Did these guys actually believe that they might be able to get away with it?

The Mueller investigation is still IN PROGRESS!

Furthermore Mueller will NOT be the one to bring charges since that is the job of the DOJ.

The DOJ will only do so AFTER the investigation has been completed.

So your feeble attempt to pretend that your beloved BLOTUS's criminal cabal are "innocent" is nothing short of ludicrous and reflects poorly on his sycophants.

 

Uh ... no. Mueller seated his own grand jury. He "MIGHT" keep Rosenstein abreast, but that's speculative too. I'm still over your Russian spies "doing the right thing" theory ... 'cause if true Veselnitskaya's testimony and public statements aren't real helpful are they? :: The rest of your screed on sycophants ... IFDR.

 

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Confused about the role of the Grand Jury again?

And even more confused regarding the role of the DOJ too?

 

The house had very little to use to investigate Hillary's violation of the Espionage Act as she did not turn over her subpoenaed emails. The FBI, Comey, said in his briefing of his investigation that Hillary violated the Espionage Act. He just said that he was not going to indict or prosecute her for it (which he was not authorized to do, but who's counting?)

Two things: Ken Starr was never appointed nor directed by Congress. He was appointed and subsequently had his investigation expanded by the AG in connection with the three judge panel that was set up to oversee the independent prosecutor. (Something that Mueller is not beholding to.) That was done following the law that congress did write, but congress had no say in the activities of Starr -- that was solely the purview of the DOJ and the judiciary panel.
To repeat, congress cannot prosecute anybody for anything. They can and do write laws that describe how the executive or judicial branches can set up special prosecutors. And they can hire investigators, but not prosecutors, in connection with an impeachment. And if the house impeaches they can appoint people to act as prosecutors during the senate's impeachment trial, but that is not a criminal prosecution.
In the perjury example, the house did refer the accusation to DOJ per what Comey told them. That is the last anyone heard about it.
The Title 28 you cite is no longer applicable, anyway.

 

It is applicable to her mishandling classified material on her email server, as I said. But keep on trying to deflect.

 

All of them are well documented. Actually, the only one still awaiting a "smoking gun" is the last one. And there is plenty of publicly available information to support that one.

 

If he wanted to deflect, he could bring up Trump blabbing classified information to Sergi Kislyak. He could have brought up Jared Kushner's attempts to set up secret communications between the Trump transistion team and the Russian FSB. He could have brought up the fact that the Russians and the Chinese are on a party line with Trump's unsecured phone. He could have brought up the fact that Scott Pruitt spent over a year as EPA Administrator and sent exactly ONE e-mail on his .gov account.

 

What state crimes might the POTUS be charged with? I'm asking about real crimes, not fairy tale playbook "crimes."

 

Per the Constitution he most certainly can (other than impeachment.) Per extra-constitution opinions, maybe not.

 

You too deflect. 1. The president decides what classified information can be disclosed. 2. There is nothing illegal or even untoward about a separate communications channel being set up between the Trump transition and Russian authorities. First off no communications between the Trump team and a foreign power would be odd and inappropriate. Secondly, the Trump team can use any channel they want. Thirdly, it is perfectly logical for Trump to try to get channels that Obama wouldn't be illegally surveilling. 3. There is nothing wrong with using an unsecured phone unless possibly if classified information is communicated. 4. There is nothing illegal (though it might violate policy) with using a private email server if either one, it is none-the-less secure, or two, again, is not used for classified material.

 

Not to mention her legal obligation under FOIA to backup and retain all work related info, which see was proven not up have done.

 

Of course you are correct. And it's not even complicated.


Apparently people don't read the Constitution before pontificating on what is does and doesn't say.

 

Comey has neither the ability to indict or prosecute. The fbi investigates like any law enforcement agency and has the authority to arrest, no more, no less. They make findings and recommendations. The congress does through the avenues I explained if they never get to the DOJ. No matter how you cut it, just like the BENGHAZZI FARCE, it was a waste of time and the taxpayers money.......and for some reasons, you guys are still afraid of HILLARY.

 

Reading the constitution and then giving your own interpretation isn’t knowing the constitution. The constitution is settled during conflicting arguments by the supreme and lower courts, not by laymen just reading it.

 

Example, the history books say that something like only 15% or 20% of Americans served during the Vietnam War era.

That's true if you include women of military age from 1965-1973.

But only about 1% of the military back then were women.

From 65-73, 10 million males served in the military. 8 million on active duty and 2 million in the reserves or Guard.
Actually that comes out to close to 40% of men of military age from 65-73 served.


Note:
This is from 2009.

 

Like I said. Opinions.

 

Which is exactly what I said. Nonetheless it was Comey who announced that there would be no indictment or prosecution of Hillary stemming from his investigation.

 

Sometimes it is, sometimes it is not.

 

You’d like to think that, it gives conservatives an opportunity to interpret it on their own. In realty, laws are constitutional until successfully challenged.

 

.....your quote.”He just said that he was not going to indict or prosecute her for it (which he was not authorized to do, but who's counting?)”

The attorney general said she would abide by the recommendation of the FBI. The FBI does not prosecute or indict, that’s not the job of law enforcement.

Regardless......

NOTHING. Prevented congress from submitting perjury charges of their own to the AG if they felt Hillary had lied to them,.
Nothing prevented them from establishing their own independent prosecutor through the circuit court if the AG refused their perjury or anyother charges . Nothing prevent the house from Voting for impeachment.

Somehow, republicans want to keep blaming others for their own incompetence. It doesn’t work that way.

 

I said that wrong. You are correct that the courts settle constitutional questions. But what I meant was sometimes they settle them according to what the constitution says, and sometimes they settle it differently from what the constitution says.

 

if everyone interpreted the constitution the same way, rulings wouldn’t have to be made. I laugh when literally, both sides claim they’re strict constitutionalists.....they are as long as the SC agrees with what they want. In reality, the constitution is written with sometimes contradictory interpretations.

 

Correct

Correct. And as I said they did refer Hillary's perjury to DOJ, where it died.

Wrong. You keep trying to weasel word it, but the fact remains that congress cannot criminally prosecute anybody. If you mean by "establishing" making an actual appointment, they can't, no matter who they inform. Nor can the directly request a court to appoint one or to give them permission to appoint one. They can recommend that the AG appoint a special prosecutor, who might or might not and who might or might not coordinate with a court.

Correct. Although they have to impeach someone who is impeachable which Hillary was not at the time of her perjury.

 

Yes, I was deflecting. But that was in response to your attempt to do so.

And it is almost certainly illegal and clearly, and obviously untoward for non accredited officials of a presidential campaign to be trying to set up secret communications with intelligence operatives of a rival country. Particularly at the same time that that same government is waging cyber warfare against your own country. It is both odd, AND inappropriate. Trump and his team had no official authority or authorization by any member of the US government to operate in this matter. They were clearly operating outside the law and the sanctioned authority of their own government. Period.

And no, the Trump team can't go off acting like cowboys, making promises to rival governments and the like with no mandate, no vote and no authority.

Trying to pretend that just any Presidential candidate can go around plotting to set up secret channels to rival government normal, but it's ridiculous and not supported by any sort of evidence or precident. It's NOT apporporiate, very odd and very inappropriate. And only a Trump true believer would even attempt to argue that it was.

Then you go on and say there's nothing wrong with anyone using an unsecured phone (a very basic intelligence no-no) or an unsecured e-mail address (the same) right after you spent several posts on this thread trying to make the exact opposite argument against Hillary Clinton.

Of course, the whole of your argument can be summed up in your dubious assertion that the President can decide what's classified any time he pleases, and that the only person who can decide whether his communications on an unsecured phone or e-mail account are classified is him.

Of course, you danced right by the fact that the Chinese and the Russians were on all the calls. Which is probably the most basic and serious security breach in the history of the Presidency.

But you're a Trumpsters, so it's OK that the Russians and the Chinese are listening on Trump's phone. It's OK because there is no excuse you won't make to rationalize this man's behavior.

Your post makes that plain with some of the most spectacularly circular logic I've ever seen!

 

The Constitution was settled the moment it was ratified.

SCOTUS does not have the legal authority to ignore it, although they do in occasion.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights were both written in plain English for the American citizens to understand, and they mean exactly what they say. The founders did not write these in some special elitist code forcing citizens to await interpretation from their betters.

Did you actually read it? Here....

US Constitution Article II Section II

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

It means what it says.

If it's an offense against the US and not an impeachment hearing, POTUS can pardon the offense. Period.

How is it you didn't learn this in elementary school? Education is going down the crapper....