AAG Rod Rosenstein Threatened Members of Congress in January and again Today.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Show me where Trump did any of that.

Um. That's the point of an investigation. Right? To determine if someone has committed a crime?

But last I heard, Trump was not the subject of any investigation. So?

originally posted by: Phage
Which embassy attack were you referring to here? Which known spies?

Point out where I said anything about an embassy attack. You raised that irrelevant point and I responded to it.

If you have no dead body, no known spies planted by a foreign government and no attacks on an embassy you cant investigate anyone.

A crime can be investigated to find a suspect.
A person cannot be investigated in hopes of stumbling across a crime.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Point out where I said anything about an embassy attack. You raised that irrelevant point and I responded to it.

Yes, you did. And you seemed to understand the context at the time.

A person cannot be investigated in hopes of stumbling across a crime.

True. But in investigating whether a crime has been committed by someone, evidence of other crimes cannot be ignored.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

Show me where Trump did any of that.

Um. That's the point of an investigation. Right? To determine if someone has committed a crime?

But last I heard, Trump was not the subject of any investigation. So?

For a counterintelligence investigation, yes.
www.thefreedictionary.com...

Trump could not be a subject at 9am, but by 9pm become a subject.

a reply to: carewemust

Trump could not be a subject at 9am, but by 9pm become a subject.

Really?

That's amazing.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

The SC, in order to investigate Trump or his campaign, requires a specific law violation be present.

Nonsense. Tell me, have you seen the directive to the Special Counsel?

First - 28 CFR 600.1

§ 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and -

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.

Tell me again the specific crime Trump committed.

Yes - both were released. The authorization letter and the follow up document granting Mueller additional jurisdiction into section B and pertained to Manafort only. Again the crimes Manafort is charged with have nothing to do with Trump-Russia collusion, which was the base in the authorization of the SC document.

2nd letter by AAG Rosenstein to Muieller

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

Show me where Trump did any of that.

Um. That's the point of an investigation. Right? To determine if someone has committed a crime?

But last I heard, Trump was not the subject of any investigation. So?

Nope - The point of an investigation is to determine the person broke the law.

So again, show me where Trump broke the law. Without it he cant be investigated.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Tell me again the specific crime Trump committed.

Why? Last I heard Trump was not under investigation. But let me rebold your external quote.

when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and -

originally posted by: Phage
Yes, you did. And you seemed to understand the context at the time.

No you brought embassy into this with your Benghazi comment and I responded to it.

originally posted by: Phage True. But in investigating whether a crime has been committed by someone, evidence of other crimes cannot be ignored.

and again there must be articulable facts a person broke a law in order to launch an investigation into them for said crime.

The potential law violation must come first otherwise Law Enforcement have no legal grounds to investigate.

a reply to: Xcathdra

No you brought embassy into this with your Benghazi comment and I responded to it.

Ok. You did not understand the context. My apologies.

and again there must be articulable facts a person broke a law in order to launch an investigation into them for said crime.

See above post.

originally posted by: Phage
Why? Last I heard Trump was not under investigation. But let me rebold your external quote.

Since Trump Russia collusion was the established base for the SC and he is not the subject/target/whatever of the investigation then the SC appointment is not lawful.

originally posted by: Phage

when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and -

Yup meaning a potential law violation must exist. As I stated many times before point out in the federal body of law (criminal) the US code for collusion.

Of the 20+ people indicted thus far name one relating to Trump Russia collusion or the election. So far they are all charged with lying to the FBI or financial crimes dating back a decade or more.

You are being purposely obtuse now.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

No you brought embassy into this with your Benghazi comment and I responded to it.

Ok. You did not understand the context. My apologies.

and again there must be articulable facts a person broke a law in order to launch an investigation into them for said crime.

See above post.

No I understood it and as I pointed out to you a law violation existed before an investigation was started.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Since Trump Russia collusion was the established base for the SC

So you have seen the memo.
Awesome.

Last I heard the possibility of conspiracy was one of the avenues of investigation. But that's probably fake news.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

Since Trump Russia collusion was the established base for the SC

So you have seen the memo.
Awesome.

Yes and I also linked the second memo to my post that you apparently ignored.

Here they are again -

2nd letter by AAG Rosenstein to Muieller

original letter - Part B and section i -


and as I said before not one person who was charged by Mueller has anything to do with Trump-Russia collusion and were committed a decade + ago.

a reply to: Xcathdra

So, it's clearly an illegal mandate.
What's the problem?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

So, it's clearly an illegal mandate.
What's the problem?

Whats yours?

You're the one who went down the path of not understanding how an investigation works.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Whats yours?

I have no problem with the investigation(s). Of the Trump campaign. Of the Clinton campaign. Of Benghazi. Of Uranium One. Hell, of Whitewater for that matter.

Why do you?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

Whats yours?

I have no problem with the investigation(s). Of the Trump campaign. Of the Clinton campaign. Of Benghazi. Hell, of Whitewater.

Why do you?

Now you are just trolling.


To bring it back around to the op topic everything we just discussed is why Rosenstein is not cooperating with Congressional oversight. He knows the more specific the info the more the sham investigation is exposed as being unlawful.

a reply to: Xcathdra

No. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

No. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.

Not hypocrisy and you are trolling.

If a potential law violation exists then investigate it and comply with established laws. Violating a law in order to investigate someone else for violating a law is a non starter.

If there is specific evidence Trump "colluded" with Russia to interfere in our elections then produce the required evidence to lawfully justify the investigation into him and name the potential crimes in the authorization letter as required by law.

Given the length of time this special counsel investigation has been around and knowing everything else under the sun has been leaked you arent at all curious why no evidence of Trump Russia collusion has been produced?