counsel Robert Mueller‘s obstruction “road map” is “devastating” for President Donald Trump. I doubt you have his experience or expertise.

https://youtu.be/X8AGVuSlW14

So why are they not asking for Pelosi, et al to be charged with obstruction? Pelosi, et al. have personal knowledge of investigations and are calling for the removal of the head investigators.

Tell us the difference? Why should the President be charged and not Pelosi, et. al? I am waiting to hear their esteemed opinions, why the President should be charged with obstruction for calling for the removal of an investigator, while Pelosi, et al. should not.

I am not sure that person has any expertise, due to the listings of reasons 1. 3, 4 and 5.

[Burls]

Originally Posted by Tom

Maybe it's the metric system,, but your reply seems to have 0 to do with what i posted.

Try getting an American to read my posts to you before you reply.

Sorry, I'm busy trying to calm down Donnie Jr.
He says he won't make it in prison.

[Burls]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

If you want to stick your nose in our sovereign business, try understanding the laws, which control the disclosure of the report. Laws passed by dems, pursuant to a Janet Reno's recommendations. And the laws which require particular types of information, which cannot be disclosed.

[hcap]

Do you think all of these ex prosecutors and prominent figures are lying? And these names are early wheen there were 400, 1/2 as many as there are now.?
Good luck with that.

426 Former Prosecutors (and Counting!): Trump Committed “Multiple” Felonies
“Unchecked obstruction—which allows intentional interference with criminal investigations to go unpunished—puts our whole system of justice at risk.”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019...mp-obstruction

Among the signatories are Donald Ayer, a former deputy attorney general in the George H.W. Bush administration; Bill Weld, a former U.S. attorney and Department of Justice official from the Reagan administration; Paul Rosenzweig, who was senior counsel to Kenneth Starr; John S. Martin, a former U.S. attorney and federal judge who was appointed to his posts by two Republican presidents; and Jeffrey Harris, who served as the principal assistant to—wait for it—Rudy Giuliani, when the now-Trump lawyer was at the Justice Department during the Reagan administration. Weld told The Washington Post that he added his name to the statement because he believes the evidence “goes well beyond what is required to support criminal charges of obstruction of justice,” adding that he “hope[s] the letter will be persuasive evidence that Attorney General Barr’s apparent legal theory is incorrect.”

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

So why are they not asking for Pelosi, et al to be charged with obstruction? Pelosi, et al. have personal knowledge of investigations and are calling for the removal of the head investigators.

Tell us the difference? Why should the President be charged and not Pelosi, et. al? I am waiting to hear their esteemed opinions, why the President should be charged with obstruction for calling for the removal of an investigator, while Pelosi, et al. should not.

I am not sure that person has any expertise, due to the listings of reasons 1. 3, 4 and 5.

How's about there is no bipartisan respected special prosecutor investigating YOUR BOGUS CLAIMS, issuing a report that took 20 months and a staff of dozens? You are obfuscating and changing the subject, and in denial.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by hcap

How's about there is no bipartisan respected special prosecutor investigating YOUR BOGUS CLAIMS, issuing a report that took 20 months and a staff of dozens? You are obfuscating and changing the subject, and in denial.

I am not making claims. I am asking about the interpretation you believe is correct?

What is the difference, besides presidential powers, Trump calling for the removal of an investigator and Pelosi et. al. calling for the removal of the top investigator during on-going investigations.

Surely, one of these brilliant legal minds you cite can tell us the difference?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

I am not making claims. I am asking about the interpretation you believe is correct?

What is the difference, besides presidential powers, Trump calling for the removal of an investigator and Pelosi et. al. calling for the removal of the top investigator during on-going investigations.

Surely, one of these brilliant legal minds you cite can tell us the difference?

Never said Pelosi obstructed justice. Impeaching Barr is not calling for the removal of the top investigator. Mueller is the top investigator.

Barr is the chief cover up general. Hail to the chief