Investigate the investigators while the investigation is on-going. Right.

 

We are going into unprecedented territory. So far the investigation has already resulted in 2 guilty pleas, yet certain people still dont want to put their politics aside and say "Maybe there is something here and maybe America comes first."

 

There is a certain irony that the party who is all about supporting the "police" and "military" has completely turned on the FBI. Even more disturbing is that the people they turned on were previously self-identifying Republicans. Mueller was appointed FBI director with a 98-0 vote, yet now that he is investigating "their" team, he is basically considered a shill for the Democratic party.

Investigate the investigators while the investigation is on-going. Right.

 

Can't obstruct justice if you are the justice.

 

*Points to forehead

#BREAKING: Trump Jr. asked Russian lawyer for dirt on Clinton Foundation: report

 

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/938171879239675904

 

 

Isn’t this old news? Not trying to be a jerk, I thought this was known for a while?

Well, it was assumed, but it’s now on record from the Russian lawyer’s testimony.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/05/opinions...lein/index.html

Why Trump Is Still Winning

 

When you sit at the top with an office in the Capitol and people lining up to tell you how wonderful you are, an academic on MSNBC going on about white privilege, toxic masculinity, and cisgender bias doesn't bother you.

 

Nor does a school board that approves opposite-sex bathroom privileges for transgender students and casts concerned parents as "phobic."

 

But if you're a small businessman or blue-collar worker worried about cost of living and with children to feed and educate, and who thinks little about identity issues, those charges grate on your nerves. Trump is your champion, not the lords in Congress. If Republicans don't follow his lead, more of them will share the fate of Sen. Jeff Flake, whose political career the President has called "toast."

Edited December 6, 20178 yr by caulfield12

Man opinion columns are so s***ty.

Flynn Said Russian Sanctions Would be ‘Ripped Up,’ Whistle-Blower Says

 

WASHINGTON — Michael T. Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser, told a former business associate that economic sanctions against Russia would be “ripped up” as one of the Trump administration’s first acts, according to an account by a whistle-blower made public on Wednesday.

 

Mr. Flynn believed that ending the sanctions could allow a business project he had once participated in to move forward, according to the whistle-blower. The account is the strongest evidence to date that the Trump administration wanted to end the sanctions immediately, and suggests that Mr. Flynn had a possible economic incentive for the United States to forge a closer relationship with Russia.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/whistl...-ripped-n827031

 

WASHINGTON — Donald Trump was just 11 minutes into his presidency when his choice for national security adviser, Michael Flynn, texted a former business partner to say an ambitious U.S. collaboration with Russia to build nuclear reactors in the Middle East was "good to go," according to a new whistleblower account.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/06/d...uestions-284841

 

Trump Jr. said he couldnt testify due to attorney client privilege. The problem is that other people were in the room and attorney client privilege only applies if no one else besides your attorney heard the statement. Unless of course they were all part of a conspiracy and that attorney was giving them all legal advice. That is pretty rare because usually in criminal cases you dont want to share counsel because many times the best defense is leveraging information against your co-defendant.

 

That being said its an interesting comment because it basically implicates them in a conspiracy.

Exclusive: Previously undisclosed emails show follow-up after Trump Tower meeting

 

Washington (CNN)The British publicist who arranged the June 2016 meeting with Russians and Donald Trump Jr. sent multiple emails to a Russian participant and a member of Donald Trump's inner circle later that summer, multiple sources told CNN, the first indication there was any follow-up after the meeting.

 

The emails raise new questions for congressional investigators about what was discussed at Trump Tower. Trump Jr. has for months contended that after being promised he would get dirt on Hillary Clinton, the brief meeting focused almost exclusively on the issue of Russian adoptions, saying there was no discussion with the participants after that session.

 

The emails from the publicist, Rob Goldstone, were discovered by congressional investigators and raised at Wednesday's classified hearing with Trump Jr., who said he could not recall the interactions, several sources said. None of the newly disclosed emails were sent directly to Trump Jr. They are bound to be a subject during Goldstone's closed-door meetings with the House and Senate intelligence panels, which are expected to take place as early as next week.

 

An email from Goldstone to senior Trump aide Dan Scavino, now the White House director of social media, reveals a previously undisclosed topic that was discussed at the meeting. It encourages Scavino to get candidate Trump to create a page on the Russian social networking site VK, telling him that "Don and Paul" were on board with the idea -- a reference to then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Trump Jr.

State Department to 60k Haitians in the US, some for decades, on visas: you need to go back, it's safe in Haiti now.

 

Also State Department: US Travelers, it's unsafe to go to Haiti

 

https://twitter.com/robferdman/status/938889092963749888

In 2011 Trump tweeted a blast at Obama for hosting a White House Hannukah party early because he was going to Hawaii on vacation.

 

Trump just hosted an early Hannukah party because he is going to Mar a Lago.

 

Every. Single. Tweet.

Exclusive: Email shows effort to give Trump campaign WikiLeaks documents

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cn...ents/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning...iberal-friends/

 

Dershowitz chose evidence over partisan politics and he’s paying for it in his social life

 

he did no such thing. He keeps saying that a president cannot obstruct justice because he is the president as if it is fact, when it is not fact and many constitutional lawyers disagree with his premise.

Fox News has been going full-bore on trying to delegitimize Mueller's investigation this week.

Alan Dershowitz has been painting himself as a martyr for years.

That was the premise of the article. He's not flying with the media's narrative and his leftist friends don't want to talk to him anymore. Not sure what you're taking exception to?

 

I take exception at the assertion of “evidence”

There is a legitimate Constitutional debate as to whether a sitting President can be charged with any crime at all, and whether a President can obstruct justice (at least federally, I don't think the arguments would apply to obstructing state investigations). Dershowitz takes the side that no, the President can't even possibly obstruct justice as he's the head of the executive branch. That's fine, but other Constitutional scholars and lawyers disagree. It's an unresolved question. Painting it as Dershowitz choosing "evidence" while everyone else is choosing "partisan politics" is a fundamentally dishonest depiction of the debate.

I was actually just listening to Fresh Air this morning, and they had Toobin on this week covering exactly what the Mueller investigation is looking into and what, potentially, the crimes could be and the legal defense strategies thus far. Here's a a link with a transcript and audio. It's long, but it's worth a read or a listen.

 

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/07/569080957/wi...s-it-s-complica

This tweet was sent the same day Trump Jr. reportedly received a decryption key and website address for hacked WikiLeaks documents.

 

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/939145150277832705

So what happens if Mueller is fired? Does anyone really know? Does this all go away?

There is a legitimate Constitutional debate as to whether a sitting President can be charged with any crime at all, and whether a President can obstruct justice (at least federally, I don't think the arguments would apply to obstructing state investigations). Dershowitz takes the side that no, the President can't even possibly obstruct justice as he's the head of the executive branch. That's fine, but other Constitutional scholars and lawyers disagree. It's an unresolved question. Painting it as Dershowitz choosing "evidence" while everyone else is choosing "partisan politics" is a fundamentally dishonest depiction of the debate.

He should tell us why Nixon was innocent while he is at it.

I mean if you disagree with the renowned constitutional lawyer on his interpretation of the law so be it but I thought the article was interesting.

 

The article was interesting, and multiple other constitutional lawyers disagree with him, which is also part of the article.

And many others agree with him and asked him why he has to go public with the truth.

 

Assuming Dershowitz is telling the truth that those people exist.

So what happens if Mueller is fired? Does anyone really know? Does this all go away?

 

There's already contingency protests planned around the country.

 

Hypothetically, Congress could reappoint him, but that requires the GOP to have a spine.

 

Trump would also have to conduct his own Saturday Night Massacre through the DOJ and Senate GOP members are loyal to Sessions.