Time for a full scale investigation-special counsel on Hillary, Obama and Comey

[StLucieBengal]

(09-05-2017, 08:43 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: In all seriousness, there would not be support for it. If the administration and/or Congress were to open an investigation into Clinton and/or Obama, the public backlash would be immense. That is the move of an authoritarian state, a move taken by dictators to start investigations into their opposition. When you have all of the power, initiating political investigations into those that don't is not something that is popular. We see those sorts of things happen and then a few years later there is an armed revolution in the country leading to a civil war.

I want oversight, I want accountability, but tensions are too high right now in this country to start a partisan investigation like that. There are too many groups on the right and the left that are ready to start a revolution by bullet instead of ballot box.

I do think some shady stuff happened under Obama. He took executive privilege a lot to shield holder.

[BmorePat87]

(09-05-2017, 05:55 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I do think some shady stuff happened under Obama.   He took executive privilege a lot to shield holder.

Why does this require an independent counsel? What conflict of interest exists with the Trump administration investigating the Obama administration? 

[StLucieBengal]

(09-05-2017, 10:01 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Why does this require an independent counsel? What conflict of interest exists with the Trump administration investigating the Obama administration? 

I would be happy to see sessions investigate. Too bad the media and dems would play politics with any findings.

Special counsel would basically be an attempt to be non partisan. I just wish when they call for any special counsel it would be with a narrow birth. I do not like the idea they can turn someone's life upside down and find anything.

I actually didn't get to finish my post. I was going to sams for hurricane supplies..... the Clintons and the Clinton foundation actually deserves a hard investigation over all this other stuff. I think she used her office for payoffs.

[BmorePat87]

(09-05-2017, 10:27 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I would be happy to see sessions investigate.  Too bad the media and dems would play politics with any findings.    

Special counsel would basically be an attempt to be non partisan.    I just wish when they call for any special counsel it would be with a narrow birth.   I do not like the idea they can turn someone's life upside down and find anything.      

I actually didn't get to finish my post.  I was going to sams for hurricane supplies.....    the Clintons and the Clinton foundation actually deserves a hard investigation over all this other stuff.    I think she used her office for payoffs.

Special counsels don't exist to be non partisan, they exist to ensure that there are no conflicts of interest. So your concern is that the current administration's DOJ will be partisan in its investigation of whether or not the previous administration's DOJ was partisan...

[StLucieBengal]

(09-06-2017, 12:34 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Special counsels don't exist to be non partisan, they exist to ensure that there are no conflicts of interest. So your concern is that the current administration's DOJ will be partisan in its investigation of whether or not the previous administration's DOJ was partisan...

They are used quite often to get past the partisan accusations in today's climate. I know what they are supposed to be for and why they are used today are quite different.

[BmorePat87]

(09-06-2017, 02:14 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: They are used quite often to get past the partisan accusations in today's climate.  I know what they are supposed to be for and why they are used today are quite different.

Could you give me an example of this?

[StLucieBengal]

(09-06-2017, 07:34 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Could you give me an example of this?

Well democrats accused sessions of being partisan over this Russia stuff.

Republicans pushed for Ken Starr over partisan concerns.

[Benton]

(09-06-2017, 01:04 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Well democrats accused sessions of being partisan over this Russia stuff.  

Republicans pushed for Ken Starr over partisan concerns.

I took it that Democrats were concerned Sessions was a part of "this Russia stuff" not necessarily that it was party related.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-06-2017, 01:08 PM)Benton Wrote: I took it that Democrats were concerned Sessions was a part of "this Russia stuff" not necessarily that it was party related.

He met with the Russian ambassador as a senator. Which is common. They blew that out of proportion to make it look like there was a conflict.

[Benton]

(09-06-2017, 01:20 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: He met with the Russian ambassador as a senator.  Which is common.  They blew that out of proportion to make it look like there was a conflict.

.... ok.

But I don't think any of that is directly a partisan issue. Indirectly, sure, as neither side can agree to anything the other side does. But it's not the same as Democrats saying "Jeff Sessions is a Republican. Russia worked to the benefit of a Republican in the last election. Ergo, Jeff Sessions is working for Russia, we must have a special investigator."

[BmorePat87]

(09-06-2017, 01:04 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Well democrats accused sessions of being partisan over this Russia stuff.  

Republicans pushed for Ken Starr over partisan concerns.

Session was accused of not being impartial because he would be a potential subject of the investigation.

The Whitewater investigation was opened by Clinton. Reno appointed a special counsel because it was investigating the chief executive and Ken Starr eventually replaced the first counsel because the courts decided the original special prosecutor was not impartial enough.

Partisan politics may tell us WHY some wanted these investigations to occur, but it isn't the reason why a special counsel was brought in. So, why would this case require a special counsel? What conflict of interest exists?

[Belsnickel]

(09-06-2017, 01:20 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: He met with the Russian ambassador as a senator. Which is common. They blew that out of proportion to make it look like there was a conflict.

(09-06-2017, 01:35 PM)Benton Wrote: .... ok.

But I don't think any of that is directly a partisan issue. Indirectly, sure, as neither side can agree to anything the other side does. But it's not the same as Democrats saying "Jeff Sessions is a Republican. Russia worked to the benefit of a Republican in the last election. Ergo, Jeff Sessions is working for Russia, we must have a special investigator."

And, IIRC, didn't it come out that he had met the Ambassador as a part of the campaign, not just as a Senator?

[StLucieBengal]

(09-06-2017, 02:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: And, IIRC, didn't it come out that he had met the Ambassador as a part of the campaign, not just as a Senator?

No. This was in his duties as a senator. But the campaign was ongoing. Which these campaigns go on for years so that's a bit of a stretch . You

[GMDino]

(09-06-2017, 02:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: And, IIRC, didn't it come out that he had met the Ambassador as a part of the campaign, not just as a Senator?

You recall more than Sessions did.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-06-2017, 01:43 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Session was accused of not being impartial because he would be a potential subject of the investigation.

The Whitewater investigation was opened by Clinton. Reno appointed a special counsel because it was investigating the chief executive and Ken Starr eventually replaced the first counsel because the courts decided the original special prosecutor was not impartial enough.

Partisan politics may tell us WHY some wanted these investigations to occur, but it isn't the reason why a special counsel was brought in. So, why would this case require a special counsel? What conflict of interest exists?

It says in the article if Jeff sessions is unable to do the investigation then a special counsel should be appointed . I personally am OK with Sessions leading the investigation.

The fact is there is too much going on to not investigate.

[Benton]

(09-06-2017, 02:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: And, IIRC, didn't it come out that he had met the Ambassador as a part of the campaign, not just as a Senator?

(09-06-2017, 03:21 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: No.  This was in his duties as a senator.   But the campaign was ongoing.   Which these campaigns go on for years so that's a bit of a stretch . You

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-discussed-trump-campaign-related-matters-with-russian-ambassador-us-intelligence-intercepts-show/2017/07/21/3e704692-6e44-11e7-9c15-177740635e83_story.html?utm_term=.8272ea4c845e

depends on who you ask. Sessions, who remembers nothing about meeting with a representative of a foreign power, or that representative, who said 'all we talked about was the campaign.'



Given the topics at the time, I find not discussing the campaign — at least in passing — as unlikely as having almost no recollection of what you said to an emissary from a country with a strained relationship.

[BmorePat87]

(09-06-2017, 03:27 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: It says in the article if Jeff sessions is unable to do the investigation then a special counsel should be appointed . I personally am OK with Sessions leading the investigation.

The fact is there is too much going on to not investigate.

There's no conflict of interest so no special counsel needed. Glad we settled that.

It won't be investigated at all. A sitting president currently musing about using his power to end a current investigation in himself would be unwise to investigate whether or not the past president tried to do the same with thing with an investigation involving a subordinate.