Gingrich calls Mueller investigation 'breakdown' of constitutional law

[jg121783 3,921]

http://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/383195-gingrich-calls-mueller-investigation-breakdown-of-constitutional

 

I don't agree with Gingrich most of the time but this is one thing I agree with.

[JimandChristy 1,689]

[Dashinka 24,766]

While I agree the Mueller investigation is a joke based on narratives driven by the biased mainstream media and enemies of Trump, I am not sure it is a constitutional crisis.  Gingrich does bring up some good points of the double standards relative to the Hillary investigation which have already been discussed.

 

Regardless, the time of electing a president and subsequently appointing a special prosecutor appear to be with us now.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

 

[JimandChristy 1,689]

25 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

 

He's continued his investigation because crimes have been committed by members of the Trump Campaign.

45 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

While I agree the Mueller investigation is a joke based on narratives driven by the biased mainstream media and enemies of Trump, I am not sure it is a constitutional crisis.  Gingrich does bring up some good points of the double standards relative to the Hillary investigation which have already been discussed.

 

Regardless, the time of electing a president and subsequently appointing a special prosecutor appear to be with us now.

Gingrich had no problems when it was Bill Clinton under investigation while he was Speaker of the House.

[Dashinka 24,766]

1 minute ago, JimandChristy said:

He's continued his investigation because crimes have been committed by members of the Trump Campaign.

Gingrich had no problems when it was Bill Clinton under investigation while he was Speaker of the House.

In that case the special prosecutor actually had a suspicion of a crime being committed.  As I have asked others here, what was the underlying crime suspicion that triggered this investigation?

[JimandChristy 1,689]

7 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

In that case the special prosecutor actually had a suspicion of a crime being committed.  As I have asked others here, what was the underlying crime suspicion that triggered this investigation?

What action invoked a Special Counsel?  

Edited April 15, 2018 by JimandChristy

[Dashinka 24,766]

30 minutes ago, JimandChristy said:

What action invoked a Special Counsel?  

I believe that is the question I asked.

[charmander 692]

aww how cute!

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

In that case the special prosecutor actually had a suspicion of a crime being committed.  As I have asked others here, what was the underlying crime suspicion that triggered this investigation?

You won’t get a straight answer, I promise you.  It’s all hopes and dreams and rainbow unicorn farts.

[JimandChristy 1,689]

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

I believe that is the question I asked.

He fired Comey because of the Russia Investigation. He said so with the interview with Lester Holt. The firing was clearly strange.

[Dashinka 24,766]

9 hours ago, JimandChristy said:

He fired Comey because of the Russia Investigation. He said so with the interview with Lester Holt. The firing was clearly strange.

That didn't even come close to answering my question.  I won't ask it again since you cannot answer it. 

 

As to Comey, go ask Lanny Davis if he should have been fired based on his actions leading up to November 2016.  What is interesting is that the excerpts from Comey's book seem to implicate the Obama administration and the Lynch DOJ more than Trump, but I understand his (Comey's) hyping the Trump stuff, after all, he does want to make some money.  

[bcking 3,157]

18 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Regardless, the time of electing a president and subsequently appointing a special prosecutor appear to be with us now.

We can't really say that until there is at least two occurrences. 

 

One event does not, on its own, produce a trend.

 

17 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

In that case the special prosecutor actually had a suspicion of a crime being committed.  As I have asked others here, what was the underlying crime suspicion that triggered this investigation?

This is being over-used and is just tiring. You are being intentionally ornery. 

 

There were two primary "suspicions" for crime. One was obstruction of justice, and other was potential criminal conspiracy charges between members of the Trump campaign and Russia. The investigation itself has produced several criminal charges that fit one of those suspicions (the criminal conspiracy one), indicating that at least to a certain extend the investigation was well founded. As far as the public is aware, there hasn't been anything uncovered for obstruction of justice as of yet but the vast majority of the investigation isn't public so that doesn't really mean much.

 

If you want the specific details of what evidence led to those suspicions...well you are going to have to ask the Acting AG in this case. That information is not public knowledge so none of us should expect to have the details. The number of "armchair lawyers" on this topic is astounding. Even actual lawyers not involved in the investigation commenting is ridiculous. We just don't have the information to make those judgments. You don't need a public court to decide whether the suspicion of crime is significant enough to warrant investigation. Police Departments don't ask the public before their investigate a potential murder. When they bring charges the public may be involved in a trial, but not before the investigation. The Deputy Attorney General (in this case acting as the AG) determined that there was a significant enough suspicion of crime. At the time countless Senators and Representatives agreed that we needed a Special Counsel (Both Dems and Repubs). It was completely reasonable, and well supported, to establish Mueller as a Special Counsel in this case, at the time that it started.

 

It's the same as when doctors tried to talk about public patients that they've never treated (and before you bring it up - Yes I agree it was unprofessional and embarrassing for Gupta to talk about Trump).

Edited April 16, 2018 by bcking

[Dashinka 24,766]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

We can't really say that until there is at least two occurrences. 

 

One event does not, on its own, produce a trend.

 

This is being over-used and is just tiring. You are being intentionally ornery. 

 

There were two primary "suspicions" for crime. One was obstruction of justice, and other was potential criminal conspiracy charges between members of the Trump campaign and Russia. The investigation itself has produced several criminal charges that fit one of those suspicions (the criminal conspiracy one), indicating that at least to a certain extend the investigation was well founded. As far as the public is aware, there hasn't been anything uncovered for obstruction of justice as of yet but the vast majority of the investigation isn't public so that doesn't really mean much.

 

If you want the specific details of what evidence led to those suspicions...well you are going to have to ask the Acting AG in this case. That information is not public knowledge so none of us should expect to have the details. The number of "armchair lawyers" on this topic is astounding. Even actual lawyers not involved in the investigation commenting is ridiculous. We just don't have the information to make those judgments. You don't need a public court to decide whether the suspicion of crime is significant enough to warrant investigation. Police Departments don't ask the public before their investigate a potential murder. When they bring charges the public may be involved in a trial, but not before the investigation. The Deputy Attorney General (in this case acting as the AG) determined that there was a significant enough suspicion of crime. At the time countless Senators and Representatives agreed that we needed a Special Counsel (Both Dems and Repubs). It was completely reasonable, and well supported, to establish Mueller as a Special Counsel in this case, at the time that it started.

 

It's the same as when doctors tried to talk about public patients that they've never treated (and before you bring it up - Yes I agree it was unprofessional and embarrassing for Gupta to talk about Trump).

I believe I will keep using it until I actually get an answer.  Do you have one?  Not really sure it is being ornery just asking that our top level investigations actually have a suspicion of a crime, I guess I should believe every federal official no matter how political it looks.

 

Edited April 16, 2018 by Bill & Katya

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

25 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I believe I will keep using it until I actually get an answer.  Do you have one?  Not really sure it is being ornery just asking that our top level investigations actually have a suspicion of a crime, I guess I should believe every federal official no matter how political it looks.

 

It's Trump.  He wasn't supposed to win.  That is all you need to know.