You asked if any President was above the law, and I gave a specific example of a President who was apparently above the law. You should have more appropriately asked if any Republican President should be above the law.
Brah....your own link that you posted to validate your point is almost the opposite of your assertion. #remedial #trumpsamerica #fakenews
Not really but you're from Oklahoma so I don't expect you to know that. It was a balanced article. Reichstag Fire!!!
You're an ideologue. Just because Gowdy wants Mueller's team to not leak doesn't mean that they leaked. I read that whole article. The only people who think that Mueller's team leaked are people trying to distract from the investigation. And, the only people doing the actual mother trucking leaking are people trying to diminish the office of the special counsel. See Nunes and his cronies for that kind of stuff. This investigation is much more tightened up than Starr's was. Did you notice in the article the reference to Starr leaking grand jury information "on background"?
LOL! You need to reread the article. Gowdy jumped the Mueller team for leaking to the news media to learn that he and his legal team now have charges in their Russia investigation.You're the ideologue. The MSM has created the narrative that Mueller doesn't leak so you're going to defend it to the end despite that it's highly likely his team is leaking.
I read the whole article. The only real leaking appears to have been done by Trump's crack legal team.
I read it. Ironically, it's widely assumed that the leaks that are referenced to initiate this story (the questions) were leaked by the President's legal team...just about 10 days after good old Rudy started working for Trump. The relevant parts from that story you keep telling me to read: "Mueller has reportedly worked hard to prevent leaks by his team of investigators. “The Special Counsel’s Office has undertaken stringent controls to prohibit unauthorized disclosures that deal severely with any member who engages in this conduct,” Mueller spokesman Peter Carr said in a statement last June. "Former federal prosecutor Seth Waxman has seen no evidence that these leaks—often sourced to people familiar with the investigation or briefed on it—have come directly from Mueller or his staff. When Mueller has spoken publicly, it has been through criminal complaints and indictments." "John Iannarelli, a former FBI special agent and spokesperson, agreed that Mueller is likely unhappy that so much information about the investigation has been made public through unauthorized leaks." "In many cases, leaks have come after information was shared with parties outside the special counsel’s office through witness interviews, briefings, or subpoenas. Mueller has no control over what DOJ officials, witnesses, or private attorneys do with such information after they receive it."
I agree. That's why I'm not rendering judgment. However, the "children" in the room definitely are. I don't see the bar as different so long as there isn't a quid pro quo or an actual campaign contribution, which is obviously against the law. Manafort is dirty as hell. I was saying that two years ago. DJT, Jr.? That's more iffy. However, regardless of their ethics, many are presuming Trump's involvement in it. That needs to be supported by real evidence. They didn't lower the standard. The Clinton Administration did - like they made it ok for the President to commit a felony, they made it ok to get in the sack with foreign enemies. The Chinese and Indonesian involvement in 1996 was much more extensive, involved a more dangerous enemy, and had a more evidence of White House involvement but got a fraction of the scrutiny. In fact, Justice Department officials and the FBI Director called for a special persecutor, but Janet Reno dutifully shut that down.
Barry, don't blow your wad too fast. We don't know what happened to the material before the FBI was called. It's just assumed that Gore's people were pillars of ethics. However, none of these ethical giants had a problem with illegally raising money in a Buddhist temple just a few years earlier.
It doesn’t take an adult to figure out that Mueller is full of ****, trying to distract from the indefensible (see upcoming IG report). Mueller is guilty as well as the IG report will be an indictment of the whole system which Mueller is a part of. In 6 years Trump will be leaving office and a whole lot of swamp creatures will have impaled themselves ala Captain Queequeg.
Had some of these "adults" in the room gotten their way Clinton would be president right now. Yeah, history is not going to be kind to the FBI or Mueller.
You can't possibly know that Mueller is full full of **** any more that Switzer can know that he's the Messiah, because neither of you know what he has or doesn't have. And if you think the IG report is going to be so damning, then why not wait for it to come out? (One side note - people need to stop treating IG reports as the ultimate authority. They are nonpartisan and are definitely useful, but they don't have subpoena power (with thet exception of DoD IGs) and can't compel anyone's cooperation.)
I think they tragic irony for HRC is that IF Bill doesn't meet with Lynch on that tarmac then we probably don't have the much ado about nothing press conferences from Comey. I mean, we were actually investigating Trump's TEAM's Russian connections more at that time than anything else. But, the only time they were mentioned the grab 'em by the poontang tape dropped on the same afternoon followed 30 minutes later by the wikileaks Podesta emails.
If HRC hadn't been such a crook by using her unsecured server and then flagrantly lied about it, there wouldn't have been a meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch, nor would there have been news conferences for Comey to give. I notice that there's an effort by some to spin her into an unlucky victim in 2016. That's as nonsensical as the "stabbed in the back" myth. She lost to the worst Republican nominee in history and had almost the entire political media doing everything in their power to help her win and to a degree that we've never seen in American politics. If she couldn't win in those conditions, she wasn't going to win in any conditions. It was like playing a football game against a team, only giving them 2 downs per possession, and still losing.
I concede that she was a horrible candidate. She would likely be a good President but her likability was disastrous. Horrible reading of the field. Why do we do this on both sides?
It's because the political experts were simply out of touch. They thought that Trump's nutty comments and political incorrectness would be enough to make nothing else matter. They were wrong. By the way, I was wrong too. I didn't think he had a chance and didn't vote for him.
HRC literally gave the "right" the ammunition with which to torture her by using her own email server. Benghazi was a clown show but the email saga was a self imposed festering wound that her opponents rightly exploited. Bill Clinton simply stepped in doodoo when he met Lynch on the tarmac. HRC should be used to his missteps though given how common they've been thoughout his career. It's rather a feat of political savvy that Bill has been successful as he's been given his recurring problems.
Wow...Kellyanne Conway's husband, George Conway, penned an article in defense of the Constitutionality of Robert Mueller's appt. as Special Prosecutor. TheHill.com is reporting he threw some spice in for good measure. He was responding to this tweet:
. I just have to put this in the nicest way I can. No way in hell she would have been an even below average President. Not even talking about her being the most corrupt person we’ve ever witnessed in American History. She was an idiot from head to toe. Most foolish thing I’ve heard on here in a long time.
A good portion of DJT's tweets come from White House Director of Social Media Dan Scavino in the "voice" of Trump. It's entirely possible some misspellings are intentional. Without a doubt the lexicon is.
You should totally block me. Look at the last two GOP presidents. Remind me of what would happen if the little brother on 16 Candles stumbled into the Presidency. Or Biff.
If you don't mind the legalese, the original article is pretty good. The special counsel isn't unconstitutional. (The old independent counsel law might have been. In fact, ironically, I remember Kenneth Starr making a compelling argument that it was when it was up for renewal in 1999.)
