tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5548360050548401665.post5096704637782872886..comments2024-01-02T04:15:58.292-06:00Comments on The Coldheartedtruth: Why the left has the Mueller investigation wrong... C.H. Truthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07424696045921160961noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5548360050548401665.post-37988179499658142062017-08-10T16:27:07.386-05:002017-08-10T16:27:07.386-05:00I don't think Democrat Underground is an autho...I don't think Democrat Underground is an authoritative legal source.<br /><br />You are obviously confusing the standard for criminal conviction "beyond reasonable doubt" with the standard for obtaining a search warrant. <br /><br />All a prosecutor has to do to get a warrant is to say "I believe there is evidence of a crime at this location and this is why I believe it." <br /><br />In other words, if you can get a ham sandwich indicted it's even easier to get search warrant. Commonsensehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01611062965687173944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5548360050548401665.post-21178026627276413062017-08-10T15:59:55.576-05:002017-08-10T15:59:55.576-05:00Not from everything I have read. It does depend on...Not from everything I have read. It does depend on the judge, though. A reasonable cause isn't a low bar. Since you are innocent until proven guilty.Coldheartedtruth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10441230118917524072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5548360050548401665.post-79864790000404874522017-08-10T15:52:10.308-05:002017-08-10T15:52:10.308-05:00Actually all you have to convince a federal judge ...Actually all you have to convince a federal judge of is that there is reasonable probable cause. <br /><br />That's a pretty damn low bar. It's not much better than a rubber stamp. Commonsensehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01611062965687173944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5548360050548401665.post-76632479098192165822017-08-10T15:43:11.106-05:002017-08-10T15:43:11.106-05:00In order to get a warrant, you must convince the f...In order to get a warrant, you must convince the federal judge, that the person in question was dishonest in his or her sworn testimony. Or that they have evidence that the target of the warrant had failed to fully disclose his contracts with foreign countries. <br /><br />Your arguments are not coherent, just angry and inaccurate. Demented alky!<br /><br />Coldheartedtruth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10441230118917524072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5548360050548401665.post-90903691617112689512017-08-10T15:36:31.305-05:002017-08-10T15:36:31.305-05:00I'm using the same argument as wp. Your interp...I'm using the same argument as wp. Your interpretation of the law was a joke. Your assumptions were based upon your feelings about stupid liberals. You were no more correct than the Rolling Stone writer. There is no reasoning with you.Coldheartedtruth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10441230118917524072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5548360050548401665.post-62816283994073752672017-08-10T15:09:15.121-05:002017-08-10T15:09:15.121-05:00"That being said, my argument isn't to ma..."That being said, my argument isn't to make a determination as to what Mueller will and will not deem to be material to his mandate. "<br /><br />Apparently it is. You did write this:<br /><br />"This means, legally speaking, that if Mueller has not gone back to Mueller and asked to expand his investigation into areas that have nothing to do with the 2016 investigation (even if Mueller feels those issues are necessary to resolve the issue) - and he is (as rumored) investigating Trump business dealings that have nothing to do with the 2016 election meddling, then he would be legally working outside of his scope."<br /><br />Several things in this paragraph are wrong, as addressed in my arguments. Primarily, those things which Mueller "feels" (LOL) "necessary to resolve the issue" as you wrote. In other words, things which YOU deem to be outside of the scope - and you provide an example, so we know that's what you meant - would be in your opinion violations of the statute that you provided.<br /><br />You have made the argument, here and in your previous blog post, that Rosenstein's statement means that this Special Investigation has remained within the narrow scope of nothing beyond Russia's interference in the election. The leaks are all wrong, couldn't be true because that would violate the statute, and Meuller won't do that - all per you. So you very much ARE arguing what Mueller will and will not deem relevant, and you ARE arguing that some of those things really aren't relevant.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the FBI serves a warrant in an early morning raid of Trump's former campaign chairman. I guess the FBI and the judge who signed the warrant didn't get the memo.wphamiltonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5548360050548401665.post-12953135584981259642017-08-09T20:56:01.771-05:002017-08-09T20:56:01.771-05:00No, you don't quite understand. I thought they...<b>No, you don't quite understand. I thought they were much more correct than you were and your logic was flawed completely.</b><br /><br />Roger - my response to the Rolling Stones argument was to actually quote Rosenstein, and then quote the law.<br /><br />So I guess if you feel the author from Rolling Stone knows better than the Deputy Attorney General, and explains how things work better than the actual law that governs Special counsels...<br /><br />If you truly feel that Rosenstein's letter and the actual law represent totally flawed logic...<br /><br />Then that reinforces the concept that you actually "do" believe whatever it is you want to believe... and are a sheep to liberal journalists.<br /><br />So there is no use in reasoning with you.C.H. Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07424696045921160961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5548360050548401665.post-88487162346243488222017-08-09T20:51:05.267-05:002017-08-09T20:51:05.267-05:00History and precedent clearly show that Meuller ca...<b>History and precedent clearly show that Meuller can investigate whatever he deems material to his mandate. You are still making an assumption about what "additional matters" means in the statute, and your assumption is at odds with actual practice.</b><br /><br />WP... We know Fitzgerald went back and asked for more plenary authority and was given it. We know Starr got authorization from Reno to move his investigation into the perjury/Lewinski matter. Precedent probably shows that our special prosecutors "did" go back to the Justice department, rather than decide on their own to go fishing.<br /><br />I am not sure what other precedent there is that you might be referring to.<br /><br />That being said, my argument isn't to make a determination as to what Mueller will and will not deem to be material to his mandate. <br /><br />My argument is with those who are arguing that somehow this letter from Rosenstein provides Mueller with a free pass to investigate "anything and everything" he sees fit.<br /><br />My argument is that both the letter from Rosenstein, and the law itself provides that the Special Prosecutor is obligated to go back to the DAG (in this case) for authorization before expanding the scope outside of what he is tasked to investigate. <br /><br />I think we can both agree that this is what the law states. The law is written in English and is relatively straight forward. <br /><br />But - again - I am not making any judgement as to how Mueller will see his task. Nor am I making a judgement as to how far Mueller will push that limit. <br /><br />You seem rather tied to this impression that just because I am quoting the law, that I am somehow projecting how Mueller will act. Not the case.<br /><br />So you seem to be still making a straw man argument. <br /><br />C.H. Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07424696045921160961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5548360050548401665.post-64932591168867694852017-08-09T18:49:17.588-05:002017-08-09T18:49:17.588-05:00wp and I are fairly close. CH seems to claim that ...wp and I are fairly close. CH seems to claim that Mueller went beyond his jurisdiction. Read what are what WP said. Fire off another insult. How about an alky. You and rrb fit in the same cage anymore. You're cold hearted analysis seems to have been infected by trumpism. Okay that's an insult Roger shut up I won't do that again. Adios amigo BBQ ajora. My Spanish sucksColdheartedtruth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10441230118917524072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5548360050548401665.post-47531948222662340372017-08-09T18:43:23.013-05:002017-08-09T18:43:23.013-05:00First I read your quote out of Rolling Stone I sho...First I read your quote out of Rolling Stone I should have read the whole thing because you've been known to be very specific in your quoting without being fully inclusive.<br /><br />No, you don't quite understand. I thought they were much more correct than you were and your logic was flawed completely.<br /><br />I told you and maybe you couldn't understand what I said. That is entirely possible even though you would never ever admit it.<br /><br />But then of course you resort to insulting, something you say is not supposed to be done here, and claim that I'm demented. <br /><br />Mueller has not expanded beyond his original jurisdiction. If he had done that without permission he could have actually been terminated because he had actually violated his directions his orders. If that was true Trump could actually fire the guy because he'd have a good reason to do so but right now according to your logic he could but you can't because he has not gone beyond his limits. And you don't want to accept that why I don't know. I have some barbecue to do today my friend so I'm going to not worry about this too much besides my Angels won a game today finally again but they're playing a lot better than the twins hehehehehe. Adios amigo para rrb. Coldheartedtruth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10441230118917524072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5548360050548401665.post-26927664078763640982017-08-09T16:27:49.364-05:002017-08-09T16:27:49.364-05:00"28 C.F.R. § 600.4 clearly states that in ord..."28 C.F.R. § 600.4 clearly states that in order to expand the scope of the investigation, he needs to go back to Rosenstein."<br /><br />History and precedent clearly show that Meuller can investigate whatever he deems material to his mandate. You are still making an assumption about what "additional matters" means in the statute, and your assumption is at odds with actual practice.wphamiltonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5548360050548401665.post-48409092720065244762017-08-09T15:37:32.735-05:002017-08-09T15:37:32.735-05:00I declared that your post was inaccurate and illog...<b>I declared that your post was inaccurate and illogical. Your assumptions and claims that Mueller was acting outside of the scope of the invention were and are illogical and inaccurate. I clearly showed that your post was inaccurate. </b><br /><br />Obviously Roger... you simply don't understand the post. <br /><br />I make absolutely no argument as to whether or not Mueller is or is not "currently" outside the scope of his investigation. So you cannot logically show me to be wrong or inaccurate about a point I haven't argued.<br /><br />This just shows your obvious lack of reading comprehension. <br /><br />In fact, I have argued (more than once) that I believe that Mueller is likely still focusing on Russian collusion, and the possible ties. Rosenstein himself strongly downplayed rumors that Mueller has drifted off course. <br /><br />My post (if you go back and actually read it) - is about what authority Mueller actually has. It's a rebuttal of the argument by people like this Dreyfuss character who argues that this particular Special Counsel appointment has unlimited scope (based entirely on him truncating a statement from Rosenstein's letter).<br /><br />Dreyfuss is wrong. You have not disputed this by any reasonable person's standard. You have not even tried...<br /><br />Why?<br /><br />Because you too busy are off in your own little world disputing something I didn't claim. <br /><br /><br />C.H. Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07424696045921160961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5548360050548401665.post-9771986602324524952017-08-09T15:30:09.749-05:002017-08-09T15:30:09.749-05:00This argument was very very specific, Roger. It (a...This argument was very very specific, Roger. It (as many of my posts are these days) designed 100% to show that many members of the media are simply lying through their teeth... as this guy was. <br /><br /><b>My argument was that your argument was just as illogical and inaccurate as the Rolling Stone writer, or worse. And I made my point. I read your quote. So you are acting obsessive, not me. </b>Coldheartedtruth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10441230118917524072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5548360050548401665.post-67321358132669923492017-08-09T15:22:59.873-05:002017-08-09T15:22:59.873-05:00Scope of the investigation. Correction.Scope of the investigation. Correction.Coldheartedtruth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10441230118917524072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5548360050548401665.post-56956266145085283622017-08-09T15:20:06.482-05:002017-08-09T15:20:06.482-05:00I declared that your post was inaccurate and illog...I declared that your post was inaccurate and illogical. Your assumptions and claims that Mueller was acting outside of the scope of the invention were and are illogical and inaccurate. I clearly showed that your post was inaccurate. <br /><br />You didn't mention the President, but it was still a defense of him. Your claim that Mueller was acting outside the scope, because it might hurt Trump was the bottom line.Coldheartedtruth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10441230118917524072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5548360050548401665.post-27722683999632007752017-08-09T14:26:22.748-05:002017-08-09T14:26:22.748-05:00No pedophilia to swoon over yet today Pastor James...No pedophilia to swoon over yet today Pastor James Boswell? Loretta https://www.blogger.com/profile/03888424844344384091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5548360050548401665.post-62192439915106548772017-08-09T12:56:47.730-05:002017-08-09T12:56:47.730-05:00Bye-Bye: U.S. Job Seekers Giving Up, Leaving the W...Bye-Bye: U.S. Job Seekers Giving Up, Leaving the Workforce"<br /><br />December 2016,,, As more job seekers throw in the towel, the unemployment rate fell to 4.6% from 4.9% in November. On the surface, a lower rate looks positive, but it may be masking problems in the economy"<br />"More Americans are kissing the workforce goodbye – not because they’re financially secure but because they can’t find a job. A record 95 million people are sitting on the sidelines opting not to work. As a result, the labor participation rate is stuck at 62.7%, a 40-year low."<br /><br /><br /><br />Yet, the latest job numbers in July 2017 show a complete reversal of the above facts.KD, contrasting Economy of 2016 December and latest facts on the Trump Bumpnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5548360050548401665.post-73517891439879508672017-08-09T12:17:18.227-05:002017-08-09T12:17:18.227-05:00When Trump WON, I knew it was going to be good, bu...When Trump WON, I knew it was going to be good, but, never did I think it was going to be this good this fast.<br /><br /><br />"US Economy is humming along very nicely, I see a few pro-Trump Manufacturing Stories on PBS and one on NBC, hard to ignore the Trump Bump when a million plus people are getting out of the electronic soup kitchen line and into jobs, with earned paychecks.<br /><br />The only problem the left has with my posts are that they are fact based and they point to how the Lost Years are being erased.<br /><br />Those Millions coming off the Electronic soup kitchen lines and off of SS Disablity where put there by Your President. NOT YOUR PRESIDENT is winning them paychecks and economic freedom.<br /><br />Kansas and MO Farmers are going to be putting a lot of grain in to bins this fall, we ranchers are going to market heavier Steers and fancy replacement heifers, your welcome. KD, Bipolar Alky , Jane and The Dopienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5548360050548401665.post-66628166978745509802017-08-09T11:10:29.369-05:002017-08-09T11:10:29.369-05:00Your mental disability is denial. I'm not in d...<b>Your mental disability is denial. I'm not in denial, nor was my post an emotional attack. I saw that your "logic" was an emotional attack on the "left", and in particular, one magazine that has little or no influence on the political dialogue in the country. </b><br /><br />Like most things you write these days... this makes no senses what-so-ever.<br /><br />This is really simple Roger.<br /><br />- A guy wrote an article making a claim<br />- That claim was bolstered by a misrepresentation of a document<br />- I posted the actual text of the document (showing that it was misrepresented by the author<br />- I then posted what the actual text referred to.<br /><br /><br />There was absolutely nothing about that post that was not entirely based on the documents and the facts. My argument had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Trump.<br /><br />This argument was very very specific, Roger. It (as many of my posts are these days) designed 100% to show that many members of the media are simply lying through their teeth... as this guy was. <br /><br />He misrepresented a statement, didn't follow through on the research.<br />I provided the "full statement" - then provided the research.<br /><br />You personally attack my argument without even understanding it, and assume (WRONGLY) that it simply must have something to do with Trump.<br /><br /><br />REALITY!!! Trump's approval could be zero percent, Roger.<br /><br />IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACTS OF HOW THIS INVESTIGATION IS LEGALLY SET UP!<br /><br />The fact that you simply cannot make "ANY" Argument anymore without referring to Trump, Trump approval, or your hatred of Trump...is bordering on a psychotic break with reality. <br /><br /><br />C.H. Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07424696045921160961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5548360050548401665.post-6825386733040745442017-08-09T11:01:29.012-05:002017-08-09T11:01:29.012-05:00I understand that we'd like to interpret that ...<b>I understand that we'd like to interpret that 28 C.F.R. § 600.4 Jurisdiction statute to narrowly exclude anything that might threaten our favored politician, as long as we deem it "additional", but that's just wishful thinking.</b><br /><br />WP... this has nothing to do with what I would like or not like to see.<br /><br />This has to do with whether or not the argument that Mueller can just decide (on his own) to investigate whatever it is that he wants is accurate. <br /><br />28 C.F.R. § 600.4 clearly states that in order to expand the scope of the investigation, he needs to go back to Rosenstein. C.H. Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07424696045921160961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5548360050548401665.post-5419200891655370562017-08-09T10:52:52.520-05:002017-08-09T10:52:52.520-05:00The Obama and "US Economy is humming along ve...<br />The Obama and "US Economy is humming along very nicely"<br /><br /><br /> hard to ignore the Trump Bump when a million plus people are getting out of the electronic soup kitchen line and into jobs, with earned paychecks.<br /><br />Or the 11.4 million that found work under obama...OPIEnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5548360050548401665.post-82034097587575753912017-08-09T10:34:22.867-05:002017-08-09T10:34:22.867-05:00I feel sorry for your Mrs. Alzheimer. I feel sorry for your Mrs. Alzheimer. Coldheartedtruth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10441230118917524072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5548360050548401665.post-5505345636242683672017-08-09T10:31:56.488-05:002017-08-09T10:31:56.488-05:00Let's see Democrats and Independents make up 1...<br />Let's see Democrats and Independents make up 11,995 registered voters versus 6,611 Republicans in this Iowa district, though Republicans do own a slight edge over Democrats. Less than 700 votes was the final difference.<br /><br />This vote was to replace a Democratic who won the district in 2016 despite Trumps large victory.<br /><br />BIG NOTHINGBURGER.<br /><br />ROFLMFAO !!!<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />JAMES'S FUCKING DADDYnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5548360050548401665.post-21908988093862045092017-08-09T10:07:09.735-05:002017-08-09T10:07:09.735-05:00Phil Miller was declared the WINNER of his special...Phil Miller was declared the WINNER of his special election for Iowa House!<br /><br />This victory means Democrats won by ten points in a district that favored Donald Trump by more than 20 points last fall!<br /><br />A win in territory this red is a massive, stunning rebuke of Trump and his state-level allies. It's clear that our fellow Americans are FED UP with Trump’s incompetent, corrupt, far-right administration, and Democrats are FIRED UP to take him on.<br />The DLCCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5548360050548401665.post-16752683380606482802017-08-09T09:05:37.739-05:002017-08-09T09:05:37.739-05:00It was deleted by the author, me, drunkard. It was deleted by the author, me, drunkard. Loretta https://www.blogger.com/profile/03888424844344384091noreply@blogger.com