1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
I've moved on.
I'm more interested in why judges are blocking an executive investigation into voter fraud.
Trump: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
- Thread starter WizardofOz
- Start date
- Status
I've moved on.
I'm more interested in why judges are blocking an executive investigation into voter fraud.
Indeed. Regardless of the outcome, at the very least Trump is on the receiving end of what he did to Obama. He will always be seen as an illegitimate *president* by more than half of the country ...
His presidency has little to show due to self-inflicted mayhem. Something about reap, sow and just deserts comes to mind.
True. The fact that you can't cite your authority means you're just asserting.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”.
drbrumley
Well-known member
I'm not defending......I can really care less.
No comment.
I guess this is what happens when a people don't adhere to any principals whatsoever.
:idunno: but being that FARA wasn't even a law until 1938, we seemed to get along without it for 162 years.....Maybe we are just more enlightened now?
People shouldn't lie period, but banks are private institutions, thereby if they believe he lied to them, they have recourse to go after him for fraud. And the thing is, the banks didn't....
WizardofOz
New member
My apologies for missing this one earlier
You don't think Manafort or Gates should have been indicted. So yes, you're defending them.
Should lobbying on behalf of a foreign government be illegal if that person does not disclose such allegiances? Should be be giving lobbyists more power?
As these facts are just now coming to light.
Should fraud be a crime?
You don't think Manafort or Gates should have been indicted. So yes, you're defending them.
Should lobbying on behalf of a foreign government be illegal if that person does not disclose such allegiances? Should be be giving lobbyists more power?
As these facts are just now coming to light.
Should fraud be a crime?
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
I don't know if you noticed, but privacy isn't explicitly listed, and even those rights enumerated in that list aren't insurmountable given an appropriate investigation and legal process.
WizardofOz
New member
[MENTION=15579]1Mind1Spirit[/MENTION] is just making it up as he goes
drbrumley
Well-known member
That's fine.
Um, ok.
It happens now. This is rarely prosecuted at all, I think 7 times since 1938. And the ONLY reason it is now is Mueller is trying to squeeze Trump. He would have dropped this if Trump wasn't in the picture like he WILL do for Podesta, GUARANTEED!.....
Yes.....
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Here you go:
Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the election has entangled the attorney general. In his sworn testimony during his confirmation hearing in January, Sessions was asked by Senator Al Franken, “If there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?” Sessions responded: “Senator Franken, I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn’t have—did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.”
But George Papadopoulos’s guilty plea indicates that there were attempts in the Trump campaign to arrange a meeting with Putin, and that Sessions was aware of them. As CNN reports this morning, “The chairman of Trump’s national security team, then Alabama Senator and now Attorney General Jeff Sessions, shut down the idea of a Putin meeting at the March 31, 2016, gathering, according to the source. His reaction was confirmed with another source who had discussed Sessions’s role.”
The good news for Sessions is that he can plausibly claim to have opposed any Russian collusion. The bad news is that, in making those claims, he opens himself up to charges of perjury.
It's rarely prosecuted in large part because usually the way that violations are handled is by contacting the person doing the lobbying and asking them to submit the disclosure. They still take it seriously. But Manafort has exhibited a pretty significant degree of duplicity with the federal investigation, so they threw the book at him.
I think you're wrong that Trump is the only target here. He's certainly in the mix, but Manafort is a big fish by himself. In fact, the first time a FISA warrant was issued for Manafort, it was before he was campaign manager for Trump, and most of these indictments date from that period. So, the investigation had started before Trump was in the picture.
It's true that part of this is showing to Trump and Trump's people that they need to take the investigation seriously. And that's a completely legitimate thing for Mueller to do.
WizardofOz
New member
But it's still illegal!
Mueller isn't going to ignore anything that broke the law.
He has been appointed to investigate Russian interference in the election. That isn't squeezing anyone. He's been appointed to find wrongdoings and that's exactly what he had done.
I am unsure why you have a problem with this.
Podesta will be indicted as well if any wrongdoing is uncovered by Mueller. Why would he protect Podesta?
But evidence of Manafort defrauding banks shouldn't be prosecuted?
drbrumley
Well-known member
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Privacy is one of the among other than the three listed rights in that clause.
What part of SELF EVIDENT CERTAIN UNALIENABLE do you not understand.
There is no legal process that can surmount these truths.
By definition it would be illegal to even try.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
You wish.
- Status