Gingrich calls Mueller investigation 'breakdown' of constitutional law

[bcking 3,157]

33 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.

 

I've already answered. There was.

 

If you want the specific details of the evidence and suspicion you should start working now on getting high enough clearance to obtain more details.

 

I think a better question for you to be asking, to suit your narrative, is whether the public "deserves" to know all the classified details and whether the DoJ needs public approval to deem suspicion high enough to investigate.

 

I don't believe we as lay members of the public deserves to have that level of scrutiny. As a general population we aren't educated in the matters require to properly judge the issue.

 

So your question is answered. Yes there was. The problem is you and I don't have specific details, which it's clear you want. Your better question would be do we deserve them. We likely disagree on the answer to that.

[LionessDeon 2,060]

26 minutes ago, bcking said:

I've already answered. There was.

 

If you want the specific details of the evidence and suspicion you should start working now on getting high enough clearance to obtain more details.

 

I think a better question for you to be asking, to suit your narrative, is whether the public "deserves" to know all the classified details and whether the DoJ needs public approval to deem suspicion high enough to investigate.

 

I don't believe we as lay members of the public deserves to have that level of scrutiny. As a general population we aren't educated in the matters require to properly judge the issue.

 

So your question is answered. Yes there was. The problem is you and I don't have specific details, which it's clear you want. Your better question would be do we deserve them. We likely disagree on the answer to that.

Just because trump hasn't been indicted yet does not mean a crime hasn't been committed or that there wasn't collusion.  Certain people fail to accept that or just don't want to.  It's obvious Mueller is getting there, piece by piece.  You're right, we the general public will not have details until after indictments are issued.  As has been the case with Flynn, Manafort, Gates, Papadopoulos.

[bcking 3,157]

16 minutes ago, LionessDeon said:

Just because trump hasn't been indicted yet does not mean a crime hasn't been committed or that there wasn't collusion.  Certain people fail to accept that or just don't want to.  It's obvious Mueller is getting there, piece by piece.  You're right, we the general public will not have details until after indictments are issued.  As has been the case with Flynn, Manafort, Gates, Papadopoulos.

I make no assumptions about the conclusion of the investigation. I only look at what is actually public.

 

The public has an answer to his question. There was suspicion of conspiracy and obstruction of justice. That doesn't mean there was a certainty that crimes were committed for both of those, but there was enough suspicion to warrant a Special Counsel investigation. The public doesn't know (and doesn't deserve to know) the details of those suspicions. That is a classified investigation. We'll get information when it is public, but just because we don't know all the details now doesn't somehow mean that the formation of the Investigation wasn't justified.

 

The only people who are in a position to judge whether it was justified to appoint a Special Counsel would be those with the information required to make that decision. No one on this forum is in that position (to my knowledge). So we really can't discuss it either way. It's a moot point.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

I make no assumptions about the conclusion of the investigation. I only look at what is actually public.

 

The public has an answer to his question. There was suspicion of conspiracy and obstruction of justice. That doesn't mean there was a certainty that crimes were committed for both of those, but there was enough suspicion to warrant a Special Counsel investigation. The public doesn't know (and doesn't deserve to know) the details of those suspicions. That is a classified investigation. We'll get information when it is public, but just because we don't know all the details now doesn't somehow mean that the formation of the Investigation wasn't justified.

 

The only people who are in a position to judge whether it was justified to appoint a Special Counsel would be those with the information required to make that decision. No one on this forum is in that position (to my knowledge). So we really can't discuss it either way. It's a moot point.

I think you are right except for the certainty about whether crimes being committed.  We have guilty pleas and indictments as proof.  Setting aside the Gates and Manafort indictments, the others relate to factors influencing the election or bearing on the behavior of Trump campaign members  during the campaign or transition period. 

What we don't know, but should at the finale, is whether Trump or his family directed or conspired to collude or break US law.  I am sure we would never get to that answer definitively without an independent counsel.   

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, IDWAF said:

Well I think we can guess Stormy Daniels helped him select the mattress. Probably helped him test them out.

 

Hopefully they didn't leave any yellow stains while testing the mattresses...

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

20 minutes ago, bcking said:

Well I think we can guess Stormy Daniels helped him select the mattress. Probably helped him test them out.

 

Hopefully they didn't leave any yellow stains while testing the mattresses...

confused emoticon is the closest to ewwwh  I could find.  

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

I wonder why Clinton's home wasn't raided over the email scandal?

[bcking 3,157]

10 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

I wonder why Clinton's home wasn't raided over the email scandal?

Considering the information that prompted the raid isn't public knowledge, seems like an impossible question for any of us here to answer.

 

That says nothing about whether the question can't be answered. It's just a reflection of how ignorant we all are on the topic (the public in general). 

[Dashinka 24,491]

On ‎4‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 1:17 PM, bcking said:

I've already answered. There was.

 

If you want the specific details of the evidence and suspicion you should start working now on getting high enough clearance to obtain more details.

 

I think a better question for you to be asking, to suit your narrative, is whether the public "deserves" to know all the classified details and whether the DoJ needs public approval to deem suspicion high enough to investigate.

 

I don't believe we as lay members of the public deserves to have that level of scrutiny. As a general population we aren't educated in the matters require to properly judge the issue.

 

So your question is answered. Yes there was. The problem is you and I don't have specific details, which it's clear you want. Your better question would be do we deserve them. We likely disagree on the answer to that.

You provided an opinion by a legal scholar and I responded with another legal scholar that disagrees.  Doesn't sound like it was answered.  I do not believe the public needs to know all the details of an investigation, but I do believe the representatives of the people have a right to know after all, the US government is a government of the people, and by the people, or do you disagree with this.

 

So my question was not answered, what is the underlying criminal suspicion that drove the special prosecutor?  I know you don't have an answer except for one that fits your narrative, but it is amazing at how our rule of law is being turned on its head. 

[bcking 3,157]

36 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

You provided an opinion by a legal scholar and I responded with another legal scholar that disagrees.  Doesn't sound like it was answered.  I do not believe the public needs to know all the details of an investigation, but I do believe the representatives of the people have a right to know after all, the US government is a government of the people, and by the people, or do you disagree with this.

 

So my question was not answered, what is the underlying criminal suspicion that drove the special prosecutor?  I know you don't have an answer except for one that fits your narrative, but it is amazing at how our rule of law is being turned on its head. 

The only opinion that matters in this case is the person who initiated the investigation. The decision was not subject to public approval, or a lawyer debate, etc...

 

It was always going to be a subjective question. Subjectively the DAG believed he had evidence to warrant the investigation. There is really nothing else we, or random lawyers, can say about it. It isnt a public decision.

 

The person spinning a narrative here is you. I'm just telling you the facts. You don't like the facts.

 

The people have the right to know a lot of things. We don't have the right to know the details of ongoing criminal investigations. We never had that right before the case, and we won't in the future. People like you just want to pretend that this case is unique when it's not. The FBI, CIA, local law enforcement. They all don't go around spelling out everything they know and asking for a public consensus.

[Dashinka 24,491]

On ‎4‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 3:41 PM, IDWAF said:

I wonder why Clinton's home wasn't raided over the email scandal?

Needed to allow Clinton and her minions to destroy their devices and bleach the server first.

 

 

[Dashinka 24,491]

56 minutes ago, bcking said:

The only opinion that matters in this case is the person who initiated the investigation. The decision was not subject to public approval, or a lawyer debate, etc...

 

It was always going to be a subjective question. Subjectively the DAG believed he had evidence to warrant the investigation. There is really nothing else we, or random lawyers, can say about it. It isnt a public decision.

 

The person spinning a narrative here is you. I'm just telling you the facts. You don't like the facts.

 

The people have the right to know a lot of things. We don't have the right to know the details of ongoing criminal investigations. We never had that right before the case, and we won't in the future. People like you just want to pretend that this case is unique when it's not. The FBI, CIA, local law enforcement. They all don't go around spelling out everything they know and asking for a public consensus.

You still don't get the point.  I am not asking for full disclosure of the investigation, I am asking for the underlying criminal suspicion that drove the special prosecutor, and that should not be classified.  Here is an example to help you out, let's say a prosecutor in your local area decides to investigate you for some vague reason, is this something that is acceptable, allowing prosecutors to go on fishing expeditions?  Another example, Hillary was under investigation in 2016 and we knew why (mishandling classified information), but in the case of Mueller, we have no idea what the underlying criminal suspicion is which is why we get a lot of differing opinions by legal scholars.  Of course we tend toward the ones that fit our political narrative, but it is not right to appoint a special prosecutor (remember, he is a prosecutor, not an investigator) to simply fish for anything on anyone connected to the president or the election unless we plan on doing that from now on regardless of who is elected president.  It seems like you are saying this would be just fine which honestly is just sad. 

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

You still don't get the point.  I am not asking for full disclosure of the investigation, I am asking for the underlying criminal suspicion that drove the special prosecutor, and that should not be classified.  Here is an example to help you out, let's say a prosecutor in your local area decides to investigate you for some vague reason, is this something that is acceptable, allowing prosecutors to go on fishing expeditions?  Another example, Hillary was under investigation in 2016 and we knew why (mishandling classified information), but in the case of Mueller, we have no idea what the underlying criminal suspicion is which is why we get a lot of differing opinions by legal scholars.  Of course we tend toward the ones that fit our political narrative, but it is not right to appoint a special prosecutor (remember, he is a prosecutor, not an investigator) to simply fish for anything on anyone connected to the president or the election unless we plan on doing that from now on regardless of who is elected president.  It seems like you are saying this would be just fine which honestly is just sad. 

We do have a basic understanding of what the underlying criminal suspicion is. Whether you like it or not, the rest IS classified.

 

Just like in your example with Clinton - In this case the investigation is due to suspicion of cooperation with Russian agents to manipulate the election (the crime being multiple types of conspiracy, of which there have already been several criminal charges as a result of the investigation) and suspicion of obstruction of justice. 

 

You are asking for details into the evidence for those suspicions, but you just aren't going to get it. That doesn't mean it's a conspiracy, or it's unfounded, you just aren't going to get more details because they aren't required to give us any more details. The decision to investigate isn't subject to public approval.

 

You are looking for ways to undermine the investigation. I get that. This isn't the right way to go about it. The investigation was completely legitimate in how it was started. It had bipartisan support in Congress, it was appointed by the DAG (A Trump appointee). It followed standard procedures in this case. They didn't hide anything from the public any more than they would hide things in any other situation. You need to find a different angle to undermine the investigation.

[Dashinka 24,491]

11 minutes ago, bcking said:

We do have a basic understanding of what the underlying criminal suspicion is. Whether you like it or not, the rest IS classified.

 

Just like in your example with Clinton - In this case the investigation is due to suspicion of cooperation with Russian agents to manipulate the election (the crime being multiple types of conspiracy, of which there have already been several criminal charges as a result of the investigation) and suspicion of obstruction of justice. 

 

You are asking for details into the evidence for those suspicions, but you just aren't going to get it. That doesn't mean it's a conspiracy, or it's unfounded, you just aren't going to get more details because they aren't required to give us any more details. The decision to investigate isn't subject to public approval.

 

You are looking for ways to undermine the investigation. I get that. This isn't the right way to go about it. The investigation was completely legitimate in how it was started. It had bipartisan support in Congress, it was appointed by the DAG (A Trump appointee). It followed standard procedures in this case. They didn't hide anything from the public any more than they would hide things in any other situation. You need to find a different angle to undermine the investigation.

What is it?  Your guys says one thing, Dershowitz says another.  I know you believe your guy, but that is simply a political decision.  Talking to foreign agents/people is not a crime, and we already know Russia tried to influence the election just like our own media does.  The criminal charges filed and plea bargains are just from the Mueller fishing expedition and don't have anything to do with the election.

Edited April 18, 2018 by Bill & Katya