Garland names special counsel for Trump Mar-a-Lago, 2020 election inquiries

[Tiberius]

On 11/23/2022 at 8:47 AM, SoCal Deek said:

What’s the purpose of this Special Counsel? Is there really that much of a dispute about the facts of this case? 

To prosecute a criminal 

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

To prosecute a criminal 

And the Attorney General couldn’t do that?

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

And the Attorney General couldn’t do that?

Sure, so? 

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, Tiberius said:

Sure, so? 

Are we going to go in circles here? 

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Are we going to go in circles here? 

Where is it you want to go? 

[Albwan]

You've chosen to ignore content by Tiberius.

 

Have you heard the rumor of the incoming investigation of the real criminal in chief ?

Ya know the one who actually committed crimes not fantasy ones concocted

by a group of mentally ill power hungry cultists

Edited November 25, 2022 by Albwan

[T master]

On 11/18/2022 at 3:20 PM, ChiGoose said:

This is the right call. The target of the investigation has declared their run for president and the guy who appointed Garland is saying he’s going to run too. 

 

Why couldn't they have done this a few weeks back when others were calling for a special council or that judge to look at the documents & determine what & weather they were indeed that important ? Inquiring minds want to know .

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, T master said:

 

Why couldn't they have done this a few weeks back when others were calling for a special council or that judge to look at the documents & determine what & weather they were indeed that important ? Inquiring minds want to know .

Then you guys would be screaming it was to interfere with the red (ha ha) wave in the midterms 

[Doc]

3 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

I rarely do this but let me ask again here. What’s the role of a Special Counsel here? How complicated is this case? Seems to me it’s just a simple question of a legal interpretation. 

 

It tells me the material in question may not be what the Left is claiming it is.  But we'll see.

[T master]

On 11/22/2022 at 3:11 PM, ChiGoose said:

DoJ won’t indict a sitting president, so he could do all the crimes he wanted and they wouldn’t indict him. The solution, as pointed out by Mueller, would be impeachment. 
 

That’s a political process, not a legal one, so no matter the facts, there was no chance of success. 

 

Then why bother it's just a total waste of money & nothing but a side show especially when so much was fueled by lies and a fabricated dossier . No one should be above the law if so there would be a lot more ex presidents & politicians that would be in jail & rightfully so !! 

[BillsFanNC]

4 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

I rarely do this but let me ask again here. What’s the role of a Special Counsel here? How complicated is this case? Seems to me it’s just a simple question of a legal interpretation. 

 

 

Edited November 25, 2022 by BillsFanNC

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, T master said:

 

Then why bother it's just a total waste of money & nothing but a side show especially when so much was fueled by lies and a fabricated dossier . No one should be above the law if so there would be a lot more ex presidents & politicians that would be in jail & rightfully so !! 

Don’t go down the leftist rabbit hole. That’s right where they want you to go. There’s absolutely zero case here. Zero. 

[ChiGoose]

11 hours ago, T master said:

 

Then why bother it's just a total waste of money & nothing but a side show especially when so much was fueled by lies and a fabricated dossier . No one should be above the law if so there would be a lot more ex presidents & politicians that would be in jail & rightfully so !! 

Because laying down the record of facts for history is always the right thing to do, even if it doesn’t achieve justice. 
 

The Mueller investigation uncovered dozens of crimes and showed that the Trump campaign was absolutely swarming with Russian agents. Mueller couldn’t indict Trump, so he specifically stated that the proper remedy was impeachment. 
 

But impeachment is a political tool, not a legal one. So instead of looking at the facts that showed that the Trump campaign was willingly accepting help from Russian agents and that Trump himself 100% had obstructed justice, the Senate just voted on party lines because it was politically convenient. 
 

BTW: if you think the Russia investigation was started because of the Steele Dossier, you are wrong. And if people are still telling you that, you should recognize that they are not people to be trusted. 

[T master]

10 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

Because laying down the record of facts for history is always the right thing to do, even if it doesn’t achieve justice. 
 

The Mueller investigation uncovered dozens of crimes and showed that the Trump campaign was absolutely swarming with Russian agents. Mueller couldn’t indict Trump, so he specifically stated that the proper remedy was impeachment. 
 

But impeachment is a political tool, not a legal one. So instead of looking at the facts that showed that the Trump campaign was willingly accepting help from Russian agents and that Trump himself 100% had obstructed justice, the Senate just voted on party lines because it was politically convenient. 
 

BTW: if you think the Russia investigation was started because of the Steele Dossier, you are wrong. And if people are still telling you that, you should recognize that they are not people to be trusted. 

 

So other words it was all a bunch of BS because if there was enough evidence as you say that the Trump campaign was crawling with Russian agents & willingly excepting help from the Russians it was right there in front of everyones eyes to see then prosecute the evidence is there .

 

I call BS as most of the supposed russian BS came from lies & a fake dossier & the hacking came from the DNC no protecting their servers as they were told to as the republicans were & did so there's another case of the dum ass for the Dems .

 

Your argument that there was evidence every where yet they still didn't prosecute is so lame even you can't see how foolish that statement is it was all a crook just like everything they have ever brought against him with absolutely no intent of putting him in jail just a continuance of the waisting of tax payers money with no out come of proof as far asa crime just speculation ...

[ChiGoose]

49 minutes ago, T master said:

 

So other words it was all a bunch of BS because if there was enough evidence as you say that the Trump campaign was crawling with Russian agents & willingly excepting help from the Russians it was right there in front of everyones eyes to see then prosecute the evidence is there .

 

I call BS as most of the supposed russian BS came from lies & a fake dossier & the hacking came from the DNC no protecting their servers as they were told to as the republicans were & did so there's another case of the dum ass for the Dems .

 

Your argument that there was evidence every where yet they still didn't prosecute is so lame even you can't see how foolish that statement is it was all a crook just like everything they have ever brought against him with absolutely no intent of putting him in jail just a continuance of the waisting of tax payers money with no out come of proof as far asa crime just speculation ...

I get that you don’t understand how the law works, and if you still think the investigation was based on the Steele Dossier, then you’re certainly getting bad information from untrustworthy sources. 
 

But I would encourage you (and anyone who thinks the Russia investigation was a hoax) to read through just the table of contents in volume one. Anytime you see a member of the Trump campaign mentioned, switch it to the Clinton campaign. Anytime you see a Russian mentioned, switch it to China. And then ask yourself if you’d want those activities investigated. 

[Chef Jim]

5 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

I get that you don’t understand how the law works, and if you still think the investigation was based on the Steele Dossier, then you’re certainly getting bad information from untrustworthy sources. 
 

But I would encourage you (and anyone who thinks the Russia investigation was a hoax) to read through just the table of contents in volume one. Anytime you see a member of the Trump campaign mentioned, switch it to the Clinton campaign. Anytime you see a Russian mentioned, switch it to China. And then ask yourself if you’d want those activities investigated. 

Ask yourself.  What answer do you come up with?

[ChiGoose]

3 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

Ask yourself.  What answer do you come up with?

Yes. That it would be a dereliction of duty not to investigate. 

[Chef Jim]

1 minute ago, ChiGoose said:

Yes. That it would be a dereliction of duty not to investigate. 

So did you call for the Clinton/China connection to be investigated?

[ChiGoose]

3 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

So did you call for the Clinton/China connection to be investigated?

What are you talking about?

[Chef Jim]

3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

What are you talking about?

This:

 

Anytime you see a member of the Trump campaign mentioned, switch it to the Clinton campaign. Anytime you see a Russian mentioned, switch it to China. And then ask yourself if you’d want those activities investigated.