Note to Trump: The Mueller Probe Costs Roughly $0.00 – Not $40 Million

No, I just do not have Trump's views. And you don't sound like a Republican.

 

I repeat: there is no credible evidence of any wrong doing that would pass the low bar of reasonable suspicion of any cop on the beat; only in your mythology.

 

Especially under the forfeiture laws, where law enforcement can glom anything in sight without any real due process.

 

The only thing that I am talking about at this time is that I want Mueller to complete his investigation without any undue pressure from
Trump. Overthrowing a president as we in America do it is through due process and not by a mob. It can happen when the duly elected president tramples the law. The process can start after an investigation to determine whether there is obstruction of justice and other
attempts at derailing that investigation.

 

The unending effort to find dirt on political candidates will make anyone not grown from birth for politics ineligible for office.

Social media means that all of the messing around you did as teenagers will come to surface. Only the wealthy elite will be able to run.

It's a serious problem with no real solution. Any normal person will get slaughtered.

 

“Any matters that may arise” is not legally faulty.

If someone is investigating a noise complaint and finds drugs, can absolutly arrest you for the drug crime. Their isn’t anything fault about that Rod

 

Please read up and learn about assett forfeiture

 

No, not really You nd I both know why Mueller was appointed.

 

Oh I know all about it...the govt is last in line behind al the other creditors. Like the article said “could” thy are well aware of that fact too. So come back to me when you actually have proof of any transactions
“

 

If you have any interest in understanding, read the whole quote in the appointment letter and then relate that to the pertinent words in the law.

If someone is investigating a noise complaint and finds drugs, can absolutly arrest you for the drug crime. Their isn’t anything fault about that Rod[/QUOTE]Unless your drugs are out in the open and in plain view of anyone, you cannot be arrested. (Well, to be precise, you can be arrested but the case will be thrown out.) This applies to all law enforcement. Special Counsels have an even higher bar.

 

You would be wrong and I can prove it;

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/21/politics/paul-manafort-trial-jury/index.html

Your Fox News legal opinion fails the test of the actual law. Their have been many others than Manafort who have also plead guilty, and not one of them even challenged any charges with this defense. Case in point, the guilty pleas and verdicts, used the actual law.

 

No their not.

Criminal Asset forfeiture is designed to make the victims whole. Whether it does or not is not the point. It is designed to make victims whole, so other creditors come last, in order to give the victim the most they can.

Yeah, now you want proof of the transactions, OK, read the verdicts. The assett forfeitures are all in there. Happy reading

 

For starters...

 

Yes they are. You are confusing restitution with asset forfeiture. Banks, credit card companies etc don’t get screwed because the Govt wants money. Yes I want proof money was given to the US Govt

 

I agree about the 'dirt' part, but recent crimes? No.

 

We shall see, won't we? "It ain't over 'till the fat lady sings".

 

I love the way conservatives have now picked up on the Trump Trick of just saying that everything they don't like is a lie, no matter how backed up by actual facts it may be. If you believe that the Finnish Forests are kept safe by raking, and this despite what the Finnish Prime Minister says, you will truly believe anything

 

Neither judge rulings nor guilty pleas necessarily verify law. It is not uncommon for a judge to making a ruling that has no basis in law or even contradicts law, or sometimes rewrites law. It is not uncommon for an accused to plead guilty to a law he didn't break or to a legal activity. The latter pleas are routinely accepted by judges. Cohen's guilty plea to "violating campaign finance law' is a case in point. None of this matters to the lynch crowd yelling, "See! See! See! Got him!"
If you're interested in the law you should read up on inadmissible evidence obtained without a search warrant.

 

They are not very original thinkers whnch is why an authoritarian figure is so appealing and soothing to their sensibilities.

 

If you are predicting solid evidence will magically show up after 2-3 years, I would say the odds are less than 1%. If you are saying solid credible evidence isn't required in order to attack or charge the president with something to get him out of office, I would say there is little doubt and would agree with that. So it depends on what the fat lady is singing about.

 

HUH? Finnish Forests?????

 

I think that there is credible evidence and it will most certainly be exposed and not by magic.

 

lol, this from someone who supports someone with "lawyers" like Guliani and Cohen.

I'm literally rolling my eyes right now.

 

Possibly from the venom spewing forth....???