Whoopi Goldberg: Riots Over Mueller Firing ‘Would Be Fun to Watch’

[jg121783 3,921]

11 minutes ago, bcking said:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/12/what-is-collusion-215366

 

Here are some comments from smarter legal minds than you or I.

 

 

So the article admits collusion is not a crime but the premise of the investigation is collusion. Looks like a fishing expedition to me because the special prosecutor is supposed to be investigating one specific crime but no actual crime has been cited as a reason for the investigation.

[bcking 3,157]

11 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So based on that Hillary Clinton possibly committed a crime?

Write a letter to the DAG, he can decide what to do. Again these things aren't a court of public opinion.

 

Again, we could be worried about potential biases based on who appointed him...but I'll let it pass.

1 minute ago, jg121783 said:

So the article admits collusion is not a crime but the premise of the investigation is collusion. Looks like a fishing expedition to me because the special prosecutor is supposed to be investigating one specific crime but no actual crime has been cited as a reason for the investigation.

The article states, from various experts, that collusion the term is being used as a "catch all" for various different crimes.

 

That is fairly clear if you, you know, read the article.

[bcking 3,157]

Go back two pages. I pasted the letter appointing Mueller. It doesn't use the word collusion. It's even more vague, because there are many different crimes that are possible, which they are investigating.

 

Obsessing about the word "collusion" specifically is pointless. It was never used in the first place. 

 

The American public, as an entity, tend to be so self inflated. As if they know everything, or should know everything, and therefore their opinion counts the world. The results of this investigation are our business. The classified confidiential information that started the investigation, plus the details of the ongoing investigation are NOT our business. 

 

In any case the discussion is circular at this point. Several of you take issue with the rationale for starting the investigation. Take that up with the DAG if you like. We won't settle this on some silly forum.

 

(Mostly ending this discussion because I'm going sailing today and by the evening I don't think I'll care anymore)

Edited April 14, 2018 by bcking

[Dashinka 24,767]

4 minutes ago, bcking said:

Go back two pages. I pasted the letter appointing Mueller. It doesn't use the word collusion. It's even more vague, because there are many different crimes that are possible, which they are investigating.

 

Obsessing about the word "collusion" specifically is pointless. It was never used in the first place. 

 

The American public, as an entity, tend to be so self inflated. As if they know everything, or should know everything, and therefore their opinion counts the world. The results of this investigation are our business. The classified confidiential information that started the investigation, plus the details of the ongoing investigation are NOT our business. 

 

In any case the discussion is circular at this point. Several of you take issue with the rationale for starting the investigation. Take that up with the DAG if you like. We won't settle this on some silly forum.

 

(Mostly ending this discussion because I'm going sailing today and by the evening I don't think I'll care anymore)

Yes, it is quite vague, one might say almost purposefully so, which lends to the feeling that this is just a anti-Trump fishing expedition.  Keep in mind there are many in the GOP that hate Trump as much as the Democrats.  

 

This leads us to my other comment made a bit ago, this sets a precedence for future elections where we will need to appoint a special prosecutor under vague guidance looking for anything after every presidential election.  

 

[bcking 3,157]

7 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Yes, it is quite vague, one might say almost purposefully so, which lends to the feeling that this is just a anti-Trump fishing expedition.  Keep in mind there are many in the GOP that hate Trump as much as the Democrats.  

 

This leads us to my other comment made a bit ago, this sets a precedence for future elections where we will need to appoint a special prosecutor under vague guidance looking for anything after every presidential election.  

 

I'd say it's vague for two reasons

 

1. There are a long list of potential crimes that would fall under the investigation. It's a memo, it's not a step by step instruction booklet for Mueller.

2. The investigation and evidence is all confidential. The memo isn't going to publicly list specific things to investigate

 

As I already said - if the AG or DAG at a subsequent election finds evidence that they believe warrants a special investigation, then by all means they can open another one. It wasn't a court of public opinion this time, and it wouldn't be in the future. If you want to control these things, become a lawyer and aim to be the AG.

 

Have a great weekend! I'm hoping the weather here in Houston burns off. Had a thunderstorm overnight and going out on the water all day.

Edited April 14, 2018 by bcking

[Dashinka 24,767]

2 hours ago, bcking said:

I'd say it's vague for two reasons

 

1. There are a long list of potential crimes that would fall under the investigation. It's a memo, it's not a step by step instruction booklet for Mueller.

2. The investigation and evidence is all confidential. The memo isn't going to publicly list specific things to investigate

 

As I already said - if the AG or DAG at a subsequent election finds evidence that they believe warrants a special investigation, then by all means they can open another one. It wasn't a court of public opinion this time, and it wouldn't be in the future. If you want to control these things, become a lawyer and aim to be the AG.

 

Have a great weekend! I'm hoping the weather here in Houston burns off. Had a thunderstorm overnight and going out on the water all day.

Here is an even more esteemed legal opinion.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/28/opinion/politics-investigations-trump-russia.html?_r=0

[jg121783 3,921]

3 hours ago, bcking said:

Go back two pages. I pasted the letter appointing Mueller. It doesn't use the word collusion. It's even more vague, because there are many different crimes that are possible, which they are investigating.

Unfortunately the special prosecutor law doesn't allow the special prosecutor to be vague in the focus of their investigation. Their focus must be towards a specific crime that an earlier investigation found probable cause of. Special prosecutors don't get to just cast a drag net and hope they catch something.