Literally NOTHING being investigated

[n david]

Originally Posted by Originalist

What "actual" crime? There has to have been a crime committed for there to be a PROSECUTOR. You should be outraged that one has been appointed when no charges of a crime have been made. You used to be a civil libertarian. Now you are a Stalinist.

""Section 600.1 of the CFR provides that the AG will appoint a Special Counsel (SC] when the AG determines that criminal investigation is warranted and that (a)investigation by the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest or "other extraordinary circumstance" and that "under the circumstances it would be in the public interest to appoint and outside Special Counsel.""

The Special Counsel appointment was the right call. Flynn is up to his eyeballs in shady business. I have a feeling he is the one the FBI is after, and it's not about the phone calls to the Russian ambassador during the transition, either. It's about bribery and accepting money and granting favors to foreign interests after having served that foreign interest.

Flynn's lawyers notified the Senate Intel Committee that he's not going to testify and will instead plead the 5th. He may want to start getting sized for an orange jumpsuit.

There was a report over the weekend which alleged that Comey was going to spill the beans and testify that Trump did, in fact, pressure him to end the Russian investigation, thereby giving Democrats ammo to try and impeach him for obstruction of justice. I'll believe it when I see factual evidence. The memo he wrote about the POTUS asking him to "let it go" is a bad look for Trump, but not enough to claim obstruction.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by n david

""Section 600.1 of the CFR provides that the AG will appoint a Special Counsel (SC] when the AG determines that criminal investigation is warranted and that (a)investigation by the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest or "other extraordinary circumstance" and that "under the circumstances it would be in the public interest to appoint and outside Special Counsel.""

The Special Counsel appointment was the right call. Flynn is up to his eyeballs in shady business. I have a feeling he is the one the FBI is after, and it's not about the phone calls to the Russian ambassador during the transition, either. It's about bribery and accepting money and granting favors to foreign interests after having served that foreign interest.

Flynn's lawyers notified the Senate Intel Committee that he's not going to testify and will instead plead the 5th. He may want to start getting sized for an orange jumpsuit.

There was a report over the weekend which alleged that Comey was going to spill the beans and testify that Trump did, in fact, pressure him to end the Russian investigation, thereby giving Democrats ammo to try and impeach him for obstruction of justice. I'll believe it when I see factual evidence. The memo he wrote about the POTUS asking him to "let it go" is a bad look for Trump, but not enough to claim obstruction.

But of course on May 3 he swore he had never been pressured.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Originalist

But of course on May 3 he swore he had never been pressured.

Like I posted in the other thread, the question about being pressured was about the DOJ and AG...NOT the POTUS. Comey wasn't answering about the POTUS.

[n david]

For there not being a crime committed, as Derschowitz pointed out, Trump is not taking chances. He's narrowed down a list of attorneys he will use as outside counsel for this investigation and any subsequent impeachment threat.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by n david

For there not being a crime committed, as Derschowitz pointed out, Trump is not taking chances. He's narrowed down a list of attorneys he will use as outside counsel for this investigation and any subsequent impeachment threat.

I would too if I had to deal with this sub-human vermin.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by n david

Like I posted in the other thread, the question about being pressured was about the DOJ and AG...NOT the POTUS. Comey wasn't answering about the POTUS.

The implication is that Comey changed his mind, or "NOW thinks" Trump was trying to pressure him. Either way, he's a loser.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by n david

Like I posted in the other thread, the question about being pressured was about the DOJ and AG...NOT the POTUS. Comey wasn't answering about the POTUS.

I simply cannot buy this. Being pressured by POTUS would have been a much bigger deal than being pressured by an agency. However, if one is pressured by an agency, chances are the directive to pressure came from the top. Had he really felt at the time of his May 3 testimony that Trump had pressured him, he would not been so adamant about being pressured "by anyone". He is saying this now out of revenge for getting fired. He's a loser.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Originalist

I simply cannot buy this. Being pressured by POTUS would have been a much bigger deal than being pressured by an agency. However, if one is pressured by an agency, chances are the directive to pressure came from the top. Had he really felt at the time of his May 3 testimony that Trump had pressured him, he would not been so adamant about being pressured "by anyone". He is saying this now out of revenge for getting fired. He's a loser.

This should be simple to understand. The question was solely about the DOJ and AGs. He was not asked about the POTUS.

Ironically, had Comey responded to the question about DOJ/AG pressure and said, "No DOJ/AG didn't pressure me, but I felt pressured by the POTUS," you and other Trump supporters would have been upset that he didn't stick to the question.

I highly doubt Comey is out for revenge. He's not a petty man. He doesn't need revenge or vindication.

I do find it odd that Comey cancelled his testimony before Congress because he wants to "confer" with the Special Counsel. The only person he should "confer" with is his own attorney, not the Special Counsel who is leading the investigation. That seems improper and close to constituting a conflict of interest.

[Originalist]

[QUOTE=n david;1484082]This should be simple to understand. The question was solely about the DOJ and AGs. He was not asked about the POTUS.

Ironically, had Comey responded to the question about DOJ/AG pressure and said, "No DOJ/AG didn't pressure me, but I felt pressured by the POTUS," you and other Trump supporters would have been upset that he didn't stick to the question.

I highly doubt Comey is out for revenge. He's not a petty man. He doesn't need revenge or vindication.

I do find it odd that Comey cancelled his testimony before Congress because he wants to "confer" with the Special Counsel. The only person he should "confer" with is his own attorney, not the Special Counsel who is leading the investigation. That seems improper and close to constituting a conflict of interest.[/QUOTE]

A snake that cannot be trusted.

[Originalist]