Is the US concerned about nerve gas attacks in Great Britain?

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

cmon george, since when does a DA in the middle of an investigation provide ANYTHING to the broader news (both MSM houses)

Mueller's charter was very broad in its scope, and he has indeed proffered charges against a growing number of individuals - the majority Russian nationals who won't be extradited: others, U.S. citizens on matters fairly distant from Trump, most involving charges of lying to FBI interrogators.

I fully agree that none of us KNOWS what will come of all this. However "imagining" the final outcome is hardly a well researched or documented fact. Conversely noting the innocuous and mostly unrelated charges that have so far emerged is indeed based on verifiable facts. So far after well over a year it appears Mueller doesn't have much. Meanwhile the piles of circumstantial evidence pointing to unlawful motives on the part of many of the key members of the investigation, suggests the process is indeed flawed, perhaps fatally.

3 Replies

@farmerman,

By any chance do you know if the investigation of Hillary Clinton has been completed, after all, it's been over a year..........if she did anything wrong don't you think Trey Gowdy would have let us know. And yet, remarkably, some people are still waiting.

0 Replies

The burglars in the Watergate Hotel, members of CREEP (Committee to Re-Elect the Presideent--the damned fools actually called it that), were arrested by police on June 17, 1972. The phone number to the CREEP office in the White House was found on one of them. People continued to call it a tempest in a teapot and ham-handed dirty tricks--and Nixon was re-elected in November. A little over two years after the break-in, he became the first president in U.S. history to resign (in that case, to avoid impeachment, and a high probability of conviction). The breezy confidence of conservatives on this Russian issue, perhaps also a stolen election, is completely unconvincing to me.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

The Republicans of the time were naive and the Democrats who were waging a witch hunt against Nixon were able to manipulate them.

Today's Republicans are not going to be fooled by any DNC witch hunt.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote georgeob1:

Quote:

So far after well over a year it appears Mueller doesn't have much.

Except indictments and scads of key people turning evidence for Mueller. Except for Trump himself admitting to Obstruction of Justice to Lester Holt on NBC. Except for Felix Sater, Trump's longtime contact with the Russians, turning evidence. Except for George Nader, a contact with Saudi Arabia, turning evidence on Trump's trying to establish back channel communications with the Russkies. Except for Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, trying to establish back channel communications to Putin for Trump.

There's lots more, of course, but that will do for now.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

The government electing to close down an investigation does not constitute obstruction of justice.

Although after Bill Clinton it wouldn't matter even if it did constitute obstruction of justice.

There is also nothing wrong with the government establishing back channel communications with other governments.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

You can post that propaganda even more-and I'm sure you will-but Federal law prevents you from using any powers of your office to give yourself or your family any advantage. Firing an investigator because he won't drop an investigation that might well lead to you is giving yourself an advantage. And he just admitted to it on national TV. How obliging of Donald Trump.

Trump = Toast.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Do you really not know what Watergate was about? Don't bother to answer, I lived thru that time and it was horrible. Try to listen to Nixon lie his ass off on the tapes to Johnson about his meddling with the peace talks, (oh Lyndon, I would never put our troops at risk, every life is precio0us) while promising the Viet Nam officials if they stalled the negotiations he would give them a better deal. How many American soldiers were butchered during Nixon's delaying tactic? You don't know, and I bet none of your friends, neighbors, class mates or cousins your age were killed or terribly wounded during that war.

Nixon wasn't the only one to make craven decisions for political gaining that war, but he was far far far from blameless.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

You can post that propaganda even more-and I'm sure you will

Facts about the law are propaganda?

Blickers wrote:

Federal law prevents you from using any powers of your office to give yourself or your family any advantage. Firing an investigator because he won't drop an investigation that might well lead to you is giving yourself an advantage. And he just admitted to it on national TV. How obliging of Donald Trump.

Would this be the federal law that applies only to employees of the President and not to the President himself?

2 Replies

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

Do you really not know what Watergate was about?

I know exactly what it was about. That's why my posts about it are so factually accurate.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

So let me guess, you assume it is the emperor's right to enrich himself with taxpayer money and dissolve any investigation into his corruption so he can continue to steal from the taxpayers. OK, because stealing from the taxpayers is not nearly as serious as lying about a BJ in the Oval Office...even though originally they wanted to gig him for imaginary Whitewater corruption.

This notion is beneath contempt.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by stealing from the taxpayers. There is certainly no reason to believe that Trump has done such a thing.

Bill Clinton's perjury, obstruction of justice, and witness tampering were indeed very serious crimes.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Would this be the federal law that applies only to employees of the President and not to the President himself?

This would be Federal law 5 CFR 2635.702 - Use of public office for private gain.

What evidence do you have that it does not apply to the president?

2 Replies

@Blickers,

And, if you don't think the preceding law applies to the President, we have this other Federal law which certainly does.

18 U.S. Code § 227 - Wrongfully influencing a private entity’s employment decisions by a Member of Congress or an officer or employee of the legislative or executive branch

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

This would be Federal law 5 CFR 2635.702 - Use of public office for private gain.
What evidence do you have that it does not apply to the president?

5 CFR 2635.702 specifically refers to employees.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/2635.702

5 CFR 2635.102 defines employees. It says "For purposes other than subparts B and C of this part, it does not include the President or Vice President."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/2635.102

5 CFR 2635.702 falls under subpart G.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/part-2635

It doesn't really matter though. The statute in question is merely a civil infraction where the worst penalty is something on the order of a mild scolding -- no big deal in era where Democrats claim that it is OK for Bill Clinton to commit major felonies.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Even if you are correct about 5CFR, there is still the matter of Federal statute 18 U.S. Code § 227 - Wrongfully influencing a private entity’s employment decisions by a Member of Congress or an officer or employee of the legislative or executive branch.

That specifically covers the President and Vice President.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

And, if you don't think the preceding law applies to the President, we have this other Federal law which certainly does.
18 U.S. Code § 227 - Wrongfully influencing a private entity’s employment decisions by a Member of Congress or an officer or employee of the legislative or executive branch

That's certainly a more serious law -- on par with the laws that the Democrats say it was OK for Bill Clinton to violate.

However, there is no reason to think that Trump has violated this law.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

He admitted he violated it on national TV, talking to Lester Holt.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

Even if you are correct about 5CFR, there is still the matter of Federal statute 18 U.S. Code § 227 - Wrongfully influencing a private entity’s employment decisions by a Member of Congress or an officer or employee of the legislative or executive branch.
That specifically covers the President and Vice President.

Yes, but there is no reason to think that the president or vice president violated this law.

And after Bill Clinton, no one would care even if they did violate it.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

He admitted he violated it on national TV, talking to Lester Holt.

Trump has not admitted to violating any laws.

1 Reply

Is the US concerned about nerve gas attacks in Great Britain?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know