Russia! Russia!! Russia!!!

[Speaker to Animals]

The Germans beat the Russians for you. There's no Hitler to save you now.

Well, we beat Hitler too to survive.

My Grandfather fought also the Germans. He remembered when the Germans retreated to Norway the destroyed everything in their path with German pünktlichkeit. If Finns when retreating blew up telephone poles simply from their root, Germans put three charges on the pole, on the root, in the middle and near the top so you would have firewood and not a telephone pole anymore. And mined the line where the telephone wire had gone. Men went crazy from the fear of mines.

Duh?

Of course the destroyed the telephone lines.

[TheReal_ND]

[C-Mag]

Well she should just go join the infantry so she can kill those Commie Bastards.

[Hwen Hoshino]

Well she should just go join the infantry so she can kill those Commie Bastards.

Invade North Korea.

[Fife]

Andrew McCarthy asks a question I would like to see anyone here answer, because I'm honestly curious:

What Crime Would a ‘Special Prosecutor’ Prosecute?

If the point of the exercise is to explore threats posed by Russia, that’s not a job for a prosecutor; it is a job for the president, the intelligence agencies, and Congress. We have prosecutors to prosecute crime; absent crime, there is no place for them. And special prosecutors only come into the picture when the suspects are people (generally, executive branch officials) as to whom the Justice Department has a conflict of interest. But those suspects must be suspects in a crime – not just in some untoward or sleazy form of behavior.

So what is the crime? What is the federal criminal offense that could be proved in a court of law under governing law and evidentiary rules?

“Collusion” – the word so tirelessly invoked – is not a crime. It is used pejoratively, but it is just a word to describe concerted activity. Concerted activity can be (and usually is) completely legal. Lots of unsavory activity in which people jointly participate is legal, even if we frown on it. In order to be illegal, concerted activity must rise to the level of conspiracy.

A conspiracy is an agreement to commit a crime. Not to do something indecorous or slimey; it must be something that is actually against the law, something that violates a penal statute. In the crim-law biz, the crime that conspirators agree to try to accomplish is known as “the object of the conspiracy.” If the object is not against the law, there is no conspiracy – no matter how much “collusion” there is.

[TheReal_ND]

Well what? They don't have any prosecutable crimes by now?

[kybkh]

Well what? They don't have any prosecutable crimes by now?

Amazing how fact free all this is. Aside from hearsay from anonymous sources there is totally no there, there. None.

The longer this goes on, the more I am convinced that the sole driving force for every Leftist is winning the 2018 midterms. It's a no holds barred, everything and the kitchen sink drive to somehow win 2018. If they can't do that the Democratic Party will be even more lost than before and Trump could very well seat another Supreme Court Justice.

In Dems best case scenario, the Russian investigation will be drawn out until 2018.

[Okeefenokee]

Be ready for voter registration shenanigans.

[Speaker to Animals]

Hopefully Trump sends ICE to round up illegals at democratic voting stations.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Andrew McCarthy asks a question I would like to see anyone here answer, because I'm honestly curious:

What Crime Would a ‘Special Prosecutor’ Prosecute?

If the point of the exercise is to explore threats posed by Russia, that’s not a job for a prosecutor; it is a job for the president, the intelligence agencies, and Congress. We have prosecutors to prosecute crime; absent crime, there is no place for them. And special prosecutors only come into the picture when the suspects are people (generally, executive branch officials) as to whom the Justice Department has a conflict of interest. But those suspects must be suspects in a crime – not just in some untoward or sleazy form of behavior.

So what is the crime? What is the federal criminal offense that could be proved in a court of law under governing law and evidentiary rules?

“Collusion” – the word so tirelessly invoked – is not a crime. It is used pejoratively, but it is just a word to describe concerted activity. Concerted activity can be (and usually is) completely legal. Lots of unsavory activity in which people jointly participate is legal, even if we frown on it. In order to be illegal, concerted activity must rise to the level of conspiracy.

A conspiracy is an agreement to commit a crime. Not to do something indecorous or slimey; it must be something that is actually against the law, something that violates a penal statute. In the crim-law biz, the crime that conspirators agree to try to accomplish is known as “the object of the conspiracy.” If the object is not against the law, there is no conspiracy – no matter how much “collusion” there is.

A special prosecutor, by contrast, seeks crimes. The criminal law is a heavy tool, and for that reason it is thickly encased in protections for accused persons. The most important protection from the point of view of the Trump-Russia matter is the rule of silence. A prosecutor investigating a crime can often discover non-criminal bad actions by the people he is investigating. If those bad actions do not amount to crimes, the prosecutor is supposed to look away.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... er/526662/

It doesn't answer the question, but I think people use the term 'Special Prosecutor' as a simple stand in for 'anything that isn't the executive branch looking at stuff.'