CDZ Special Councel Appointment

Clearly you are enunciating one of the many strategies that Don the Con is going with to try to shield his former colleagues from prosecution.

As you mentioned- you are not a lawyer- but the judge who reviewed Manafort's pleadings on exactly these issues- is a lawyer- and ruled that your 'questions' are just that- your questions- not a legal defense.

Nowhere above I mentioned Manafort or any other people Mueller indicted so far, because they're not the subjects of this thread. Clearly you have no clue about issues I was addressing above. As I mentioned, I am not a lawyer, but one doesn't have to be a lawyer to read the Constitution, or laws, or regulations, to raise questions. The fact that you didn't comment any of the issues I wrote above, and make the issue about me instead, tells me that you're just a troll with no interest in discussion, and that you're just shitposting.

Now, now- language, language- remember this is the CDZ.

You raised your 'questions'- I pointed out that those 'questions' have been answered by an actual lawyer and judge.

You want a 'comment' on your 'questions'? Its best to use the judges own words

"The Special Counsel’s appointment was consistent with both constitutional requirements regarding appointment of officers and statutory requirements governing the authority to conduct criminal litigation on behalf of the United States, the Special Counsel had legal authority to investigate and to prosecute this matter and dismissal of the Superseding Indictment is not warranted,"


And of course he also responded this week

"The Attorney General’s powers to define altogether the scope of a Special Counsel’s authority and rescind such authority at will give the Attorney General the effective power to oversee, supervise, and countermand a Special Counsel in exercising such authority," Howell ruled.


nstead, Howell found Mueller to be an "inferior officer" under the supervision of deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, who took up the oversight of the Russia investigation after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from it last year.
"His appointment, without presidential appointment and senatorial confirmation, thus did not violate the Appointments Clause," Howell wrote.

I understand tall that. That's what this whole topic is about. Something doesn't add up. Principal officer constitutionally can appoint inferior officers, that would make Mueller the inferior officer and I agree with judge on that. Since ruling explains it and the way he's appointed, Mueller is an inferior officer, but...

a) as inferior officer he cannot have powers of principal officer, and
b) I highlighted the part I asked about earlier in post #5. What exactly is the criminal statute to as judge says "conduct criminal litigation on behalf of the United States"?

A) Says who? From what I have read the restriction is that he is under the supervision of a principal officer- and Mueller is- Rosenstein has the authority fire Mueller at any time.
b) I don't know what your point is about 'criminal statute'- Mueller was appointed to investigate Russian interference in the U.S. election and any possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign- just like in Whitewater- a criminal statute didn't need to be cited at the time of the appointment.



b) The investigation of Trump's campaign started way before Mueller was appointed, by spying on Trump's campaign, placing spies within the campaign, unmasking names of US citizens... based on what? If there was crime committed, there should be criminal statute to start the investigation. Two years into investigation, there is still no criminal statute, and Mueller indictments so far have nothing to do with "Russian collusion" but for things that happens outside of scope of his investigation (which is Russian collusion)..

There were no 'spies' placed within the Trump campaign.

Based upon what?You still don't know?

I guess you haven't exactly been following this story for the last year and half- the FBI knew that a Trump campaign member had been attempted to be recruited by the Russians. They suspected he actually was a spy.

Last I checked- acting as a spy for a foreign government is a crime- and that was the basis of the investigation.

And the investigation has indeed found evidence of crimes committed by Russian nationals in the United States- crimes committed with the intent of affecting the 2016 election. As far as we know, so far the investigation hasn't found any evidence of criminal collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia- and hopefully- hopefully- the investigation will conclude that there was no collusion- and notify the American public of that fact.

Meanwhile the investigation continues- and I don't have a problem with criminals being prosecuted because their crimes happened to be uncovered during this investigation- what about you?
 
Last edited:
It shouldn't take this long. In the toxic and highly partisan environment that is Washington DC these days, the current investigation has IMHO done a poor job in all of these things I mentioned, and that's why it looks to some like a witch-hunting fishing expedition. Maybe it was fore-ordained to appear to be such anyway, given the way things are, but Bob Mueller has not done an acceptable job of making it at least look to be fair and above board.

What has Mueller done that was not fair or above board?

I find it fascinating to watch the vilification of Bob Mueller because he is investigating(in part) the Trump campaign's possible collusion with Russia. Trump continues to insist that Mueller is personally biased- and that his entire investigation is being done by Democrats- but as usual with Don the Con- there is no evidence to support either claim.

It looks like a 'witch hunt' to Don the Con and his supporters- according to Don the Con- the greatest witch hunt in American history. I don't think so.

As you acknowledge there was a legitimate reason for an investigation. I am not sure why you expect this investigation to be faster than say- Whitewater. Or Benghazi?
 
Alright, here's the deal as I see it for the way it SHOULD be:

When you have a situation such as the Russian interference into our 2016 election and the supposition that there was collusion between the Russians and one or more American citizens, then it seems to me to be entirely appropriate to appoint a special counsel to look into the matter. However, the focus of that investigation ought to be narrow and limited to the specific issue at hand: what interference took place and who colluded with the Russians, if anybody. IMHO that investigation ought to have a time limit of 6 months, at which time the special counsel reports to the AG their findings thus far. At which time the AG can decide:

1. Extend the investigation by a specified period of time at his or her discretion, or

2. Stop the investigation if it appears the investigation has reached its usefulness, and

3. Report to the President and the Congress what the findings were and why the decision was made to extend it or stop it. And I would expect the American public to be informed as to those findings too.

Enough of this crap of dragging it out for months and years, screw that. We need to know who did what, and we sure as hell need to know before the next election comes and goes. We do not need to know the ancillary stuff about any business dealings and tax evasion or whatever might have been uncovered. The DOJ has the resources necessary to pick up the threads of whatever the special counsel finds that might be illegal but not germane to the central issue.

The special counsel has to have the autonomy to conduct his/her business as needed without outside influence or interference. But by the same token the special counsel ought to have the good sense to make sure the investigation is being done fairly and impartially; you do not hire a bunch of lawyers and investigators who have ties to the parties involved, for or against. And you don't go off topic looking for any wrong-doing that is not directly related to the issue that you were hired to investigate in the 1st place.

It shouldn't take this long. In the toxic and highly partisan environment that is Washington DC these days, the current investigation has IMHO done a poor job in all of these things I mentioned, and that's why it looks to some like a witch-hunting fishing expedition. Maybe it was fore-ordained to appear to be such anyway, given the way things are, but Bob Mueller has not done an acceptable job of making it at least look to be fair and above board.

One person who could hasten the investigation into a more rapid conclusion is Donald J. Trump….sit down and answer questions.

If you and another guy were up for a promotion and the other guy has a series of unfortunate events such as having their computers hacked, their best friend’s computers hacked, and the information is released to the people doing the hiring….

And…

YOU and your family, friends, advisors had numerous meetings with the hackers and their superiors….

Any investigator would want to know what you and your family, friends, and advisors knew. So the investigation starts.

The problem is that You, your family, friends, and advisors are not all willing to sit down and answer questions. So what the investigators have to do then is go one circle out to their families, their friends and their advisors (Cohen, Gates, et. al) and ask them. They don’t have all the information—being removed from the inner circle of course—so the investigators have to find other evidence such as records (like they did with Manafort’s home, Cohen’s office etc…).

Put another way…

ME: Task, where were you on Saturday?

You don’t tell me…so I have to ask everyone I think you know about your whereabouts on Saturday. You could just tell me and things would be over quickly; but since you won’t…I have to spend time asking everyone else.

If you want to blame someone for the investigation dragging on and on…blame Trump.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top