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.
Implying that a President colluded with the Russians, and sitting a prosecuting sniper in an office to threaten POTUS and to act as a partisan sharp object based on no charges immediately after an election in which the entirety of the MSM, the National Security Apparatus, much of his own party, and FBI agents went completely off of the rails against him is many times more controversial than any one of those other things mentioned.
Do you know what the meaning of "controversy" is or are you conflating this word with anything that makes headlines?
Controversy means that there is stark disagreement.
Who agreed with Nixon taping his opponents? Where was there a two year investigation to uncover evidence that did not yet exist in that situation?
Whitewater was controversial but not to the level of implying treason of a recently elected POTUS. There was no such rampant smell of partisan conspiracy against Clinton outside of the Republican Party. And Clinton ultimately weathered that just fine.
Birtherism? As far as I know, the MSM made sure that stayed relegated to the conservative talk and news sphere. You can't compare permanently planting an independent investigator to snipe POTUS.
Benghazi? First, the Secretary of State is not the president. Second, when during that controversy did the MSM and the NatSec apparatus go all in against Obama/Clinton (Clinton being both unelected, and thus not comparable to Trump, and the primary target of conservative ire in that situation)?
Again, you are misinformed. No one on the Mueller team has implied the President has colluded with the Russians, nor has the Mueller team named the President as a target of its investigation (quite the opposite, in fact). Much like your railing against Mueller's raid on Cohen's office, your premise here is factually flawed.
Again, which is more likely:
(1) the entirety of the mainstream media (except for Fox), the entire National Security apparatus, much of the President's own party, the NSA, the Director of National Intelligence, judiciary branch judges, executive branch judges, FBI agents, the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the US Attorney for the SDNY, numerous Trump appointees, and God knows who else are conspiring against Donald Trump; or
(2) there is evidence that a crime was committed by Michael Cohen.
Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, a liberal who fought and protected Hillary Clinton over her email server scandal, Bill Clinton during his blue dress escapades though a liberal is a Constitutional advocate and
will call out both Libs and Cons when he feels they are violating the Constitution he has called for Robert Mueller to resign or be fired.
"If this were Hillary Clinton being investigated and they went into her lawyer's office, the ACLU would be on every television station in America, jumping up and down,"
Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...ient-relations
Professor Dershowitz stated the Trump may be guilty of sins “but not crimes” and that
Mueller is a bias zealot whose goal is to charge President Trump or someone close to him with any crime real or concocted .
Mueller may be violating the Ex post facto provisions of the Constitution.
Trump could have Sessions fire Mueller tomorrow with no problems.
Could Trump be waiting for Mueller to shoot his load and not lay a glove on him and then Trump
can unleash special prosecutors on Democrats and Clinton et al in time for the 2018 elections?
My crystal ball says the investigation will eventually conclude with insufficient evidence to charge Trump with any crime. The investigation will however take down many who were worked for Trump.
All bets are off if Trump fires anyone connected with the investigation.
And why is your crystal ball telling you that?
I mean, politics aside, Trump - the person - is a compulsive liar. Your crystal ball needs some serious calibration.
Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, a liberal who fought and protected Hillary Clinton over her email server scandal, Bill Clinton during his blue dress escapades though a liberal is a Constitutional advocate and
will call out both Libs and Cons when he feels they are violating the Constitution he has called for Robert Mueller to resign or be fired.
"If this were Hillary Clinton being investigated and they went into her lawyer's office, the ACLU would be on every television station in America, jumping up and down,"
Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...ient-relations
Professor Dershowitz stated the Trump may be guilty of sins “but not crimes” and that
Mueller is a bias zealot whose goal is to charge President Trump or someone close to him with any crime real or concocted .
Mueller may be violating the Ex post facto provisions of the Constitution.
Trump could have Sessions fire Mueller tomorrow with no problems.
Could Trump be waiting for Mueller to shoot his load and not lay a glove on him and then Trump
can unleash special prosecutors on Democrats and Clinton et al in time for the 2018 elections?
Attorney-client privilege never protected lawyers against properly conducted raids. The attorney client privilege is a man-made evidentiary rule designed to encourage open attorney-client communications as a matter of public policy. Public policy does not demand blanket protection from seizure and independent review of the communications for privilege, nor is it designed to encourage or protect communications used to further criminal acts (hence the crime-fraud exception). If you think Friday's raid affects or has any type of chilling effect on attorney-client relations, you've been had.
What part of this raid involves Russian collusion and what part represents a continuing war by the Washington establishment to preserve its power? I submit the answers are none, and 100%.
It's my understanding that law enforcement personnel are supposed to respond to crimes, look for evidence, follow evidence to a suspect, and hopefully make an arrest that solves the crime. Mueller and company are searching for crimes that have never happened so they can pin them on specific individuals. This is how they do things in oppressive dictatorships.
Are you sure you mean America is in a "oppressive dictatorship"???
Because
in an "oppressive dictatorship" leaders in power allow their kids to be part of government w/o having any real credentials
In an "oppressive dictatorship" leaders in power allow their political contributors to influence government decisions to their financial advantage like Carl Icahn did when sending Pruitt to Morocco to lobby for Chenier, where Icahn is a significant shareholder
In an "oppressive dictatorship" political officials are guilty of self-aggradation like Zinkey with his flag flying over the Interior offices when he is in house or Pruitt with his excessive security detail using special priviledges
In an "oppressive dictatorship" government leadership seeks to restrain the free press and taint its message by claims of "faux" news and biased reporting
In an "oppressive dictatorship" the powers that be believe they are above the rule of law and cannot be "subjects of investigation"...
Hey--the parts of "oppressive dictatorships" you apparently don't get is they require a DICTATOR be in power
Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, a liberal who fought and protected Hillary Clinton over her email server scandal, Bill Clinton during his blue dress escapades though a liberal is a Constitutional advocate and
will call out both Libs and Cons when he feels they are violating the Constitution he has called for Robert Mueller to resign or be fired.
"If this were Hillary Clinton being investigated and they went into her lawyer's office, the ACLU would be on every television station in America, jumping up and down,"
Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...ient-relations
Professor Dershowitz stated the Trump may be guilty of sins “but not crimes” and that
Mueller is a bias zealot whose goal is to charge President Trump or someone close to him with any crime real or concocted .
Mueller may be violating the Ex post facto provisions of the Constitution.
Trump could have Session fire Mueller tomorrow with no problems.
Could Trump be waiting for Mueller to shoot his load and not lay a glove on him and then Trump
can unleash special prosecutors on Democrats and Clinton et al in time the 2018 elections?
The raid on Cohen may have nothing to do with Trump but it is interesting that conservatives seem to think that it most certainly has everything to do with Trump.
I don't think Trump will be accused of any crimes. The reason Mueller passed on the information that a Trump appointed DA seemed to think warranted a raid indicates to me this has nothing to do with the Mueller investigation...so I'm not sure why Mueller is at fault here. Maybe the USDA has issues -- is that the spin conservatives are working on right now.
But that has nothing to do with Mueller discovering something he thought should be passed on about Cohen. It may or may not have anything to do with Trump. Was Trump Cohen's only client? Did Cohen ever participate in any business doings without Trump's involvement?
We don't know that -- well I don't know that -- bunches of you seem to think you know exactly everything that is going on.
You stated that the raid was "a worse move" orchestrated by Mueller, who according to you "exists only as an unprecedented institutionalized general threat to legitimately elected power, from the enemies of POTUS" and who was "wander[ing] outside of his lane in order to bring down POTUS."
That premise falls apart when you recognize the obvious truth that this raid was not conducted by Mueller. That is not an ad hominem attack. It is a fact.
The only one who is getting emotional here is you. I am posting simple, verifiable, and unimpeachable truths. I'm sorry that you don't like them.
You shouldn't be; the rest of us aren't.
All of this "trump is an innocent victim" nonsense strains the credibility of those who promote it to unprecedented lengths. 'Apologizing' for confronting them with factual assessments is akin to enabling their illness.
If Trump has nothing to hide, he shouldn't be concerned.
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.
