Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » Mueller hires MORE PROSECUTERS as Trump/Russia probes grows larger and broader and wider and deeper and higher. A lifetime investigation?

Mueller hires MORE PROSECUTERS as Trump/Russia probes grows larger and broader and wider and deeper and higher. A lifetime investigation?

Posted - July 5, 2018

Responses


  • 35482
    Witch Hunt....just more proof. 
      July 5, 2018 11:36 AM MDT
    2

  • 7832
    How would you know what they have? Prosecutors aren't in the habit of releasing evidence/proof BEFORE a trial. This post was edited by Zack at July 6, 2018 4:31 AM MDT
      July 5, 2018 12:02 PM MDT
    1

  • 35482
    If they had anything it would have leaked all over the place.  Also Mueller cannot prosecute a sitting President....he can release his report and the Congress can decide if they want to impeach.
      July 5, 2018 12:08 PM MDT
    2

  • 7832
    Whatever you say, Sweetheart. I love you. You know that don't you? This post was edited by Zack at July 5, 2018 12:12 PM MDT
      July 5, 2018 12:09 PM MDT
    1

  • 35482
      July 5, 2018 12:13 PM MDT
    3

  • 7280
    I saw an interview with a Trump supporter on the news a day or so ago.  He said the idea of a "Space Force" was a good one.

    When asked why, he said it probably wouldn't work and it probably would be too expensive, but it sounded really cool and he was all for it.

    But, I've learned to respect his answer too---I am so proud of myself.

    1) Mueller doesn't do leaks---he is the consummate professional.

    2) There is no language in the Constitution providing the President with any immunity from prosecution by the appropriate criminal authorities: he is subject to the ordinary criminal processes of “Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to law.” Furthermore, there is not one syllable directly putting the President beyond the reach of the criminal law even if Congress does not impeach.
      July 5, 2018 1:25 PM MDT
    3

  • 35482
    I know...because there have been absolutely zero leaks about the investigation at this point, right???

    Did I say the rule of not indicting a sitting President is in the Constitution? It is a memo in the FBI that they do not do it. i could look it up again but bif your interested just google FBI memo No indicting President and it should come up. I have posted it on AM before. This post was edited by my2cents at July 5, 2018 9:27 PM MDT
      July 5, 2018 5:58 PM MDT
    2

  • 7280
    Well, I can't address every answer on this site that I think contains a error or a misdirection for the casual reader.

    There have been real indictments and a lot of 3rd party speculations, and who knows what Giuliani has said---feel free to list all of the leaks you think have occurred and I'll check them out and get back to you.

    You did state this in a comment above:  "Also Mueller cannot prosecute a sitting President....he can release his report and the Congress can decide if they want to impeach."

    Being precise is necessary.  The House can impeach.  The Senate can convict or not. (The Senate serves as the jury.)

    And are you suggesting that "memos" have the force of law?---

    No, you did not say that "that rule" was in the constitution, you simply implied that it was a "rule" that "Also Mueller cannot prosecute a sitting President..."

    I don't mind opinions, but generally I like to be able to easily see the basis of such opinions delivered with such "force" as to seem to be beyond contestation.

      July 6, 2018 4:04 PM MDT
    0

  • 35482
    I am not talking about Mayor Rudy....
    Everyone knows there have been leaks....we hear them every day. 
    The memos are from the DOJs Office of Legal Counsil. It was orginally from 1973 and reaffirmed again in 2000 that a sitting President cannot be indicted. 

      July 6, 2018 6:35 PM MDT
    2

  • 13071
    Exacta-moe
      July 6, 2018 10:38 PM MDT
    2

  • 113301
    :):):)
      July 6, 2018 4:29 AM MDT
    0

  • 113301
    :):):)
      July 6, 2018 4:31 AM MDT
    0

  • 1502
    It’s all bogus and a flat out attempt to remove Trump. They still have zero evidence of collusion. They only placed spies or informants in Trump’s campaign. Why weren’t any places in Hillary’s, Stein’s, or Johnson’s? Because it is all out agenda to get Trump.

    Remember when the Democrats stated the Russians weren’t interfering with election? I do. They said this because they though Hillary would win. As soon as she lost they started this nonsense. Hillary and the DNC funded the dossier based on lies and the FBI lied to the fisa court. 

    I want to know why the Obama administration didn’t do anything until after Trump was elected. I also would like to know why the were adamant there was no colluision or interference during the election and now that Trump’s president they cry collusion. The left is mad they lost and they continue to do everything they can to remove Trump. 
      July 5, 2018 11:52 AM MDT
    3

  • 7832
    "They still have zero evidence of collusion." How would you know what they have? Prosecutors aren't in the habit of releasing evidence BEFORE a trial. This post was edited by Zack at July 6, 2018 4:30 AM MDT
      July 5, 2018 12:02 PM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    :):):) Logical Zack. Remember logic is NOT a strong suit of King don and his donnettes! :)
      July 6, 2018 4:31 AM MDT
    0

  • 113301
    Thank you for your reply. I disagree with every word. So what, right? Happy Friday.
      July 6, 2018 4:30 AM MDT
    0

  • 13071
    Excellent answer Rizz. ;)
      July 6, 2018 10:40 PM MDT
    1