Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
August 15, 2018, 10:16:52 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Mueller told Trump's legal team he will not indict the president  (Read 807 times)
Coach is Back!
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41405


Glorified Tire Flipper


WWW
« on: May 16, 2018, 04:13:29 PM »

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/16/mueller-told-trumps-legal-team-will-not-indict-president-giuliani-tells-fox-news.html
Report to moderator   Logged
jude2
Competitors II
Getbig V
******
Posts: 8255

Getbig!


« Reply #1 on: May 16, 2018, 04:38:46 PM »

Because after a year he dose not have any proof.
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 33915


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #2 on: May 16, 2018, 07:14:14 PM »

He said he "can't indict" per Justice Department rules which have actually never been tested in court

So Trump should just relax and let Mueller finish his investigation and give his report to the AG

Report to moderator   Logged
Coach is Back!
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41405


Glorified Tire Flipper


WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 16, 2018, 07:27:01 PM »

He said he "can't indict" per Justice Department rules which have actually never been tested in court

So Trump should just relax and let Mueller finish his investigation and give his report to the AG



Lib talking point. They’re full of shit and can’t accept it. Maybe they should replace Mueller with Avanetti...
Report to moderator   Logged
chaos
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 45952


Ron "There is no freedom of speech here" Avidan


« Reply #4 on: May 16, 2018, 07:32:42 PM »

He said he "can't indict" per Justice Department rules which have actually never been tested in court

So Trump should just relax and let Mueller finish his investigation and give his report to the AG


He should hurry up then so someone can start investigating him and quit wasting taxpayers money.
Report to moderator   Logged

Liar!!!!Filt!!!!
Coach is Back!
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41405


Glorified Tire Flipper


WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 16, 2018, 07:37:23 PM »

Libs hate the truth....and law......and the constitution


https://youtu.be/68pK7flctrI
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 33915


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #6 on: May 16, 2018, 07:45:36 PM »

Lib talking point. They’re full of shit and can’t accept it. Maybe they should replace Mueller with Avanetti...

try reading your link sometime dipshit
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 33915


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #7 on: May 16, 2018, 09:13:48 PM »

LOL - Rudy already walking back this claim

Report to moderator   Logged
Coach is Back!
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41405


Glorified Tire Flipper


WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 16, 2018, 09:17:36 PM »

LOL - Rudy already walking back this claim



Me thinks you should look at the YouTube link genius, then feel free to refute it...with some sort of coherence
Report to moderator   Logged
Vince G, CSN MFT
Competitors II
Getbig V
******
Gender: Male
Posts: 20400

getbig.COM!


WWW
« Reply #9 on: May 17, 2018, 07:56:54 AM »



Its meaningless.   The President of the United States is above the law.  An indictment would interfere with the ability for him to do constitutionally required functions.   That's always been known...its way Nixon was never indicted.   He can be impeached however and indicted the minute he leaves office.
Report to moderator   Logged

A
Coach is Back!
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41405


Glorified Tire Flipper


WWW
« Reply #10 on: May 17, 2018, 08:16:22 AM »


Its meaningless.   The President of the United States is above the law.  An indictment would interfere with the ability for him to do constitutionally required functions.   That's always been known...its way Nixon was never indicted.   He can be impeached however and indicted the minute he leaves office.

You cannot indict a sitting President, aside from that what you stated is what Levin said in the link I posted and what the commie bastard refused to watch.
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 33915


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #11 on: May 17, 2018, 08:26:10 AM »

You cannot indict a sitting President, aside from that what you stated is what Levin said in the link I posted and what the commie bastard refused to watch.

Do you still think Mueller said this to Giuliani?

Report to moderator   Logged
Coach is Back!
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41405


Glorified Tire Flipper


WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 17, 2018, 08:33:10 AM »

Do you still think Mueller said this to Giuliani?



Doesn't matter who said it. You can't indict a sitting president. period.
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 33915


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #13 on: May 17, 2018, 08:38:57 AM »

Doesn't matter who said it. You can't indict a sitting president. period.

OK, so you acknowledge Mueller never said this

what makes you think we can't indict a sitting president...period?
Report to moderator   Logged
Coach is Back!
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41405


Glorified Tire Flipper


WWW
« Reply #14 on: May 17, 2018, 08:47:36 AM »

OK, so you acknowledge Mueller never said this

what makes you think we can't indict a sitting president...period?

The law and the Consitiution


Where did I say I was acknowledging this?

Feel free at the 2min mark...

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLxxqEcaXmE" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLxxqEcaXmE</a>
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19117


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #15 on: May 17, 2018, 08:55:13 AM »

OK, so you acknowledge Mueller never said this

what makes you think we can't indict a sitting president...period?

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/387625-mueller-may-have-a-conflict-and-it-leads-directly-to-a-russian-oligarch
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 33915


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #16 on: May 17, 2018, 08:58:32 AM »

Where did I say I was acknowledging this?

Feel free at the 2min mark...

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLxxqEcaXmE" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLxxqEcaXmE</a>

he's talking about a couple of Justice Department memos

not a law and not part of the Constitution

what does he say at the 2:27 mark?
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19117


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #17 on: May 17, 2018, 09:30:47 AM »

he's talking about a couple of Justice Department memos

not a law and not part of the Constitution

what does he say at the 2:27 mark?

Spinning a Crossfire Hurricane: The Times on the FBI’s Trump Investigation
https://www.nationalreview.com ^ | May 17, 2018 | Andrew McCarthy
Posted on 5/17/2018, 12:58:39 PM by Para-Ord.45

The young’uns may not believe it, but back before it was known as “classic rock,” you couldn’t just play your crossfire hurricane on Spotify. You had to spin it. Fittingly, that is exactly what the New York Times has done in Wednesday’s blockbuster report on the origins of the Trump-Russia probe.

The quick take on the 4,100-word opus is that the Gray Lady “buried the lede.” Fair enough: You have to dig pretty deep to find that the FBI ran “at least one government informant” against the Trump campaign — and to note that the Times learned this because “current and former officials” leaked to reporters the same classified information about which, just days ago, the Justice Department shrieked “Extortion!” when Congress asked about it.

But that’s not even the most important of the buried ledes. What the Times story makes explicit, with studious understatement, is that the Obama administration used its counterintelligence powers to investigate the opposition party’s presidential campaign.

That is, there was no criminal predicate to justify an investigation of any Trump-campaign official. So, the FBI did not open a criminal investigation. Instead, the bureau opened a counterintelligence investigation and hoped that evidence of crimes committed by Trump officials would emerge. But it is an abuse of power to use counterintelligence powers, including spying and electronic surveillance, to conduct what is actually a criminal investigation.

The Times barely mentions the word counterintelligence in its saga. That’s not an accident. The paper is crafting the media-Democrat narrative. Here is how things are to be spun: The FBI was very public about the Clinton-emails investigation, even making disclosures about it on the eve of the election. Yet it kept the Trump-Russia investigation tightly under wraps, despite intelligence showing that the Kremlin was sabotaging the election for Trump’s benefit. This effectively destroyed Clinton’s candidacy and handed the presidency to Trump.

It’s also bunk. Just because the two FBI cases are both referred to as “investigations” does not make them the same kind of thing.

The Clinton case was a criminal investigation that was predicated on a mountain of incriminating evidence. Mrs. Clinton does have one legitimate beef against the FBI: Then-director James Comey went public with some (but by no means all) of the proof against her. In is not proper for law-enforcement officials to publicize evidence from a criminal investigation unless formal charges are brought.

In the scheme of things, though, this was a minor infraction. The scandal here is that Mrs. Clinton was not charged. She likes to blame Comey for her defeat; but she had a chance to win only because the Obama Justice Department and the FBI tanked the case against her — in exactly the manner President Obama encouraged them to do in public commentary.

By contast, the Trump case is a counterintelligence investigation. Unlike criminal cases, counterintelligence matters are classified. If agents had made public disclosures about them, they would have been committing crimes and violating solemn agreements with foreign intelligence services — agreements without which those services would not share information that U.S. national-security officials need in order to protect our country.

The scandal is that the FBI, lacking the incriminating evidence needed to justify opening a criminal investigation of the Trump campaign, decided to open a counterintelligence investigation. With the blessing of the Obama White House, they took the powers that enable our government to spy on foreign adversaries and used them to spy on Americans — Americans who just happened to be their political adversaries.

The Times averts its eyes from this point — although if a Republican administration tried this sort of thing on a Democratic candidate, it would be the only point.

Like the Justice Department and the FBI, the paper is banking on Russia to muddy the waters. Obviously, Russia was trying to meddle in the election, mainly through cyber-espionage — hacking. There would, then, have been nothing inappropriate about the FBI’s opening up a counterintelligence investigation against Russia. Indeed, it would have been irresponsible not to do so. That’s what counterintelligence powers are for.

But opening up a counterintelligence investigation against Russia is not the same thing as opening up a counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign.

The media-Democrat complex has tried from the start to conflate these two things. That explains the desperation to convince the public that Putin wanted Trump to win. It explains the stress on contacts, no matter how slight, between Trump campaign figures and Russians. They are trying to fill a gaping void they hope you don’t notice: Even if Putin did want Trump to win, and even if Trump-campaign advisers did have contacts with Kremlin-tied figures, there is no evidence of participation by the Trump campaign in Russia’s espionage.

That is the proof that would have been needed to justify investigating Americans. Under federal law, to establish that an American is acting as an agent of a foreign power, the government must show that the American is purposefully engaging in clandestine activities on behalf of a foreign power, and that it is probable that these activities violate federal criminal law. (See FISA, Title 50, U.S. Code, Section 1801(b)(2), further explained in the last six paragraphs of my Dec. 17 column.)

But of course, if the FBI had had that kind of evidence, they would not have had to open a counterintelligence investigation. They would not have had to use the Clinton campaign’s opposition research — the Steele dossier — to get FISA-court warrants. They would instead have opened a criminal investigation, just as they did on Clinton when there was evidence that she committed felonies.

To the contrary, the bureau opened a counterintelligence investigation in the absence of any (a) incriminating evidence, or (b) evidence implicating the Trump campaign in Russian espionage. At the height of the 2016 presidential race, the FBI collaborated with the CIA to probe an American political campaign. They used foreign-intelligence surveillance and informants.

That’s your crossfire hurricane.
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 33915


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #18 on: May 17, 2018, 09:35:17 AM »

^^^^^^
nothing to do with my question or the topic of this thread

Report to moderator   Logged
Yamcha
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 12694


Fundie


« Reply #19 on: May 17, 2018, 10:39:49 AM »

^^^^^^
nothing to do with my question or the topic of this thread



Neither does this:

 BREAKING: IG Horowitz has found "reasonable grounds" for believing there has been a violation of federal criminal law in the FBI/DOJ's handling of the Clinton investigation/s and has referred his findings of potential criminal misconduct to Huber for possible criminal prosecution
Report to moderator   Logged

a
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 33915


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #20 on: May 17, 2018, 11:37:22 AM »

Neither does this:

 BREAKING: IG Horowitz has found "reasonable grounds" for believing there has been a violation of federal criminal law in the FBI/DOJ's handling of the Clinton investigation/s and has referred his findings of potential criminal misconduct to Huber for possible criminal prosecution

LOL - desperate to change the subject much

If you want to discuss another topic than make a thread about it and don't forget to include a link

Report to moderator   Logged
Yamcha
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 12694


Fundie


« Reply #21 on: May 17, 2018, 11:40:45 AM »

LOL - desperate to change the subject much

If you want to discuss another topic than make a thread about it and don't forget to include a link





* 1526311635314m.jpg (82.96 KB, 707x1024 - viewed 55 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged

a
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 33915


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #22 on: May 17, 2018, 12:18:33 PM »



what's that have to do with Giuliani's like about Mueller

Did you forget to take your Ritalin today?

Why the constant need on your part to change the subject

If you want to talk about something other than the subject just make your own thread
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 54172

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #23 on: May 17, 2018, 12:22:51 PM »

Spinning a Crossfire Hurricane: The Times on the FBI’s Trump Investigation
https://www.nationalreview.com ^ | May 17, 2018 | Andrew McCarthy
Posted on 5/17/2018, 12:58:39 PM by Para-Ord.45

The young’uns may not believe it, but back before it was known as “classic rock,” you couldn’t just play your crossfire hurricane on Spotify. You had to spin it. Fittingly, that is exactly what the New York Times has done in Wednesday’s blockbuster report on the origins of the Trump-Russia probe.

The quick take on the 4,100-word opus is that the Gray Lady “buried the lede.” Fair enough: You have to dig pretty deep to find that the FBI ran “at least one government informant” against the Trump campaign — and to note that the Times learned this because “current and former officials” leaked to reporters the same classified information about which, just days ago, the Justice Department shrieked “Extortion!” when Congress asked about it.

But that’s not even the most important of the buried ledes. What the Times story makes explicit, with studious understatement, is that the Obama administration used its counterintelligence powers to investigate the opposition party’s presidential campaign.

That is, there was no criminal predicate to justify an investigation of any Trump-campaign official. So, the FBI did not open a criminal investigation. Instead, the bureau opened a counterintelligence investigation and hoped that evidence of crimes committed by Trump officials would emerge. But it is an abuse of power to use counterintelligence powers, including spying and electronic surveillance, to conduct what is actually a criminal investigation.

The Times barely mentions the word counterintelligence in its saga. That’s not an accident. The paper is crafting the media-Democrat narrative. Here is how things are to be spun: The FBI was very public about the Clinton-emails investigation, even making disclosures about it on the eve of the election. Yet it kept the Trump-Russia investigation tightly under wraps, despite intelligence showing that the Kremlin was sabotaging the election for Trump’s benefit. This effectively destroyed Clinton’s candidacy and handed the presidency to Trump.

It’s also bunk. Just because the two FBI cases are both referred to as “investigations” does not make them the same kind of thing.

The Clinton case was a criminal investigation that was predicated on a mountain of incriminating evidence. Mrs. Clinton does have one legitimate beef against the FBI: Then-director James Comey went public with some (but by no means all) of the proof against her. In is not proper for law-enforcement officials to publicize evidence from a criminal investigation unless formal charges are brought.

In the scheme of things, though, this was a minor infraction. The scandal here is that Mrs. Clinton was not charged. She likes to blame Comey for her defeat; but she had a chance to win only because the Obama Justice Department and the FBI tanked the case against her — in exactly the manner President Obama encouraged them to do in public commentary.

By contast, the Trump case is a counterintelligence investigation. Unlike criminal cases, counterintelligence matters are classified. If agents had made public disclosures about them, they would have been committing crimes and violating solemn agreements with foreign intelligence services — agreements without which those services would not share information that U.S. national-security officials need in order to protect our country.

The scandal is that the FBI, lacking the incriminating evidence needed to justify opening a criminal investigation of the Trump campaign, decided to open a counterintelligence investigation. With the blessing of the Obama White House, they took the powers that enable our government to spy on foreign adversaries and used them to spy on Americans — Americans who just happened to be their political adversaries.

The Times averts its eyes from this point — although if a Republican administration tried this sort of thing on a Democratic candidate, it would be the only point.

Like the Justice Department and the FBI, the paper is banking on Russia to muddy the waters. Obviously, Russia was trying to meddle in the election, mainly through cyber-espionage — hacking. There would, then, have been nothing inappropriate about the FBI’s opening up a counterintelligence investigation against Russia. Indeed, it would have been irresponsible not to do so. That’s what counterintelligence powers are for.

But opening up a counterintelligence investigation against Russia is not the same thing as opening up a counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign.

The media-Democrat complex has tried from the start to conflate these two things. That explains the desperation to convince the public that Putin wanted Trump to win. It explains the stress on contacts, no matter how slight, between Trump campaign figures and Russians. They are trying to fill a gaping void they hope you don’t notice: Even if Putin did want Trump to win, and even if Trump-campaign advisers did have contacts with Kremlin-tied figures, there is no evidence of participation by the Trump campaign in Russia’s espionage.

That is the proof that would have been needed to justify investigating Americans. Under federal law, to establish that an American is acting as an agent of a foreign power, the government must show that the American is purposefully engaging in clandestine activities on behalf of a foreign power, and that it is probable that these activities violate federal criminal law. (See FISA, Title 50, U.S. Code, Section 1801(b)(2), further explained in the last six paragraphs of my Dec. 17 column.)

But of course, if the FBI had had that kind of evidence, they would not have had to open a counterintelligence investigation. They would not have had to use the Clinton campaign’s opposition research — the Steele dossier — to get FISA-court warrants. They would instead have opened a criminal investigation, just as they did on Clinton when there was evidence that she committed felonies.

To the contrary, the bureau opened a counterintelligence investigation in the absence of any (a) incriminating evidence, or (b) evidence implicating the Trump campaign in Russian espionage. At the height of the 2016 presidential race, the FBI collaborated with the CIA to probe an American political campaign. They used foreign-intelligence surveillance and informants.

That’s your crossfire hurricane.

The IG is about to lift the curtain on more corruption.  Almost funny how the FBI is leaking the fact they were spying on the Trump campaign to try and get out in front of the IG's report. 
Report to moderator   Logged
SOMEPARTS
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3821



« Reply #24 on: May 17, 2018, 09:05:22 PM »

That article telling liberals to stop being self-righteous....that's like telling them not to breathe, haha. It's the whole basis of their belief system. Stubborn donkeys...
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!