IMO, the final throes of this drawn out facade....

[Baptist Believer]

Sorry it has taken me a couple of days to get back to this discussion. I have had a lot of things going on, and frankly, I was hoping someone else would respond to your assertion so I wouldn't have to do it. However, no one has...

Where do you people get off on thinking there have been no leaks?

(1) Because I haven’t heard of any leaks from Mueller’s team.
(2) Because media reporting claims that there have been no leaks from Mueller’s team.

I'll grab just a couple of them, you are pretty certain to actually read the link, can't say that about everyone here

I appreciate that you recognize that I actually read articles, not just headlines, and determine for myself if the story presented is (a) credible, (b) accurately sourced, and (c) actually supports what is claimed.

Let’s take a look:
http://wjla.com/news/nation-world/2...investigation-and-the-problems-they-may-cause

A careful reading of the article demonstrates that it IS credible and accurately sourced. However, it actually DOES NOT support what you claim. In fact, it is hard for me to believe that you actually read the article for yourself and reflected upon it since everything, from the headline to the conclusion of the piece, points out that the Mueller “leaks” are ABOUT the Mueller investigation, not leaks from the investigation itself. The information about the Mueller probe comes from official court filings/arguments and what witnesses who have testified before the Mueller committee have stated about their experience.

The article references the leak of “more than 40 questions Mueller wants to ask Trump if the president consents to an interview.” If you have been following the news, it became well known (after the publication of this article) that the so-called questions are actually Jay Sekulow’s (one of the President’s attorneys) notes from a meeting with the Mueller team. The article notes almost immediately that there is “no indication...that they were obtained from Mueller’s side.”

Let’s skip past the dated examples of leaks for a moment and read what else it says immediately past the leaks cited by date:

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.​

A little ways down, the article also states:

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.

“There’s no mechanism where a prosecutor could get an injunction or something and prevent a person from speaking about what they heard in a grand jury,” Waxman said.​

Even Manafort’s attorneys do not accuse Mueller of leaking:

In a motion filed Monday seeking a hearing on the leaks, Manafort’s attorneys identified at least seven articles that included “improper disclosures.” They do not accuse Mueller of leaking, but they point fingers at “government officials and agents with access to or information about the special counsel’s investigation and prosecution.”​

Going back to the dated examples, if you read them carefully, you will see that they are not leaks BY the Mueller investigation, they are leaks ABOUT the Mueller investigation.

So you have not demonstrated that I am wrong about leaks. In fact you have bolstered my position with high-quality reporting and analysis.

I have no idea why others have declared this post as a “Winner.” If is clear they haven’t read the article. But that’s usually the way in works with people who support Trump. They don’t check things out for themselves and simply jump to conclusions that meet their expectations.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Even the leftist New York Times last week said that after a year of prying by Mueller, there is nothing, absolutely nothing!

Actually, that's not true at all. The Times merely pointed out that the investigation has been going on for a year and the Mueller team has not PUBLICLY revealed evidence of collusion or brought charges against the President. There is no reason to expect either until the investigation is complete.

 

[HankD]

Right, mums the word, so don't expect anything from Mueller, his lips are sealed until the October/November surprise.

In the meantime keep throwing up/out Trump garbage (dossier, fake and unsubstantiated news) without any evidence.

 

[Adonia]

Sorry it has taken me a couple of days to get back to this discussion. I have had a lot of things going on, and frankly, I was hoping someone else would respond to your assertion so I wouldn't have to do it. However, no one has...


(1) Because I haven’t heard of any leaks from Mueller’s team.
(2) Because media reporting claims that there have been no leaks from Mueller’s team.


I appreciate that you recognize that I actually read articles, not just headlines, and determine for myself if the story presented is (a) credible, (b) accurately sourced, and (c) actually supports what is claimed.



A careful reading of the article demonstrates that it IS credible and accurately sourced. However, it actually DOES NOT support what you claim. In fact, it is hard for me to believe that you actually read the article for yourself and reflected upon it since everything, from the headline to the conclusion of the piece, points out that the Mueller “leaks” are ABOUT the Mueller investigation, not leaks from the investigation itself. The information about the Mueller probe comes from official court filings/arguments and what witnesses who have testified before the Mueller committee have stated about their experience.

The article references the leak of “more than 40 questions Mueller wants to ask Trump if the president consents to an interview.” If you have been following the news, it became well known (after the publication of this article) that the so-called questions are actually Jay Sekulow’s (one of the President’s attorneys) notes from a meeting with the Mueller team. The article notes almost immediately that there is “no indication...that they were obtained from Mueller’s side.”

Let’s skip past the dated examples of leaks for a moment and read what else it says immediately past the leaks cited by date:

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.​

A little ways down, the article also states:

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.

“There’s no mechanism where a prosecutor could get an injunction or something and prevent a person from speaking about what they heard in a grand jury,” Waxman said.​

Even Manafort’s attorneys do not accuse Mueller of leaking:

In a motion filed Monday seeking a hearing on the leaks, Manafort’s attorneys identified at least seven articles that included “improper disclosures.” They do not accuse Mueller of leaking, but they point fingers at “government officials and agents with access to or information about the special counsel’s investigation and prosecution.”​

Going back to the dated examples, if you read them carefully, you will see that they are not leaks BY the Mueller investigation, they are leaks ABOUT the Mueller investigation.

So you have not demonstrated that I am wrong about leaks. In fact you have bolstered my position with high-quality reporting and analysis.

I have no idea why others have declared this post as a “Winner.” If is clear they haven’t read the article. But that’s usually the way in works with people who support Trump. They don’t check things out for themselves and simply jump to conclusions that meet their expectations.

As explained by noted attorney Mark Levin on his radio show yesterday, the Mueller investigation just might turn out to be completely unconstitutional on its face.

It has to do with primary and inferior officers of the court. According to Article 2 Section 2 which deals with government agency appointments, primary officers like Federal District Attorneys must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Mr. Mueller has not gone through any such process. With the power that he has, he is acting like a primary officer, which he is not.

Yes, inferior officers of the court do exist, but they can operate only under close supervision of the primary officer, in this case Mr. Rosenstein, and in reality Mr Mueller is not operating under "close supervision" of anyone. He basically has a free hand and is going anywhere and everywhere, indicting people for other crimes instead of confining himself to just the question of Trumps supposed collusion with the Russians.

Furthermore, unlike other "Special Counsels", Mr. Mueller is not operating under some specific statute of law, but only at the loose direction of the Justice Department. In essence, any of Muellers indictments so far could at some point be ruled null and void as a result of being "fruit derived from a poison tree".

 

[Baptist Believer]

The Mueller investigation just might turn out to be completely unconstitutional on its face. It has to do with primary and inferior officers of the court. According to Article 2 Section 2 which deals with the government agency appointments, primary officers like Federal District Attorneys must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Mr. Mueller has not gone through any such process. With the power that he has, he is acting like a primary officer, which he is not.

So Levin is claiming that U.S. Code Title 28 Part II Chapter 40 is unconstitutional? That seems like a desperate argument to mount since it has been established law for a very long time. Moreover, I seem to remember Levin defending the Special Counsel statute on Rush Limbaugh's program way back when Bill Clinton was under investigation by Kenneth Starr.

Yes, inferior officers of the court do exist, but they can operate only under close supervision of the primary officer, in this case Mr. Rosenstein, and in reality Mr Mueller is not operating under "close supervision" of anyone.

From every indication, including a memo that was released clarifying Mueller's scope of investigation and the referral of the Cohen matter to a different jurisdiction after discussion with Rosenstein, it appears that he is being quite closely supervised. What evidence do you have that he is not?

He basically has a free hand and is going anywhere and everywhere, indicting people for other crimes instead of confining himself to just the question of Trumps supposed collusion with the Russians.

This is simply incorrect. The order authorizing the Special Counsel is explicit:

The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including: (1) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and (2) any matters that arose of may arise directly from the investigation; and (3) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R.§ 600.4(a). Moreover, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.​

Furthermore, unlike other "Special Counsels", Mr. Mueller is not operating under some specific statute of law, but only at the loose direction of the Justice Department.

This is also incorrect. I don't place much faith in Mark Levin's legal opinions when he ignores objective facts like the contents of the order authorizing the Mueller investigation.

In essence, any of Muellers indictments so far could at some point be ruled null and void as a result of being "fruit derived from a poison tree".

I don't see that happening at all.

EDITED AND UPDATED after I noticed you updated your original post to include your legal source, Mark Levin.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Right, mums the word, so don't expect anything from Mueller, his lips are sealed until the October/November surprise.

By the level of shrieking from President Trump's Congressional supporters and the President's wild tweets and rhetoric, I am starting to wonder if they might know that something major is about to happen. The President and his closest confidants would know if there is any dirt and whether or not Mueller knows about it (since he has questioned many people and apparently has a lot of documentation about everything that was conducted). To me, the President is acting incredibly guilty. He needs to calm down and not create more trouble for himself.

In the meantime keep throwing up/out Trump garbage (dossier, fake and unsubstantiated news) without any evidence.

A lot of the allegedly "fake news" has been revealed to be exactly right. Ironically, Rudy Giuliani has confirmed many of the unconfirmed stories going around.

 

[HankD]

By the level of shrieking from President Trump's Congressional supporters and the President's wild tweets and rhetoric, I am starting to wonder if they might know that something major is about to happen. The President and his closest confidants would know if there is any dirt and whether or not Mueller knows about it (since he has questioned many people and apparently has a lot of documentation about everything that was conducted). To me, the President is acting incredibly guilty. He needs to calm down and not create more trouble for himself.


A lot of the allegedly "fake news" has been revealed to be exactly right. Ironically, Rudy Giuliani has confirmed many of the unconfirmed stories going around.

Looks like the shrieking will soon be from the Mueller kangaroo court actors. Panic on the left?

 

[Baptist Believer]

Looks like the shrieking will soon be from the Mueller kangaroo court actors. Panic on the left?

I know that's what the right wing media claims, but I haven't seen it on the left. It seems like it is simply noise to confuse and distract. When indictments (not just accusations) are issued, then I can take it seriously.

What is certain is that the President seems to be stepping up his protests -- many of them not based in reality, nor particularly coherent.

 

[Adonia]

So you are claiming that U.S. Code Title 28 Part II Chapter 40 is unconstitutional? That seems like a desperate argument to mount since it has been established law for a very long time.

I am claiming that Article 2 Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution overrides any subsequent Federal statute. It has only been established law because this particular law has not been challenged before. I agree with Mr. Levin and the original author of the piece (Northwestern Law School Professor Steven Calabresi) from whom Mr. Levin got the opinion.

rom every indication, including a memo that was released clarifying Mueller's scope of investigation and the referral of the Cohen matter to a different jurisdiction after discussion with Rosenstein, it appears that he is being quite closely supervised. What evidence do you have that he is not?

How is Mr. Mueller being closely supervised? Mr. Rosenstein is not overseeing every facet of the investigation, he is not approving or disapproving Mueller's actions on a daily basis. In the article Professor Calabresi contends that : "Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, treats him ( Mueller) as a principal officer — that is, Mueller is mostly free to conduct his investigation with few limits or restraints. The parameters of his appointment were extraordinarily broad in the first instance, and have only expanded since then. Indeed, Mueller is more powerful than most United States attorneys, all of whom were nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate as principal officers. Furthermore, Rosenstein mostly rubber stamps Mueller’s decisions and is not involved in the regular management and oversight of Mueller to any significant extent, underscoring Mueller’s role not as an inferior officer but a principal officer"

The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including: (1) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and (2) any matters that arose of may arise directly from the investigation; and (3) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R.§ 600.4(a). Moreover, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

None of that matters if Article 2 Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution has been violated. Director Comey was an inferior officer against the Constitution of the United States as the statute itself is inferior - if ever found unconstitutional, both the statute and Mr. Comey are both irrelevant. Professor Calabresi also argues that: "As such, Mueller’s appointment violates the Appointments Clause. Mueller would’ve had to be nominated for Senate confirmation like any other principal officer in the Executive Branch. Rosenstein did not have the constitutional power to appoint a principal officer on his own anymore than the President himself does".

"To do otherwise is to defy the procedure established by the Framers for making such consequential executive appointments. It follows, then, that every subpoena, indictment, and plea agreement involving the Mueller investigation is null and void. Every defendant, suspect, witness, etc., in this matter should challenge the Mueller appointment as a violation of the Appointments Clause".

This is also incorrect. I don't place much faith in Mark Levin's legal opinions when he ignores objective facts like the contents of the order authorizing the Mueller investigation.

Mr. Levin and Professor Calabrisi are not ignoring anything. They are simply arguing that Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution controls every subsequent law concerning this issue. Surely you would agree that the words of the Constitution itself are the supreme law of the land. Mr. Muelller is acting as a principle officer and he is not.

Mr. Manafort, Mr. Flynn and every other person snared by Mr. Mueller should challenge his authority on this constitutional principle and on that opinion I agree with Professor Calabresi and Mr. Levin.

.

 

[Baptist Believer]

I am claiming that Article 2 Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution overrides any subsequent Federal statute. It has only been established law because this particular law has not been challenged before. I agree with Mr. Levin and the original author of the piece (Northwestern Law School Professor Steven Calabresi) from whom Mr. Levin got the opinion.

Well, good luck overturning it. The probable reason it has not been challenged before is that very few people think it is unconstitutional.

How is Mr. Mueller being closely supervised?

I don't have all the specifics at hand, but I remember it being characterized as a standing meeting every week to discuss what is being investigated, potential lines of investigation and what has been completed. Also, Mueller goes to Rosenstein for legal opinions and guidance as to how to proceed in certain areas, and getting authorization when executing search warrants or interviewing significant witnesses

Mr. Rosenstein is not overseeing every facet of the investigation, he is not approving or disapproving Mueller's actions on a daily basis.

Of course not. That would be the same as leading the investigation himself. In professional environments, one rarely has another person standing over them, watching every aspect of one's work. For example, I lead a team of four people here in my office. We have a standing weekly meeting to coordinate activities and work through the many deadlines and internal clients we work with. And, as needed, team members come to my office to discuss pressing issues and figure out solutions (if they want another opinion) for whatever pops up during the week. I know my team and can trust their judgment. Ultimately, I'm responsible for what they do (or don't do), but I don't micromanage because I simply don't have to do it and I wouldn't have time to do it anyway. Mueller is not an intern. He is a highly competent individual who knows how to conduct an investigation.

"Furthermore, Rosenstein mostly rubber stamps Mueller’s decisions and is not involved in the regular management and oversight of Mueller to any significant extent, underscoring Mueller’s role not as an inferior officer but a principal officer"

How does he know what Rosenstein does? Perhaps Rosenstein and Mueller see eye-to-eye on most things? What is the evidence here? (I know you are simply quoting his opinion, but it is a question you should be asked too.)

None of that matters if Article 2 Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution has been violated. Professor Calabreisi also argues that: "As such, Mueller’s appointment violates the Appointments Clause. Mueller would’ve had to be nominated for Senate confirmation like any other principal officer in the Executive Branch. Rosenstein did not have the constitutional power to appoint a principal officer on his own anymore than the President himself does".

Again, this is a matter of settled law. It seems to be a huge long shot to claim that the Special Counsel statute is unconstitutional. I'm sure if this is pursued and it goes before the Supreme Court, constitutionality will be upheld.

Mr. Levin or Professor Calabreisi are not ignoring anything. They are simply arguing that Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution controls every subsequent law concerning this issue. Mr. Muelller is acting as a principle officer and he is not. Mr. Manafort, Mr. Flynn and every other person snared by Mr. Mueller should challenge his authority on this constitutional principle and on that opinion I agree with Professor Calabreisi and Mr. Levin.

No, Levin DID ignore the contents of the Order appointing Mueller, but to the argument raised here, that is irrelevant. I think Levin only mischaracterized the Mueller appointment for rhetorical effect.

I believe Calabreisi is relying more on his libertarian philosophy more than his legal acumen. I think he wants to make this libertarian argument but knows that it will probably lose simply because the courts have rarely handed down rulings congruent with libertarian ideals.

Don't pin your hopes on this rhetoric.

 

[Adonia]

Well, good luck overturning it. The probable reason it has not been challenged before is that very few people think it is unconstitutional.

No one probably thought of it before.

How does he know what Rosenstein does? Perhaps Rosenstein and Mueller see eye-to-eye on most things? What is the evidence here? (I know you are simply quoting his opinion, but it is a question you should be asked too.)

How do you know what is actually happening either? We are all outsiders looking in and as such we have our own opinions of what is going on. The report by Mr. Levin just made me think of something I had not thought of before.

Don't pin your hopes on this rhetoric.

I only want to see true justice. If the Constitution is being violated, that is something that needs to be rectified.

The whole thing was set up to find some collusion with the Russians and after a year nothing has been found. It's only been minor actors who have been sanctioned and for things not related to the matter that was supposed to be the focus of the investigation. Those minor actors should be bringing this up for their own sake, especially Mr. Flynn who was thought to be not lying by the investigating FBI agents and then railroaded by Comey and Mueller.

 

[Baptist Believer]

No one probably thought of it before.

No, it has been thought of before. Back during the Starr investigation into Whitewater and such, there were Democrats whining about it, but it was never challenged. I remember that specifically, since Ken Starr himself had reservations about the broad mandate he had been given to investigate Bill Clinton. You can be sure that the Clinton Administration considered challenging it.

How do you know what is actually happening either?

Back when this first began, I read some reporting on how Rosenstein would supervise the investigation since the Attorney General had recused himself. I can't remember where I read it, but it was helpful in understanding the process. I'll try to find it later today when I have more time.

We are all outsiders looking in and as such we have our own opinions what is going on. The report by Mr. Levin just made me think of something I had not thought of before.

Ultimately, I don't know specifically what is going on, just as you said. I know what is supposed to happen and what has happened (Rosenstein has provided at least one additional memo of guidance, has approved going after search warrants and calling witnesses to testify, and has recommended referral of the Cohen matter to another jurisdiction), and the two seem to be consistent with each other. I sincerely doubt that they would run a shoddy investigation with so much on the line and under such scrutiny.

I only want to see true justice. If the Constitution is being violated, that is something that needs to be rectified.

I agree with this 100%. I don't care about the political affiliation of whoever is brought to justice, but only that it is done fairly, thoroughly, and legally.

The whole thing was set up to find some collusion with the Russians and after a year nothing has been found.

I sincerely doubt that. Moreover, as I noted in a previous post in response to this claim, the New York Times DID NOT claim that nothing has been found -- only nothing has been publicly revealed.

From Donald Trump, Jr.'s e-mails alone, it is clear he wanted to collude with figures in the Russian government to get dirt on Hillary Clinton. The plain reading of those e-mails, along with the multiple contradicting stories taken up by the Trump family, and overwhelming evidence of Russian tampering in our election affirmed by our intelligence agencies and the Senate committee, indicates that something happened. If the Trump family did not actually collude, they certainly WANTED to do it. As more comes out day after day, it looks like they managed to find partners to assist them.

It's only been minor actors who have been sanctioned and for things not related to the matter that was supposed to be the focus of the investigation.

The minor persons who have been indicted and those who are clearly suspects all seem to be connected to Russia.

 

[HankD]

I know that's what the right wing media claims, but I haven't seen it on the left. It seems like it is simply noise to confuse and distract. When indictments (not just accusations) are issued, then I can take it seriously.

What is certain is that the President seems to be stepping up his protests -- many of them not based in reality, nor particularly coherent.

And not just protests of our non "coherent" (your words) president who the left progressives and marxist attempt to calumniate and smear daily, but protests from all over the nation as the Mueller farce tries to stay alive after millions of dollars spent, the nation's safety endangered by obstruction with nothing to show but a lawyer and a blonde lady which mercifully seems to be fizzling to an end in Mueller's three ring circus.

But also we - the irredeemable deplorables feeding on our "crumbs" ("crumbs" even which the DNC wants to take back), clinging bitterly to our guns and bibles are all to familiar with our own mass character assassination (so its no really big deal when people character assassinate our non "coherent" president because we "consider the source") from the swamp critters and are combat trained in their obvious weapons of mass character assassination with their own noise and confusion to distract from the results of their backfired impeachment plan.

In the meantime the presidents base is growing because of RESULTS.

Also the air waves are daily humming with Trump, Trump, Trump...as this president, far beyond any other before him, is newsworthy not just at home but around the world.

Could it be he is playing the press like the proverbial "fiddle"?

The old tools just don't seem to work any more.
too little too late. even if he were to be impeached, he would need to be booted out (another process) and who's left - President Pence and former President Trump (pardoned) with and even MORE TIME to TWEET .

 

[HankD]

The minor persons who have been indicted and those who are clearly suspects all seem to be connected to Russia.

 

[777]

..

(1) Because I haven’t heard of any leaks from Mueller’s team.
(2) Because media reporting claims that there have been no leaks from Mueller’s team.

(1) Nobody ever said the leaks were directly from Mueller
(2) CNN and NYT are CONYEVING most of the leaks, and guess who they're sympathetic towards? You really think they would name their own sources?

A careful reading of the article demonstrates that it IS credible and accurately sourced. However, it actually DOES NOT support what you claim.

Yes, it does, I said there have been numerous leaks, and the article title names 25 if you "read carefully".

In fact, it is hard for me to believe that you actually read the article for yourself and reflected upon it since everything, from the headline to the conclusion of the piece, points out that the Mueller “leaks” are ABOUT the Mueller investigation, not leaks from the investigation itself.

And that's exactly what I said.

The article notes almost immediately that there is “no indication...that they were obtained from Mueller’s side.”

on that one link, and, again, so what? You know full well what his sidekick Jimbo did.

Let’s skip past the dated examples of leaks for a moment and read what else it says immediately past the leaks cited by date:

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.​

​

Yep, he's seen "no evidence", weasel words from a partisan ambulance chaser

Going back to the dated examples, if you read them carefully, you will see that they are not leaks BY the Mueller investigation, they are leaks ABOUT the Mueller investigation.

And that's exactly what I said.

So you have not demonstrated that I am wrong about leaks. In fact you have bolstered my position with high-quality reporting and analysis.

You asked "what leaks". I told you.

I have no idea why others have declared this post as a “Winner.” If is clear they haven’t read the article. But that’s usually the way in works with people who support Trump. They don’t check things out for themselves and simply jump to conclusions that meet their expectations.

Pot meet kettle . . . listen to yourself, sheesh.

 

[Baptist Believer]

(1) Nobody ever said the leaks were directly from Mueller

The original premise you supported is that we would know if the Mueller investigation had found anything against the President because “there have been multiple leaks in the Mueller investigation…”

I asked you to demonstrate that assertion:

Please name a few of the leaks and how you know they came from the Mueller investigation.

So you came back with your evidence, writing, “Where do you people get off on(sic) thinking there have been no leaks?”

So if you were following the back and forth of the conversation, you would know that the subject was whether Mueller’s team was leaking, since no one but Mueller’s team would fully know his potential evidence except for perhaps the mastermind of those who are guilty. But if the President is guilty, it would make no sense for him to leak his guilt.

(2) CNN and NYT are CONYEVING most of the leaks, and guess who they're sympathetic towards? You really think they would name their own sources?

It is clear that they are getting information from persons who have testified before Mueller – probably from both ‘sides.’ The press gets lots of information from White House staffers who leak to the press, quite intentionally.

Yes, it does, I said there have been numerous leaks, and the article title names 25 if you "read carefully".

Claiming that people are talking about the Mueller investigation, getting information from legal documents and arguments from legal action, and leaking details of their experience as a witness is quite different than the Mueller team leaking information about what evidence they have. And that was one of the main points of the article.

You asked "what leaks". I told you.

That is simply false. I wrote, “Please name a few of the leaks and how you know they came from the Mueller investigation.”

Your newfound assertion (which I agree with) that Mueller’s team has not leaked completely undermines the main assertion previously put forward by several of you (following the lead of the President), that if there was anything for Mueller to find he would have found it by now and we would know about it, because Mueller’s team would leak it.

So, logically, you should agree with me that Mueller’s team has not leaked anything and the lack of evidence presented publicly by Mueller’s team regarding the President’s innocence/guilt is meaningless.

 

[Baptist Believer]

...even if he were to be impeached, he would need to be booted out (another process) and who's left - President Pence and former President Trump (pardoned) with and even MORE TIME to TWEET .

You feel certain that Pence is not liable himself and that he would be willing to pardon the Trump if he were found guilty of serious crimes? If Donald Trump goes to jail, I don't think they will let him tweet. If there is guilt and he is exposed, why would anyone care about what he tweets? Speaking for myself alone, I have subscribed to the President's Twitter feed only because he has decided to use that as his primary tool of leadership. I am also curious (and often disturbed) about his state of mind and temperament. I'm sure there are a lot of other people who follow him on Twitter for similar reasons. If he was not the President, I wouldn't read his tweets.

 

[777]

No, I never said that Mueller's team hadn't leaked, all I said was that there has been leaks. You are way more far gone that I'd realized, Trump will NEVER "go to jail", it's more likely Hillary and Obama do.

YOU put the condition on "how I know they came from the Mueller team" when the issue was why hadn't anything that incriminating leaked yet. Classic strawman.

 

[FollowTheWay]

This is Watergate on steroids.



Oh, I bet you do wish he would do that but that's not gonna happen, either. You're right, it's "picking up steam" in a sense.

http://polling.reuters.com/#!respon.../PD1:1/dates/20180101-20180521/collapsed/true

when a pressure cooker explodes, the lid comes off and makes the whole kitchen a mess.

I want Mueller to finish the job. I don't think we could have found a better man for it. He has support from both parties.

 

[777]

Technically speaking, John McCain is on your side. He went out of his way to deliver that dossier and he's darn proud of it.

I'll say one thing, Mueller sure knows how to drag things out:

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecu...n-mueller-probe-wheres-the-hacking-indictment

why has he NEVER talked to Julian Assange?