My reference was to your "Or fire a special prosecuter that is investigating you." Your quote did not refer to Flynn, it obviously referred to Trump. If not, it made no sense. What crime did Trump commit that the special prosecutor is investigating?

Who cares?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
Since there is no crime to "investigate," firing Mueller would be a nothing-burger. But it would be great political theater. The entertainment should last for months. Hope he does it.

Quote:
Reply by JohnR
We don't know there is no crime. We have reason to believe DJT is not the focus of the investigation - at least until he stepped on his crank.

Quote:
Reply by Detbuch
If we don't know if there is a crime, why is there an investigation? Doesn't a crime actually have to be established before there is an investigation? It seems awfully strange to be investigating if a crime has been committed. That sort of process has no bounds. The "investigation" has already seemed to leave the Russian collusion by Trump behind and is morphing into obstruction of justice by Trump and can morph into something else if there is no end until SOME crime is found to have been committed by SOMEBODY.

No doubt, that is what some hope happens.

that was apparently a fake news story that Paul found on the internets...

The investigation is to determine if members of Trumps TEAM coordinated with Russia. I am OK with them finding out.

If they didn't then knock it the eff off.

Due process would require that a crime was committed. And if no specific crime has been determined to have actually happened, then there must be definitive evidence that a crime occurred. Accusation out of thin air, or for political reason, without evidence, does not warrant an official investigation.

The mere possibility that a crime was committed, again, without evidence, leaves us with no official reason to investigate. Possibility, without evidence, is infinite. There is always the possibility that a crime has been committed somehow, somewhere, by someone.

Hearsay and accusation are not evidence. Newspaper and Media reports, especially by unnamed sources, are not evidence. Conjecture by legal experts is not evidence.

Vagaries such as "likely broke the law by failing to register as a agent of a foreign country as he didn't disclose the payments he received" and "possibly other things as well" are suppositions not evidence. If Flynn broke the law by failing to register as a foreign agent, that should not require a special prosecutor to determine. That should be an easy case and already determined by now.

What, specifically, was coordinated? Did the coordination break a law?

As far as Trump coordinating anything illegal with the Russians, all that is continually being reiterated is that there is no evidence of it. If anyone, whether they were on Trump's team or not, illegally coordinated with the Russians, what actual evidence is there of it, and why has there been no prosecution by now? Why appoint a special prosecutor to catch little fish when the perpetrators can be charged and tried in a court of law? Obviously, Trump is the target, one way or another, if you can't get him, implicate members of his administration, even if they are no longer part of it. It's basically a show trial to cast grave doubt about his administration. And a quick resolution is not desired by those opposed to Trump. Dragging this on without resolution (which would probably exonerate Trump personally) casting the air of negativity and corruption surrounding Trump until the mid-term election is exactly the desired outcome.

Different rules / argument.

If the intelligence services saw something during normal intercepts & intel gathering and then forwarded to FBI/Justice Department for follow up / investigation.

I assume the "something" that was seen was actual evidence of collusion, otherwise why forward it to FBI/Justice Department. Now that there is a special prosecutor, that "something" will finally be revealed. Amazing that the "something" has not already been leaked. The FBI/Justice Department haven't told us what the evidence of collusion they must have had for a long time now is. But the SP can finally tell us and lay the hammer down. Shouldn't take long, should it?

Now that it is all in the hands of the SP, shouldn't the argument be the same as any criminal prosecution--an actual crime being committed and actual incriminating evidence presented?

[QUOTE=detbuch;1123483If we don't know if there is a crime, why is there an investigation? Doesn't a crime actually have to be established before there is an investigation? It seems awfully strange to be investigating if a crime has been committed. That sort of process has no bounds. The "investigation" has already seemed to leave the Russian collusion by Trump behind and is morphing into obstruction of justice by Trump and can morph into something else if there is no end until SOME crime is found to have been committed by SOMEBODY.

No doubt, that is what some hope happens.[/QUOTE]

Uh-huh. The scope of the investigation has widened.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...cid=spartandhp

So much for "The investigation is to determine if members of Trumps TEAM coordinated with Russia." It will no doubt widen until "something" is found. The "Different rules / argument" change by the day. The lawyers Mueller (who it is reported is a good friend and mentor of Comey) is bringing on board to help in the "investigation" are hard core Democrats. Not looking good for the Trumpster. The "investigation" is not really about collusion, but about finding "something" which can lead to impeachment. Any little fish such as Flynn that can be fried along the way are just collateral damage.