Special Counsel Mueller's Team

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Just now, Elephant Tipper said:

"Collusion" is NOT a crime. 

Many if not most legal experts disagree with you.  What are your qualifications so we can compare them with the others?

 

Just now, Elephant Tipper said:

"..you don't only investigate when you know a crime was committed".  An investigation must be based on evidence of some kind.  If you tell a police officer that so and so hit your car, then he'll ask you for evidence.  The first evidence would be damage to your car coupled with some form of identification of the perpetrator.

If you find a dead body, you know someone died.  What you don't know is whether it was accidental, self-infliced, natural causes or homicide.  If the evidence is ambiguous, you investigate.  The evidence of Russian involvement and Trump conversations or ties with Russian interests is plentiful.  Whether it ends up being criminal in nature or merely a handful of coinciding but unrelated events is to be determined by an investigation.

 

Just now, Elephant Tipper said:

Again, what "crime" has been committed ?

Asked and answered.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

Many if not most legal experts disagree with you.  What are your qualifications so we can compare them with the others?

 

If you find a dead body, you know someone died.  What you don't know is whether it was accidental, self-infliced, natural causes or homicide.  If the evidence is ambiguous, you investigate.  The evidence of Russian involvement and Trump conversations or ties with Russian interests is plentiful.  Whether it ends up being criminal in nature or merely a handful of coinciding but unrelated events is to be determined by an investigation.

 

Asked and answered.

No, you haven't answered.  What is the "dead body" in this "Russian collusion" (conspiracy) ?

[TitanTiger 20,482]

3 minutes ago, Elephant Tipper said:

No, you haven't answered.  What is the "dead body" in this "Russian collusion" (conspiracy) ?

Yes I did.  Here and here, just to name two instances.  I'm not going to play merry-go-round on this point any more.  If you don't have something of value to add other than to repeat answered questions, then your participation in this thread is concluded.

Those legal qualifications of yours again?

[Elephant Tipper 430]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

Yes I did.  Here and here, just to name two instances.  I'm not going to play merry-go-round on this point any more.  If you have something of value to add other than to repeat answered questions, then your participation in this thread is concluded.

Those legal qualifications of yours again?

No, those aren't actual "dead bodies" or real banking crimes.  Those are only speculations.  Speculations are not crimes.  You have to have actual evidence that something in the past happened, so what happened ?  You can't tell me.

You still have not shown that any "crime" has been committed.  And this is the problem we have, everyone keeps screaming "collusion" (not a crime and no evidence of such) or "obstruction" (no evidence), so now we keep hearing of "intended collusion" or similar arguments, but to this date, no one has produced a body.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Just now, Elephant Tipper said:

No, those aren't actual "dead bodies" or real banking crimes.  Those are only speculations.  Speculations are not crimes.  You have to have actual evidence that something in the past happened, so what happened ?  You can't tell me.

A dead body isn't actual evidence that a crime was committed either.  All you know is that you have a dead body under ambiguous circumstances.  We have the "dead body" of possible Russian hacking, multiple ties by Trump associates to Russian business interests, multiple conversations by Trump admin people with various Russian officials but what it all means is still ambiguous.  So you investigate.  If you determine there's nothing criminal involved, you end the investigation, just like if you investigate the circumstances surrounding this dead body and determine there's no solid evidence of foul play or you find other evidence (again, through investigating) that points to it being accidental for instance.

 

Just now, Elephant Tipper said:

You still have not shown that any "crime" has been committed.  And this is the problem we have, everyone keeps screaming "collusion" (not a crime and no evidence of such) or "obstruction" (no evidence), so now we keep hearing of "intended collusion" or similar arguments, but to this date, no one has produced a body.

Again, collusion is or could be a crime according to many/most legal experts, of which I have to assume you are not one since you've refused to give your legal qualifications.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

9 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

1) A dead body isn't actual evidence that a crime was committed either.  All you know is that you have a dead body under ambiguous circumstances.  We have the "dead body" of possible Russian hacking, multiple ties by Trump associates to Russian business interests, multiple conversations by Trump admin people with various Russian officials but what it all means is still ambiguous.  So you investigate.  If you determine there's nothing criminal involved, you end the investigation, just like if you investigate the circumstances surrounding this dead body and determine there's no solid evidence of foul play or you find other evidence (again, through investigating) that points to it being accidental for instance.

 

2) Again, collusion is or could be a crime according to many/most legal experts, of which I have to assume you are not one since you've refused to give your legal qualifications.

1) A dead body is determined to have been killed in order to investigate people, ie, a "crime" has actually been committed.

2) So let's go with your assertion that "collusion" is a crime.  What evidence of "collusion" exists to precipitate an investigation ?  You have to have a dead body, so where is the dead body, ie, that collusion even ever happened ?

3) "Russian hacking" is mere speculation.  The DNC has never released their servers to the FBI for forensic examination.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

 I have to leave to take my daughter to practice. If anyone else would like to step in and re-answer these inane questions. Have at it. 

[Elephant Tipper 430]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

 I have to leave to take my daughter to practice. If anyone else would like to step in and re-answer these inane questions. Have at it. 

Like I said, you, nor anyone else, has shown evidence of one single crime, not one, even after asking you to show evidence of such, yet you want our government to be tied up in this ridiculous goose chase.

The following are involved in this goose chase: The Special Prosecutor, The Senate Intelligence Committee, the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Senate Armed Services Committee, the House Intelligence Committee, the House Oversight Committee, the Treasury Dept, the Dept of Defense and the CIA.  All of these are involved and yet, like you, have not provided one shred of evidence that a crime has even been committed.  All you are doing is speculating that a crime may have been committed, but there is not one bit of evidence, not one.  In Watergate there was an actual break in, in Whitewater there were actual banking crimes to precede the investigation and you can't name one known crime to justify these 9 investigations.

Our Congress is overwhelmed with these investigations and their time should be better spent on other important, REAL issues like tax reform and healthcare reform.

 

[TitanTiger 20,482]

1 hour ago, Elephant Tipper said:

Like I said, you, nor anyone else, has shown evidence of one single crime, not one, even after asking you to show evidence of such, yet you want our government to be tied up in this ridiculous goose chase.

You continually misrepresent what an investigation is for and you refuse to acknowledge multiple crimes that may have been committed that would warranted further investigation.  For the last time, you do not investigate only when you KNOW that a crime has been committed.  I don't know where you got such a ridiculous notion.  You investigate to determine IF a crime was committed.  And yes, there is enough evidence of a suspicious nature to warrant investigating it.

If you would like to discuss this with some common sense instead of nonsense, I'm open to continuing.  But if you persist in telling me asinine things about what an investigation is, or acting like you haven't been shown multiple times what kinds of crimes are being looked into, your participation in this thread is over.

 

 

[AuburnNTexas 7,148]

Getting back to the original post. The fact that many of investigators have monetarily supported Democrats including Clinton gives the appearance of bias. Sessions removed himself from the Russian investigation as he wanted to be sure there was no appearance of bias. I am not naive enough to think that many high powered lawyers would not have donated to one party or the other. A few actually did to both parties and some have no political donations. What bothers me the most is Mueller couldn't find one investigator that had made contributions to Trump or to Republican party and not to Democratic party.  You tie that in with Mueller's close relationship with one of the witnesses (Comey) and there does appear to be some bias.

I have read up on Mueller and he has a reputation as a tough but fair investigator. I doubt he would allow a biased investigation but in his selection of investigators he has given Trump ample ammunition to question the results even if they are true. I thought he would have enough political acumen to balance his team with some people that support the other side but who also have the reputation of straight shooters..

 

[TitanTiger 20,482]

11 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

Getting back to the original post. The fact that many of investigators have monetarily supported Democrats including Clinton gives the appearance of bias. Sessions removed himself from the Russian investigation as he wanted to be sure there was no appearance of bias. I am not naive enough to think that many high powered lawyers would not have donated to one party or the other. A few actually did to both parties and some have no political donations. What bothers me the most is Mueller couldn't find one investigator that had made contributions to Trump or to Republican party and not to Democratic party.  You tie that in with Mueller's close relationship with one of the witnesses (Comey) and there does appear to be some bias.

I have read up on Mueller and he has a reputation as a tough but fair investigator. I doubt he would allow a biased investigation but in his selection of investigators he has given Trump ample ammunition to question the results even if they are true. I thought he would have enough political acumen to balance his team with some people that support the other side but who also have the reputation of straight shooters..

All you need to do is stick to the evidence and the facts uncovered in the investigation.  Truth is truth even if the devil himself utters it.  And in the end, he's just the special counsel, he's not a prosecutor.  Others will have the task of taking the findings and deciding what to do with them, if anything.

[homersapien 11,373]

7 hours ago, Elephant Tipper said:

Crimes are investigated, not accusations.  What is the "crime" that is supposedly being investigated ?

That statement is absurd.

[homersapien 11,373]

7 hours ago, Elephant Tipper said:

Everything you and the Dems say is potential.  America does not investigate accusations, as these all are.  America investigates actual crimes.  So, again, what "crime" has been committed by DJT ?

Your premise is just flat out wrong.  

Of course America investigates accusations - or more accurately, suspicions - that are supported by evidence, direct or circumstancial. 

Many investigations are appropriately initiated without prior proof of a crime.  A classic example would be a missing person investigation.  

In this case, Mueller's investigation represents a critical exercise in our system of checks and balances, which our freedom ultimately depends on.

 

[homersapien 11,373]

7 hours ago, Elephant Tipper said:

"For instance, you find someone dead.  You have various pieces of evidence."  Now we have something to work with.  So, where is the dead person in this case which precipitated the investigation ?

[homersapien 11,373]

6 hours ago, Elephant Tipper said:

Like I said, you, nor anyone else, has shown evidence of one single crime, not one, even after asking you to show evidence of such, yet you want our government to be tied up in this ridiculous goose chase.

The following are involved in this goose chase: The Special Prosecutor, The Senate Intelligence Committee, the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Senate Armed Services Committee, the House Intelligence Committee, the House Oversight Committee, the Treasury Dept, the Dept of Defense and the CIA.  All of these are involved and yet, like you, have not provided one shred of evidence that a crime has even been committed.  All you are doing is speculating that a crime may have been committed, but there is not one bit of evidence, not one.  In Watergate there was an actual break in, in Whitewater there were actual banking crimes to precede the investigation and you can't name one known crime to justify these 9 investigations.

Our Congress is overwhelmed with these investigations and their time should be better spent on other important, REAL issues like tax reform and healthcare reform.

 

You don't think the possibility of our president being in the pocket of Russians is a "REAL" issue?

[homersapien 11,373]

5 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

Getting back to the original post. The fact that many of investigators have monetarily supported Democrats including Clinton gives the appearance of bias. Sessions removed himself from the Russian investigation as he wanted to be sure there was no appearance of bias. I am not naive enough to think that many high powered lawyers would not have donated to one party or the other. A few actually did to both parties and some have no political donations. What bothers me the most is Mueller couldn't find one investigator that had made contributions to Trump or to Republican party and not to Democratic party.  You tie that in with Mueller's close relationship with one of the witnesses (Comey) and there does appear to be some bias.

I have read up on Mueller and he has a reputation as a tough but fair investigator. I doubt he would allow a biased investigation but in his selection of investigators he has given Trump ample ammunition to question the results even if they are true. I thought he would have enough political acumen to balance his team with some people that support the other side but who also have the reputation of straight shooters..

Are you suggesting Mueller - a Republican -  and/or his staff are likely to fabricate or ignore evidence based on partisan preference?

Frankly, that sounds a little desperate.

 

[SaltyTiger 7,808]

37 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Are you suggesting Mueller - a Republican -  and/or his staff are likely to fabricate or ignore evidence based on partisan preference?

Frankly, that sounds a little desperate.

 

That is not what NTexas suggested Homer. Only stating the obvious perception. Fox did a good job $$. As I recall the donations made is pocket change to the donors.  

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Off topic. Start a new thread if you wish to discuss it. 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

19 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

Getting back to the original post. The fact that many of investigators have monetarily supported Democrats including Clinton gives the appearance of bias. Sessions removed himself from the Russian investigation as he wanted to be sure there was no appearance of bias. I am not naive enough to think that many high powered lawyers would not have donated to one party or the other. A few actually did to both parties and some have no political donations. What bothers me the most is Mueller couldn't find one investigator that had made contributions to Trump or to Republican party and not to Democratic party.  You tie that in with Mueller's close relationship with one of the witnesses (Comey) and there does appear to be some bias.

I have read up on Mueller and he has a reputation as a tough but fair investigator. I doubt he would allow a biased investigation but in his selection of investigators he has given Trump ample ammunition to question the results even if they are true. I thought he would have enough political acumen to balance his team with some people that support the other side but who also have the reputation of straight shooters..

 

Good post and a fair analysis.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

It's amazing that in the process of this investigation to nail Trump, there's been evidence of "collusion" on the behalf of other Republicans and also on the behalf of Hilary Clinton. Yet, the anti-Trump and never-Trump sides don't seem to bother speculating about that evidence. I'll be surprised if the evidence of collusion from other parties is ever actually investigated. And even if it is the reaction of those who want Trump to be taken down won't care about the other evidence. 

But I guess collusion is ok as long as you don't win. It's only a problem if you do ........ At least, that how the "rules" have been set by those who reside in this forum.

For all the "whataboutisms" thrown at Trump supporters, I wish the anit-Trump and never-Trump sides would also just admit their hypocrisy in their lack of outrage about the evidence of collusion from others involved in the election. But hey, when you think you're morally superior to Trump supporters, I guess you don't have to admit your hypocrisy.

[AuburnNTexas 7,148]

On 7/25/2017 at 7:16 PM, homersapien said:

Are you suggesting Mueller - a Republican -  and/or his staff are likely to fabricate or ignore evidence based on partisan preference?

Frankly, that sounds a little desperate.

 

I didn't say anything like that. Please read again what I said. I said because of the makeup of his team it left open the possibility of discrediting his finding even if accurate.  I was very clear he has a reputation of being a straight shooter.

[alexava 6,973]

?