Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Those are not opinions. Those are facts. You are intentionally turning a blind eye to blatant malfeasance by Robert Mueller and his team because it feeds your anti-Trump confirmation bias.
ya see you say 'blatant malfeasance" but fail to point to a single bad act? where is this malfeasance, and i don't mean your vague generalizations i mean please clearly define how Mueller has acted outside of his remit. (i know you won't because you guys hate to get into to facts cause you lose all the time, tip try watching channels other than Fox"state tv" News..
ya see you say 'blatant malfeasance" but fail to point to a single bad act? where is this malfeasance, and i don't mean your vague generalizations i mean please clearly define how Mueller has acted outside of his remit. (i know you won't because you guys hate to get into to facts cause you lose all the time, tip try watching channels other than Fox"state tv" News..
so i am waiting....
As has been stated many times, the reason why the Special Counsel is acting outside it's remit is because Special Counsels can only be formed if there is an ALLEGED CRIME and PROBABLE CAUSE. The investigation should be shut down unless they can state what crime is alleged against the Trump campaign. Oh, by the way, it has to be a crime that actually exists on the books.
He has no reason to resign, and he isn't going to be impeached either. There are no grounds for impeachment. Not liking his policies aren't enough.
I didn't like Obama's policies. In fact, I hated them. There were grounds to impeach Obama. But it wasn't even suggested. "Fast and Furious" might have done it.
Despite your handle, you are spewing a ton of nonsense. What grounds were there to impeach Obama? Not looking for fake news, provide legit sources.
If there were grounds, you don't think a Republican house and Senate who spent millions of tax payer dollars investigating every little thing Obama or Clinton did to no avail would've found it?
Last time we let nationalism and populism take over, it didn't exactly end well. Ultimately, of course, for the nationalists and populists.
?
There are tons of nationalist movements in the world right now that have gained power .Post colonialist movements everywhere used nationalism to form their nations , in the 21st century you have nations like Austria just bringing in a right wing coalition,Czech republic,Poland, Hungary, Putin in russia was a product of nationalism,Duterte in the Philippines, Erdogan in turkey, BJP in India etc
By a wide margin, the U.S. has more immigrants than any other country in the world. 46 million people living in the United States were not born here
We are just used to weak globalist leaders from both parties who believe in open borders and really dont see America as a nation with an identity. We are just a globalist economic zone, and in many cases just a dumping ground for cheap labor for corporations and businesses to exploit.We arent even really a country anymore
As has been stated many times, the reason why the Special Counsel is acting outside it's remit is because Special Counsels can only be formed if there is an ALLEGED CRIME and PROBABLE CAUSE. The investigation should be shut down unless they can state what crime is alleged against the Trump campaign. Oh, by the way, it has to be a crime that actually exists on the books.
lets pretend you are right ( i dont believe you are) . and Rosenstein should not have appointed Mueller... well then it is ROSENSTEIN who was acting beyond his remit? understand yet? Mueller is doing what he was hired to do.. and is thus ACTING WITHIN THE MANDATE PROVIDED. it sounds to me like you have simply gotten confused or have been watching some TV or internet person who does not know what they are talking about....
So the question becomes did Rosenstein have the legal authority to appoint a special counsel well lets see what Rosenstein thinks...
This is a direct quote of rosenstein's reasoning..
Quote:
“In my capacity as acting attorney general I determined that it is in the public interest for me to exercise my authority and appoint a special counsel to assume responsibility for this matter,’’ Rosenstein said in a statement. “My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination. What I have determined is that based upon the unique circumstances the public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree of independence from the normal chain of command.”
§ 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.
The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and -
(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and
(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.1
OK so i have shown you 3 things.
1 Rosenstein NOT Mueller is the actor in question who may or may not be acting outside thier brief.
2 Rosenstein's clearly stated justification for appointing Mueller.
3 The law as written, which states 2 clear reasons to appoint counsel. 1 crime 2 public interest.
If you want to challenge anyone you need to challenge rosenstein. i suggest you read """64 Fed. Reg. 37038"""" too that might make it more clear to you that Rosenstein has more leeway than you might think....
There are tons of nationalist movements in the world right now that have gained power .Post colonialist movements everywhere used nationalism to form their nations , in the 21st century you have nations like Austria just bringing in a right wing coalition,Czech republic,Poland, Hungary, Putin in russia was a product of nationalism,Duterte in the Philippines, Erdogan in turkey, BJP in India etc
If you're on the side of those like Duterte or Erdogan, I guess this is a happy development.
An Irish Catholic, paleo-conservative, anti-immigrant, Euro-centric American nationalist who rejects job-offshoring, globalization, American intervention overseas, and (((neo-conservatism))).
Often accused of anti-Semitism and racism, including by the "dean" of American "conservatives" (read (((neo-conservatives)))), William F. Buckley.
Famous for calling the U.S. Congress an "amen corner for the Israeli Knesset" (a charge that had been made in the past by Senators Fullbright and Hollings.) This caused Buckley to devote an entire issue of "National Review" to Buchanan's "anti-Semitism."
Served in Nixon's White House as a speech writer.
Co-hosted the political debate television series "Cross-fire" with liberal (((Michael Kinsley))).
Edited "The American Conservative" magazine.
Author of numerous best-sellers, including his latest, "The Unnecessary War," about WW II.
Ran for President in 1992.
He was ahead of his time in tapping into the populist nationalism that elected Donald Trump.
I read your description of Buchanan with great interest. When we look at the accusations of Buchanan's antisemitism, we must predicate that on the premise that anyone in America who doesn't regard Israeli policy as sacrosanct is antisemitic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
Arch-enemy of such Jewish neo-con think tanks, publications, and media outlets as "National Review", "The Weekly Standard", "Commentary," the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hoover Institution, the Manhattan Institute, etc.
I found the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hoover Institution, and the Manhattan Institute to have been created by the various billionaires over the last fifty years. Did you mean to lump them in with the Jewish neo-con think tanks?
I remember Buchanan's candidacy for President. He was brought down by a single man with a yarmulke who called Buchanan an extremist. The media had their hand in this because they played it over and over until Buchanan was a credible candidate no more. I saw this same media destroy Howard Dean in much the same fashion. I believe that neither Howard Dean or Pat Buchanan were on board with globalization.
He is point perfect. So good in fact it all does coincide nicely with how silent Hillary has been recently.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
