Criminal investigations are initiated by attorneys generals and their officers.
They are not initiated by presidents or personal lawyers of presidents.
These are the fundamental errors of fact in your reply.
but there are other, less consequential, errors of fact there too.

So you're saying that the AG's boss doesn't have to authority to do so? Is that your position?

I will admit that I have a big problem with the idea that all federal prosecutors get fired whenever we get a new president, and that the president can fire his own prosecutors at any time for no reason.
But leaving that aside, there are whole volumes of US code and supreme Court decisions laying out what is appropriate or inappropriate for a prosecutor.
And there are laws passed by Congress describing what each cabinet official's role is, and how succession within each department works.
In theory, I suppose the president could take up the mantle of being a prosecutor, and that would not conflict with the Constitution per se, but it would conflict with US code that has delegated this role to the cabinet. And it would require the President to abide by the same standards of probable cause and avoiding a conflict of interest as everyone else as he investigates.  In any case, don't think this has ever happened.
While the Kings of England sometimes sat in judgment, I think they always appointed prosecutors. I don't think they ever sat on the prosecutor's bench.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Criminal investigations are initiated by attorneys generals and their officers.
They are not initiated by presidents or personal lawyers of presidents.
These are the fundamental errors of fact in your reply.
but there are other, less consequential, errors of fact there too.

Ill say it again....  what part of contact the attorney general do u not understand?  What part of the investigation WAS ALREADYNINITIATED by the ukrainian ag equivelant do u not understand?  What part of evidentiary findings during a seperate legal proceeding do u not understand?  Am i talking too fast for u?  I have time.  I wanna help!

Oh and btw, the ag is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of POTUS.  if the presiswnt has reason to believe a crime was committed by an american citizen he can direct the ag to initiate an investigation.  If that investigation encompassrs activity with or in foreign countries theb he can solicit the cooperation of foreign heads of state.  

U wanna claim corrupt intent?  Have at it.  Its incumbent on u to demonstratw that there was no such reasonable suspicion.  Thats based on the fact pattern and the underlying evidence.   But u dont wanna deal with that, u want to talk about "well he should have said it nicer... he should have been more vague" and other platitudes.

You are correct that the president can ask the AG to initiate a new investigation.
However the AG may not do so if he finds no reasonable suspicion or probable cause for a specific violation of US law. But if he does find probable cause or reasonable suspicion, watch out! He now has the tools of state at his disposal- to compel testimony, or even negotiate with other countries to compel testimony from their citizens.

And the president can also ask his personal attorney to look into things. the president and the personal attorney may just want to know the facts for their own sake - it doesn't have to involve a possible violation of the law. But in this case, the president can not deploy the tools of state.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

So you're saying that the AG's boss doesn't have to authority to do so? Is that your position?

I will admit that I have a big problem with the idea that all federal prosecutors get fired whenever we get a new president, and that the president can fire his own prosecutors at any time for no reason.
But leaving that aside, there are whole volumes of US code and supreme Court decisions laying out what is appropriate or inappropriate for a prosecutor.
And there are laws passed by Congress describing what each cabinet official's role is, and how succession within each department works.
In theory, I suppose the president could take up the mantle of being a prosecutor, and that would not conflict with the Constitution per se, but it would conflict with US code that has delegated this role to the cabinet. And it would require the President to abide by the same standards of probable cause and avoiding a conflict of interest as everyone else as he investigates.  In any case, don't think this has ever happened.
While the Kings of England sometimes sat in judgment, I think they always appointed prosecutors. I don't think they ever sat on the prosecutor's bench.

So...ummm, yes or no, the President has the authority to initiate an investigation or not?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I will admit that I have a big problem with the idea that all federal prosecutors get fired whenever we get a new president, and that the president can fire his own prosecutors at any time for no reason.
But leaving that aside, there are whole volumes of US code and supreme Court decisions laying out what is appropriate or inappropriate for a prosecutor.
And there are laws passed by Congress describing what each cabinet official's role is, and how succession within each department works.
In theory, I suppose the president could take up the mantle of being a prosecutor, and that would not conflict with the Constitution per se, but it would conflict with US code that has delegated this role to the cabinet. And it would require the President to abide by the same standards of probable cause and avoiding a conflict of interest as everyone else as he investigates.  In any case, don't think this has ever happened.
While the Kings of England sometimes sat in judgment, I think they always appointed prosecutors. I don't think they ever sat on the prosecutor's bench.

So...ummm, yes or no, the President has the authority to initiate an investigation or not?

The president can not initiate the type of investigation that compels testimony or results in an indictment.  although this was technically part of the powers he's granted under article 2, this has been entirely delegated to prosecutors since the first president was in office.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Ill say it again....  what part of contact the attorney general do u not understand?  What part of the investigation WAS ALREADYNINITIATED by the ukrainian ag equivelant do u not understand?  What part of evidentiary findings during a seperate legal proceeding do u not understand?  Am i talking too fast for u?  I have time.  I wanna help!

Oh and btw, the ag is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of POTUS.  if the presiswnt has reason to believe a crime was committed by an american citizen he can direct the ag to initiate an investigation.  If that investigation encompassrs activity with or in foreign countries theb he can solicit the cooperation of foreign heads of state.  

U wanna claim corrupt intent?  Have at it.  Its incumbent on u to demonstratw that there was no such reasonable suspicion.  Thats based on the fact pattern and the underlying evidence.   But u dont wanna deal with that, u want to talk about "well he should have said it nicer... he should have been more vague" and other platitudes.

You are correct that the president can ask the AG to initiate a new investigation.
However the AG may not do so if he finds no reasonable suspicion or probable cause for a specific violation of US law. But if he does find probable cause or reasonable suspicion, watch out! He now has the tools of state at his disposal- to compel testimony, or even negotiate with other countries to compel testimony from their citizens.

not true.  The cooperation between countries is a function of diplomacy and foreign policy which rests solely at the feet of the chief executive.  As is the case with the entirety of the investigation into the origins of the Mueller probe, we are talking about multiple countries of interest.  The AG asked the president to make the necessary introductions to facilitate cooperation with other nations, their justice departments, his counterparts etc.  The idea that the president should be completely removed from the process is incorrect.  

And the president can also ask his personal attorney to look into things. the president and the personal attorney may just want to know the facts for their own sake - it doesn't have to involve a possible violation of the law. But in this case, the president can not deploy the tools of state.

Okay, in all seriousness I will go through this again.  Giuliani has two roles in this situation.  First, he was solicited by the former special envoy to the UKRAINE in order to build relations with the prospective administration and report back tot he state department on his assessment of the incoming team.  Also, obviously, he is the presidents personal attorney with intimate knowledge of the Ukraine corruption scandal because of his investigative work to exonerate the president during the Mueller probe.  His name coming up in a general conversation between the two leaders as either a go between for their administrations or someone who can ad insight to the players involved in the Biden scandal makes perfect sense.  

Moreover, the president didn't mention Brad Paschale his campaign manager, Kelly Anne Conway, or any political operative.  Nor did he mention anything about political ramifications of investigations, coordinating leaks, fabrication of a narrative, or anything to do with the 2020 elections.  That's all fantasy projected by the left.

---

So...ummm, yes or no, the President has the authority to initiate an investigation or not?

The president can not initiate the type of investigation that compels testimony or results in an indictment.  although this was technically part of the powers he's granted under article 2, this has been entirely delegated to prosecutors since the first president was in office.

So he can but he can't. Good job.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You are correct that the president can ask the AG to initiate a new investigation.
However the AG may not do so if he finds no reasonable suspicion or probable cause for a specific violation of US law. But if he does find probable cause or reasonable suspicion, watch out! He now has the tools of state at his disposal- to compel testimony, or even negotiate with other countries to compel testimony from their citizens.

not true.  The cooperation between countries is a function of diplomacy and foreign policy which rests solely at the feet of the chief executive.  As is the case with the entirety of the investigation into the origins of the Mueller probe, we are talking about multiple countries of interest.  The AG asked the president to make the necessary introductions to facilitate cooperation with other nations, their justice departments, his counterparts etc.  The idea that the president should be completely removed from the process is incorrect.  

And the president can also ask his personal attorney to look into things. the president and the personal attorney may just want to know the facts for their own sake - it doesn't have to involve a possible violation of the law. But in this case, the president can not deploy the tools of state.

Okay, in all seriousness I will go through this again.  Giuliani has two roles in this situation.  First, he was solicited by the former special envoy to the UKRAINE in order to build relations with the prospective administration and report back tot he state department on his assessment of the incoming team.  Also, obviously, he is the presidents personal attorney with intimate knowledge of the Ukraine corruption scandal because of his investigative work to exonerate the president during the Mueller probe.  His name coming up in a general conversation between the two leaders as either a go between for their administrations or someone who can ad insight to the players involved in the Biden scandal makes perfect sense.  

Moreover, the president didn't mention Brad Paschale his campaign manager, Kelly Anne Conway, or any political operative.  Nor did he mention anything about political ramifications of investigations, coordinating leaks, fabrication of a narrative, or anything to do with the 2020 elections.  That's all fantasy projected by the left.

We have a treaty with Ukraine.  It sets up their Minister of Justice as equal to our AG.  The treaty was signed by Clinton. We have treaties like this with many countries.  Our AG can speak to their MJ without any introduction.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Okay, in all seriousness I will go through this again.  Giuliani has two roles in this situation.  First, he was solicited by the former special envoy to the UKRAINE in order to build relations with the prospective administration and report back tot he state department on his assessment of the incoming team.  Also, obviously, he is the presidents personal attorney with intimate knowledge of the Ukraine corruption scandal because of his investigative work to exonerate the president during the Mueller probe.  His name coming up in a general conversation between the two leaders as either a go between for their administrations or someone who can ad insight to the players involved in the Biden scandal makes perfect sense.  

Moreover, the president didn't mention Brad Paschale his campaign manager, Kelly Anne Conway, or any political operative.  Nor did he mention anything about political ramifications of investigations, coordinating leaks, fabrication of a narrative, or anything to do with the 2020 elections.  That's all fantasy projected by the left.

We have a treaty with Ukraine.  It sets up their Minister of Justice as equal to our AG.  The treaty was signed by Clinton. We have treaties like this with many countries.  Our AG can speak to their MJ without any introduction.

And our President can speak to them as he deems fit or necessary, that's in the power of the Executive. You really are going to pull a muscle with all your verbal stretching.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Okay, in all seriousness I will go through this again.  Giuliani has two roles in this situation.  First, he was solicited by the former special envoy to the UKRAINE in order to build relations with the prospective administration and report back tot he state department on his assessment of the incoming team.  Also, obviously, he is the presidents personal attorney with intimate knowledge of the Ukraine corruption scandal because of his investigative work to exonerate the president during the Mueller probe.  His name coming up in a general conversation between the two leaders as either a go between for their administrations or someone who can ad insight to the players involved in the Biden scandal makes perfect sense.  

Moreover, the president didn't mention Brad Paschale his campaign manager, Kelly Anne Conway, or any political operative.  Nor did he mention anything about political ramifications of investigations, coordinating leaks, fabrication of a narrative, or anything to do with the 2020 elections.  That's all fantasy projected by the left.

We have a treaty with Ukraine...

Game... set.... u know the rest.

---

The Executive does whatever the Heck He Wants under the purview of EXECUTING the law.

---

The Executive does whatever the Heck He Wants under the purview of EXECUTING the law.

Yep.

---

We have a treaty with Ukraine.  It sets up their Minister of Justice as equal to our AG.  The treaty was signed by Clinton. We have treaties like this with many countries.  Our AG can speak to their MJ without any introduction.

And our President can speak to them as he deems fit or necessary, that's in the power of the Executive. You really are going to pull a muscle with all your verbal stretching.

The question of abuse of power always hinges on "should", never "can".
If we are asking "did he abuse power", we have already taken it as given that he has the power.  
The question is if he's using it correctly.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The Executive does whatever the Heck He Wants under the purview of EXECUTING the law.

Yep.

---

And our President can speak to them as he deems fit or necessary, that's in the power of the Executive. You really are going to pull a muscle with all your verbal stretching.

The question of abuse of power always hinges on "should", never "can".
If we are asking "did he abuse power", we have already taken it as given that he has the power.  
The question is if he's using it correctly.

Great, so we finally agree that this is all about the Trump's legal and appropriate use of Executive Power. Glad you've finally talked yourself into reality.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Yep.

---

The question of abuse of power always hinges on "should", never "can".
If we are asking "did he abuse power", we have already taken it as given that he has the power.  
The question is if he's using it correctly.

Great, so we finally agree that this is all about the Trump's legal and appropriate use of Executive Power. Glad you've finally talked yourself into reality.

Oh, you!
I'm not a lawyer, so I won't try to figure out what's legal or not for the president.
I do know what is appropriate, though, and asking the president of another country to harm a political party in the United States cannot be appropriate.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Great, so we finally agree that this is all about the Trump's legal and appropriate use of Executive Power. Glad you've finally talked yourself into reality.

Oh, you!
I'm not a lawyer, so I won't try to figure out what's legal or not for the president.
I do know what is appropriate, though, and asking the president of another country to harm a political party in the United States cannot be appropriate.

There you go again. Yes he can, no he can't. Rinse, repeat.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Great, so we finally agree that this is all about the Trump's legal and appropriate use of Executive Power. Glad you've finally talked yourself into reality.

Oh, you!
I'm not a lawyer, so I won't try to figure out what's legal or not for the president.
I do know what is appropriate, though, and asking the president of another country to harm a political party in the United States cannot be appropriate.

Childish.  Forming an exploratory committee doesnt grant u immunity from prosecution.  The transcript doesnt show any POLITICAL CONSIDERATION whatsoever.  

Ill say ut again for the umteenth time, if u want to accuse the president of corrupt intent, its up to you to demonstrate that there was no evidence or fact pattern that would warrant an investigation.  Heres a hint, we know there was because the Ukrainians REOPENED the investigation 4 MONTHS PRIOR TO THE CONVERSATION.  

youre right ur not a lawyer, but you should really look up what exculpatory means.

---

Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, who were deposed to appear before three House Committees, Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, and Oversight and Reform, have been arrested. It is alleged that they “conspired to circumvent the federal laws against foreign influence by engaging in a scheme to funnel foreign money to candidates for federal and state office so that the defendants could buy potential influence with candidates, campaigns and the candidates’ governments.”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...866159002/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...nt-alleges

Discuss.

---

"Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something."        --Plato

Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, who were deposed to appear before three House Committees, Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, and Oversight and Reform, have been arrested. It is alleged that they “conspired to circumvent the federal laws against foreign influence by engaging in a scheme to funnel foreign money to candidates for federal and state office so that the defendants could buy potential influence with candidates, campaigns and the candidates’ governments.”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...866159002/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...nt-alleges

Discuss.

Very interesting.  These appear to be Giuliani associates.  

"Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman helped Rudy Giuliani meet a Ukrainian prosecutor as the president's personal lawyer pushed for an investigation into Trump's political rival Joe Biden. "

Pretty shady characters Giuliani is hanging out with.  

---

Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, who were deposed to appear before three House Committees, Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, and Oversight and Reform, have been arrested. It is alleged that they “conspired to circumvent the federal laws against foreign influence by engaging in a scheme to funnel foreign money to candidates for federal and state office so that the defendants could buy potential influence with candidates, campaigns and the candidates’ governments.”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...866159002/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...nt-alleges

Discuss.

Very interesting.  These appear to be Giuliani associates.  

"Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman helped Rudy Giuliani meet a Ukrainian prosecutor as the president's personal lawyer pushed for an investigation into Trump's political rival Joe Biden. "

Pretty shady characters Giuliani is hanging out with.  

Obviously the southern district of New York is going off script. Just like they went off script in investigating Michael Cohen, just like they went off script in investigating Hillary Clinton's emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop.
And now you start to see why Trump did not tell Barr that he was going to make the phone call, and why Trump was sure to mention Giuliani as equal to Barr while on the phone with Ukraine's President.  
The various prosecutors who report to Barr are free to form their own opinion about who should be arrested or indicted; the less Barr knows about Trump's political schemes the better. this is why we can be sure that the whole phone call is in the category of "political scheme" rather than "legitimate investigation into a question of US law"

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Very interesting.  These appear to be Giuliani associates.  

"Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman helped Rudy Giuliani meet a Ukrainian prosecutor as the president's personal lawyer pushed for an investigation into Trump's political rival Joe Biden. "

Pretty shady characters Giuliani is hanging out with.  

Obviously the southern district of New York is going off script. Just like they went off script in investigating Michael Cohen, just like they went off script in investigating Hillary Clinton's emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop.
And now you start to see why Trump did not tell Barr that he was going to make the phone call, and why Trump was sure to mention Giuliani as equal to Barr while on the phone with Ukraine's President.  
The various prosecutors who report to Barr are free to form their own opinion about who should be arrested or indicted; the less Barr knows about Trump's political schemes the better. this is why we can be sure that the whole phone call is in the category of "political scheme" rather than "legitimate investigation into a question of US law"

Did anyone actually read the article?  This has nothing to do with the president, giuliani, the phone call or anything of the sort.  These two guys were arrested for campaign finance based on donations to a Super Pac because of he use of an llc.  That has nothing to do with the actual Trump Campaign.

---

Then why were they scheduled to appear before 3 House Committees, jj?

---

"Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something."        --Plato