DOJ announces special counsel for Trump-related Mar-a-Lago and January 6 criminal investigations

[Social Media]

 

[SheungWan]

9 hours ago, RichardColeman said:

Considering 51 FBI agents said that Hunter 'laptop was Russian disinformation and got social media to ban all posts about it,  I have absolutely no faith in any prosecution against Trump (or anyone non Dem) or the politicised US justice system.

 

If there was equality, Hunter would be being prosecuted now.

 

I cannot see how anyone can say it is NOT politically motivated when seeing absolutely no prosecution on Hunter, the US border fiasco and for the BLM riots. Name one current Democrat scandal being prosecuted ? 

 

I'm not pro Trump, but sheesh, the one sidedness here so obvious

"I'm not pro Trump" Trumper.

[candide]

8 hours ago, ThailandRyan said:

Yet he did just that....he protested being investigated by a special council. He claims it is all politically motivated and all the stuff found at Mara Lago were his personal items and his Declassified papers....

And also claimed they had been planted by the FBI! ????

Edited November 19, 2022 by candide

[BusyB]

8 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Trump still trying to incite a violent political uprising:

 

Dressed in black-tie, the former president attacked his critics and complained about being the victim and labeled special counsel Jack Smith as "super-radical left" without any evidence to back up his claim.

 

"This is a rigged deal just as the 2020 election was rigged," Trump said, repeating his election lies, "and we can't let them get away with it, we can't do it, we can't let this happen to our country."

 

"Joe Biden is a corrupt and incompetent political hack," Trump said, as he pivoted to talking about Hunter Biden.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/special-counsel-trump/

 

Never has the phenomena of projection been more clearly on public display than in the utterances of Donald J. Trump.

[Bkk Brian]

New Bill Barr interview on Trump: “I personally think that they probably have the basis for legitimately indicting the president .. They probably have the evidence .. I think it’s becoming increasingly more likely.”

 

 

[riclag]

Like to see the Gop shut Garland/ Smith down !How many investigations on Trump,will this make!

Some, like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., even said that Republicans should use their newly won control of the U.S. House of Representatives to cut off funding for the investigation next Congress.  
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republicans-accuse-biden-weaponizing-doj-trump-special-counsel-appointment

 

[candide]

7 minutes ago, riclag said:

Like to see the Gop shut Garland/ Smith down !How many investigations on Trump,will this make!

Some, like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., even said that Republicans should use their newly won control of the U.S. House of Representatives to cut off funding for the investigation next Congress.  
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republicans-accuse-biden-weaponizing-doj-trump-special-counsel-appointment

 

Without even considering the lack of justification for cutting funding off, do you really think all Republicans reps would vote for it?

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, riclag said:

Like to see the Gop shut Garland/ Smith down !How many investigations on Trump,will this make!

Some, like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., even said that Republicans should use their newly won control of the U.S. House of Representatives to cut off funding for the investigation next Congress.  
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republicans-accuse-biden-weaponizing-doj-trump-special-counsel-appointment

 

They can't even cut off funding for a special counsel. Nada, they can do zilch.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, riclag said:

Like to see the Gop shut Garland/ Smith down !How many investigations on Trump,will this make!

Some, like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., even said that Republicans should use their newly won control of the U.S. House of Representatives to cut off funding for the investigation next Congress.  
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republicans-accuse-biden-weaponizing-doj-trump-special-counsel-appointment

 

Well if Marjorie Taylor Greene says it, you know it's a b*t-sh*t crazy idea.  The Trump base will love it.

[candide]

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

Well if Marjorie Taylor Greene says it, you know it's a b*t-sh*t crazy idea.  The Trump base will love it.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, please! ????

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, Tropposurfer said:

Garland is a (Shaolin) Master of the Law and saw Trump coming a long long way off and knew exactly what he had to do to serve Justice and the letter of the Law.

I don't envy Garland. Even IF the report says Trump is guilty it is still his responsibility to actually prosecute or not. Now that Trump has said he is running again, if Garland prosecutes the right will say it's political to prevent Trump winning, and if he doesn't, the left will criticize him for not doing so. IMO he is in a lose/ lose situation.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, candide said:

Without even considering the lack of justification for cutting funding off, do you really think all Republicans reps would vote for it?

To spite the Dems enough may do so. The Dems have been saying some bad things about the GOP which may come back to bite them.

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, SheungWan said:

"I'm not pro Trump" Trumper.

One does not have to be "pro Trump" to recognise that some of his claims of persecution have merit. The "persecution" didn't stop from the time he announced his candidacy till now.

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

If we start with the basic principle Two-Wrongs-Don't-Make-A-Right......... I wonder what the point of bringing up Hunter Biden is......... in a discussion about Donald Trump? 

 

Are you suggesting that because they haven't pursued Hunter Biden sufficiently.......... they therefore also shouldn't pursue Donald Trump?

 

But that's classic Two-Wrongs-DO- Make-A-Right thinking: "If you're not going to pursue THAT accused criminal......... then you shouldn't pursue THIS accused criminal!:"

 

Or.......

 

Are you saying that if they DO go after Hunter Biden the way you think they should........... then it's also perfectly okay to go after Donald Trump, too, with, as they say, "Both guns blazing?"

 

Because as far as I can see, the only way it makes sense to connect these two situations is to either say........ "It's okay to go after Trump, as long as you go after Biden too."......... or.......... "You shouldn't go after Trump, if you're not also going to pursue Biden!" (Which then becomes, Two-Wrongs-DO-Make-A-Right! Lol)

 

---------------

 

Honestly, trying to connect the two seems very bizarre, to me. They are extremely different situations with extraordinarily different ramifications!

 

 

Most reasonable people have an issue with biased law enforcement.

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, Tropposurfer said:

She also said he would not have been appointed if Garland did not have clear grounds for future prosecution of Trump and his treasonous band.

If Garland has such, why has he not yet prosecuted Trump? LOL.

[candide]

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Most reasonable people have an issue with biased law enforcement.

Most reasonable people don't buy the right wing propaganda claiming that Trump has been unfairly investigated.

[candide]

33 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

To spite the Dems enough may do so. The Dems have been saying some bad things about the GOP which may come back to bite them.

I doubt the pro-Desantis, the Heritage Foundation network, the friends of Murdoch, and the few ones who have been against Trump from Jan. 6 will hurry to hinder the investigation. On top of it, due to the short GOP majority, only 5 or 6 defections will be enough to fail any GOP initiative.

Edited November 19, 2022 by candide

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, candide said:

I doubt the pro-Desantis, the Heritage Foundation network, the friends of Murdoch, and the few ones who have been against Trump from Jan. 6 will hurry to hinder the investigation. On top of it, due to the short GOP majority, only 5 or 6 defections will be enough to fail any GOP initiative.

Given they have not even announced officially that they will try to eliminate the investigation, perhaps we should wait and see if you or I are correct.

[candide]

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Given they have not even announced officially that they will try to eliminate the investigation, perhaps we should wait and see if you or I are correct.

It's not me who evoked this scenario, It's your mate riclag. You know, the post you marked with a "thanks" emoticon.

Edited November 19, 2022 by candide

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, candide said:

It's not me who evoked this scenario, It's your mate riclag.

but I was conversing with you, not him.

[candide]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

but I was conversing with you, not him.

Sorry, I may have misunderstood your post. I understood that, as there was only a remote possibility that it may occur, this scenario was not really worth a discussion.

[ozimoron]

40 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Most reasonable people have an issue with biased law enforcement.

Does that extend to the Supreme Court?

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, candide said:

Sorry, I may have misunderstood your post. I understood that, as there was only a remote possibility that it may occur, this scenario was not really worth a discussion.

but it is yourself that posted the post to which I replied. Seems like a discussion to me.

[Chomper Higgot]

10 hours ago, riclag said:

Like to see the Gop shut Garland/ Smith down !How many investigations on Trump,will this make!

Some, like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., even said that Republicans should use their newly won control of the U.S. House of Representatives to cut off funding for the investigation next Congress.  
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republicans-accuse-biden-weaponizing-doj-trump-special-counsel-appointment

 

You’d like to see the GOP interfere in the process of Justice wrt to a former GOP President.

 

Think about where that goes.

[Chomper Higgot]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Most reasonable people have an issue with biased law enforcement.

Most Trump supporters have no problem at all with biased law enforcement, so long as it was Trump and USAG Barr in charge of the bias.

 

Those days are gone.

 

The DOJ is now acting independently and the appointment of a special council is a further segregation between the Administration and the delivery of Justice.

 

 

Edited November 20, 2022 by Chomper Higgot

[ThailandRyan]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If Garland has such, why has he not yet prosecuted Trump? LOL.

Dotting all of the I's and crossing all of the T's so it is an iron clad prosecution, just like all cases are done. If you don't have it all locked down vermin tend to slip though a loophole.  That cocaine isn't mine these aren't my pants....

[thaibeachlovers]

16 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

Dotting all of the I's and crossing all of the T's so it is an iron clad prosecution, just like all cases are done. If you don't have it all locked down vermin tend to slip though a loophole.  That cocaine isn't mine these aren't my pants....

Seems dotting and crossing are taking a very long time. Jan 6 was almost 2 years ago. Just how slow is the American justice system?

[ThailandRyan]

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Seems dotting and crossing are taking a very long time. Jan 6 was almost 2 years ago. Just how slow is the American justice system?

Really, you live there, so you should know how long cases can take. I had cases go for al ost 5 years before I testified at Trial, between evidence gathering discovery, motions etc.  Look at how Trump has filed this and that and still not complied.... 

 

Seems like the Republicans are not making the invrstigation a priority, but oh well, it has now been moved to a special council they have no control over.

 

https://amp-cnn-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/11/19/politics/comer-trump-documents-house-oversight/index.html?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIKAGwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From %1%24s&aoh=16689074578769&csi=1&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2022%2F11%2F19%2Fpolitics%2Fcomer-trump-documents-house-oversight%2Findex.html

Edited November 20, 2022 by ThailandRyan

[KanchanaburiGuy]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Most reasonable people have an issue with biased law enforcement.

Lol

 

Well, if you define "reasonable people" as people who actually practice-what-they-preach, then you might be right.

 

But in MY experience, the number of people who would qualify as "reasonable people" by that standard......... is very, very small!

 

Lol

 

For example, I've heard far, far, FAR more people say "Jeez, I was only doing 5 mph over the speed limit!"........... (which, if you'll note, is a clear admission of GUILT!)....... than I've ever heard say, "Yeah, I was speeding and I deserved the ticket!"

 

Because, much of the time, people really DON'T want "unbiased" law enforcement! When it comes to themselves........ or their friends........ or their family.......... they'll take whatever BIASED  law enforcement they can get! [Feel free to insert Joe Biden and his son, here!]

 

Y'see, if you're going to use whether people want biased or unbiased law enforcement as a basis for defining who is and who is not a "reasonable person".......... it doesn't work. It doesn't work because their interest in being "reasonable" depends way too much on their own personal involvement & family connections, their religion & personal philosophy, their ideology & political persuasion, and so forth.

 

So no, I don't think "most reasonable people have issues with biased law enforcement." In fact, I think it is empirically provable that most people are perfectly fine with "biased" law enforcement........ depending on how personally connected they feel to the situation! 

 

---------------

 

So that brings us back to THIS discussion..........

 

No, I don't think most "reasonable people" care a whit about the Hunter Biden situation. I think they believe the situation has already been sufficiently looked into, and either nothing was found........ or too little was found to pursue it further.

 

I think that's what MOST "reasonable people" think.

 

But......... of course........ if you define "reasonable people" as only those who are upset that Hunter Biden hasn't been arrested, charged, tried, and jailed already........... (because they already KNOW.......

even without a trial or seeing a shred of evidence........ that Hunter Biden is guilty of something! Lol).......... then you will almost certainly  see things very, very differently!

 

----------------

 

Personally, here's what I think most "reasonable people" ACTUALLY think....

 

"Why are you bringing up Hunter Biden in a conversation about Donald Trump? The two situations have nothing to do with each other. Nothing whatsoever!

 

"If both did wrong, both should be prosecuted. But even if one isn't prosecuted, the other still should be, right?"

 

I dunno, sounds perfectly reasonable to me!

 

????

 

Cheers!

 

 

[ozimoron]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Seems dotting and crossing are taking a very long time. Jan 6 was almost 2 years ago. Just how slow is the American justice system?

It took 7 years to find something trivial to nail Clinton with.