I know it was you Fredo.

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Kizmet, Jul 11, 2017.

  1. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

  2. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    And that's why there's an investigation, to make that determination. It's really not as hard to understand as you're pretending, that is, if you really wanted to understand.
  3. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    Legal Insurrection
    William A. Jacobson
    July 20, 2017


    If Mueller is moving in this direction, then he has crossed — or is very close to crossing — the line into what isn’t supposed to happen in this country, finding the person then finding the crime. Even Kevin Drum at Mother Jones notes this problem:

    I’ll confess to some mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, this stuff is all semi-related to Russia, and might therefore be relevant to the campaign issue. On the other hand, we’ve all seen what happens when special prosecutors get out of control and start investigating everything under the sun. So far this looks like it’s still legitimately tied to Mueller’s original brief, but it’s a close call.

    There is a place where the doctrine was to find the person, then find the crime. It was in Russia’s predecessor, the Soviet Union. How ironic and inappropriate it would be if that is the direction Mueller is heading.

    Cont... Mueller found the man (Trump), now he’ll find the crime

    Just what I've been saying.

  4. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    Yeah you know I'm no expert on this stuff but it seems that Mr. Jacobson has made a good point. My first response is that maybe he has cut his excerpt a bit short because it seems there's another sentence in there somewhere

    "In addition, Mueller is to look into “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.” That would include any obstruction of the investigation or perjury related to it."

    Special Counsel Q&A - FactCheck.org

    and so there might seem to be some substantial latitude to the investigation "any matters that arose" might actually mean "any matters." Fortunately, and this is my second point, the President, his son, son-in-law and literally everyone involved in this stuff has lawyered up and is watching quite carefully. In addition, the Republican House and Senate is stuffed with lawyers or people with immediate access to lawyers and so if Mueller steps across some legal boundary I'm sure there will be any number of referees blowing their whistles and calling for a time-out. Beyond that, I guess I'd point out again that during the investigation of Bill Clinton, Ken Starr started out investigating Whitewater and wound up investigating Monica Lewinsky. There was absolutely no connection between the two matters but it became a part of the Starr investigation because "it arose" during the Whitewater matter and so he was allowed to look into it. I guess that might be used as a kind of rough guide to how far afield these investigations can drift. So I'm not sure that Mr. Jacobson (or you) need to worry about Mueller stepping out of bounds, the Republicans will stop him if he does and, if they don't stop him then I guess we'll just have to assume he's still in-bounds.
  5. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    That wasn't Jacobson's excerpt but mine.

    You left a bit out:

    "In his order appointing Mueller special counsel, Rosenstein wrote that his responsibility is to ensure a “full and thorough investigation of the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 election.” As special counsel, Mueller is charged with investigating “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.” In addition, Mueller is to look into “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.” That would include any obstruction of the investigation or perjury related to it."
  6. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

  7. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

Share This Page