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.
Let's stay on topic....if the criminal conspiracy against Trump by the Obama admin, FBI/CIA/DNI/FISA court that's currently being investigated is proven to be true, can we agree the Mueller investigation and anything stemming from it, is null & void?
What "criminal conspiracy against Trump by the Obama admin, et al"?
The only "criminal conspiracy" that exists was conjured up from the same brain trust that gave us Pizza-gate, the Fox News Seth Rich fiasco, and Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi.
...
But, taking your ludicrous assumption as true, the answer is that Donald Trump is liable for prosecution for any other criminal activity uncovered by Special Prosecutor Mueller. However, the investigation of the revealed crime would be handled by a team other that Mueller's. Sort of like what's happening with the Michael Cohen investigation. If the Cohen investigation leads to actionable evidence of crimes committed by President Trump, then Donald Trump would definitely be liable to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
...
Hypothetically, if a Washington DC prosecuting attorney, in his role as a hidden agent of a vast conservative cabal, launched an investigation into Hillary Clinton's supposed child-sex ring in a local pizza joint, and said investigation turned out to be a criminal conspiracy against HRC by Fox News and the Koch brothers, but said investigation uncovered undeniable truth that the pizza parlor was actually used by HRC to personally harvest organs from rural Republican voters ('cause she's into that kind of freaky thing ), would HRC get to walk away from all criminal charges?
My question is this: If the criminal conspiracy to overthrow the presidency of the United States by the Obama admin, CIA/FBI/DNI/FISA Court & Fusion GPS is proven true, would you all agree that A) President Trump is owed a massive apology & that B) anything stemming from the Mueller investigation, including the SDNY referral are all illegal and should be thrown out?
If it is fruit of the poison tree then it should get that consideration same as it would anywhere in law it applies.
It should be about the law and not about feelings.
What is coming out now is there was no legal basis to appoint a special counsel. Any future President could be investigated and possible impeached for no other reason other than they won election.
No point in having elections, if it will be decided without a vote of the people, by the intel community.
If it is fruit of the poison tree then it should get that consideration same as it would anywhere in law it applies.
It should be about the law and not about feelings.
I don't believe that the legal concept of "fruit of the poisonous tree" applies here.
I'd go into more detail of why I hold that opinion, but neither of us are lawyers.
Also, you'd simply discount anything that doesn't fit your need to defend President Trump at all costs.
Quote:
What is coming out now is there was no legal basis to appoint a special counsel. Any future President could be investigated and possible impeached for no other reason other than they won election.
No point in having elections, if it will be decided without a vote of the people, by the intel community.
That's certainly the specious argument currently being pushed by Trump's cadre of hired gun lawyers, at least the ones who have stuck around.
Have they convinced any judge of the merit of their argument?
That's certainly the specious argument currently being pushed by Trump's cadre of hired gun lawyers, at least the ones who have stuck around.
Have they convinced any judge of the merit of their argument?
First of all there was never a predicate crime cited for the appointment of the special counsel, that's a pretty serious problem right there.
To your question, Manafort is making his case that the special counsel investigation is unconstitutional, and the judge recently said in open court that they raise a good point. The overly broad outline, and lack of any predicate crime could very well mean the appointment was unconstitutional.
I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for a judge that would have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to a rouge special counsel, and all those that back him in their transparent attempt to undo an election that they lost.
Since the GOP owns all branches of government and the vast majority of the states and tRump owns the FBI and the DOJ, we have reached a conclusion in the case of this conspiracy theory of yours:
Since the GOP owns all branches of government and the vast majority of the states and tRump owns the FBI and the DOJ, we have reached a conclusion in the case of this conspiracy theory of yours:
The Russian conspircy was created by the Obama administration.
The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine is an offspring of the Exclusionary Rule. The exclusionary rule mandates that evidence obtained from an illegal arrest, unreasonable search, or coercive interrogation must be excluded from trial.
If there is no legal basis to start an investigation all searches are unreasonable searches.
Last edited by CaseyB; 04-22-2018 at 12:39 PM..
Reason: off topic
My question is this: If the criminal conspiracy to overthrow the presidency of the United States by the Obama admin, CIA/FBI/DNI/FISA Court & Fusion GPS is proven true, would you all agree that A) President Trump is owed a massive apology & that B) anything stemming from the Mueller investigation, including the SDNY referral are all illegal and should be thrown out?
This strikes me as such a silly, delusional question that it's hard to come up with a serious answer. But, yes, I suppose that Trump would be owed much more than an apology - although the Mueller investigation should not be halted, since clearly they are coming up with things, and some of the investigations preceded Trump.
Presumably Trump would be owed the same earnest, groveling apology that Trump gave to Obama after all that delusional harassment about the "birther" nonsense. Oh, wait - did Trump give that groveling apology yet?
First of all there was never a predicate crime cited for the appointment of the special counsel, that's a pretty serious problem right there.
At least that's what Donald Trump's almost-attorney Joseph diGenova claims. He's posited this theory on Laura Inghams Fox News show, and the kiddies at Rupert Murdoch's propaganda ministry have taken the blurb and run with it.
Funny thing is that there's no law that requires a "predicate crime" for the appointment of a special prosecutor. It seems to me to be a bit of Johnny ("If it does not fit, you must acquit") Cochran nonsense.
So prove me wrong and cite the U.S. law or regulation that requires a predicate crime cited for the appointment of a special counsel.
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.
), would HRC get to walk away from all criminal charges?
