Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Is Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation

When Dershowitz registers with cf.net and posts his opinion, then I might care.

 

haha, I am glad I saw this.

These types think it's outrageous that a prosecutor would dare to pursue fines and jail time, and they whip their mush-brained rubes into a frenzy to huff it down like yesterday's Romaine lettuce.

The prosecution is the legal party responsible for presenting the case against an individual or a corporation suspected of breaking the law, initiating and directing further criminal investigations, guiding and recommending the sentencing of offenders,

You people are not only living in your own reality, you aren't even able to speak english anymore.

Pretty soon a shared language of grunts, toxic memes, white power symbols and Russian will be their only means of expression. Sarah Palin was just the beginning.

Use your words, folks, USE YOUR WORDS!

 

Provoking New Crimes Rather than Uncovering Past Crimes: Mueller's Modus Operandi
by Alan M. Dershowitz
November 30, 2018 at 5:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13363/robert-mueller-modus-operandi

• Even if Mueller could prove that members of the Trump team had colluded with Julian Assange to use material that Assange had unlawfully obtained, that, too, would not be a crime.
  
  
• Merely using the product of an already committed theft of information is not a crime. If you don't believe me, ask the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian and other newspapers that used material illegally obtained by Assange with full knowledge that it was illegally obtained.
  
  
• In the end, Mueller should be judged by how successful he has been in satisfying his central mission. Judged by that standard and based on what we now know, he seems to be an abysmal failure.
  

 

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, it's a real thing. Who knew that bribing a foreign leader would be against the law?

To no one's surprise, Trump is not a fan of Bribery Laws. Did ... not ... see ... that ... coming.

 

...however the hell Hillary Clinton managed to slip by this bunch has to be worthy of at least the Scorsece treatment...

 

"The defendant wants to hide the truth because he's generally guilty. The defense attorney's job is to make sure the jury does not arrive at that truth."

 

good reminder that it is in SD:NY rather than from mueller.

i'm just not certain how you can be confident of the bolded section with what has been reported (as in, the identity of individual #1). meaning, there very well may be a court case. it could be bias from the media but, to say the payments did not come from campaign contributions and are not violations of any laws sounds a bit premature. ultimately, this and just about everything within the investigation is probably best by taking a "wait and see" approach.

 

If the plea deal holds, then there will be no trial. That is why so many cases reach a plea, so as to skip a trial. Now if the plea deal falls apart, then you have a good point. I was presuming that the plea deal is the basis for whatever sentence that Cohen receives.

As far as the so-called "campaign expenses," it is up to the FEC to make that determination regarding the Trump campaign. The usual problem is using campaign funds for personal reasons. Instead, in this instance third party funds were used for personal expenses that were not clearly associated with the campaign. These funds were never designated as campaign funds and the expenses were not paid for by the campaign or designated as campaign expenses. The thing the FEC is concerned about is using formal campaign funds for improper reasons. That just did not happen here. Or, if anyone want to try to make the case that it did, then they need to file a complaint with the FEC.

But the FEC knows about this, from the news coverage that it has received, and the response has been a big yawn. Anyway, many on the Democrat left seem to think that we have moved to a presumption of guilty until the accused proves himself innocent, for anyone they regard as an adversary. This may be hard news for some people, but it just does not work that way, regardless of what the mass media partisan hacks keep telling everyone.

 

LOCK HIM UP!
LOCK HIM UP!

 

Good God. Strayer University has a school of law now.

We're
Bot
Worthy

 

For what, specifically? At least with Hillary we had specific circumstances, evidence and identifiable charges that she could specifically be locked up for.

 

If the circumstances, evidence and identifiable charges are properly established, the next step is usually to arrest the alleged perpetrator and lock her up. The only reason that did not happen with Hillary Clinton is that James Comey intervened in her case and pronounced that no "intent" had been established, even though that was very clearly not a requirement of the statute.

With Trump, what specific circumstances, evidence and identifiable charges are you proposing he would be arrested and charged for? Other than that he had the audacity to defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.

 

Thanks for the laugh cheers

 

I said The Plea Deal... meaning the document.

He did not sign it. He leaked it. The documents lay out what I said about the contacts with Assange.

 

And I’m guessing you think the Inspector General and Trumps own DOJ are in on covering up for Comeys intervention as well. Matthew Whitaker and Jeff Sessions have served as AG since Trump took office? Why are Hillary, Comey, Obama, and all your foes still running around free?

What crimes you say?

It’s in court filings that Trump ordered his personal attorney to commit election fraud.

That is a crime. Not sure why this is so complicated to you guys. Doesn’t mean I want the president imprisoned over it, but I do expect that anyone who lives on planet earth to acknowledge basic facts like the sky is blue, water is wet, and technically Trump ordered a crime to be commited which is a crime.

He’s not charged for it (what your next obvious talking point will be) because he’s the Freaking president of the United States. It’s Congress’ role to take evidence of criminal behavior from a president and make a POLITICAL decision with it.... aka impeachment after a house judiciary inquiry deems the crime in question worthy of pursuing. They didn’t do that with a Republican House. Doesn’t mean I can’t talk about it. Doesn’t mean I have to acknowledge your stance that facts aren’t facts, and what we can all see and read doesn’t actually exist.

This is like... not complicated dude.

 

Election fraud? What are you talking about?

 

Seriously ... you sure are opinionated about a story you are missing big plot points for.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news...ohen-plea-deal-fraud-case-20180821-story.html

That is what legal scholars as asteemed as Alan Dershowitz (only lawyer you guys regerence nowadays) would refer to as Election Fraud.