Peter1469
02-28-2017, 05:03 PM
CNN host stuns former AG with Trump ‘treason’ conspiracy theories (http://www.theamericanmirror.com/cnn-host-pushes-trump-treason-conspiracy-theories/)
CNN host Erin Burnett was determined to get to the truth in an interview with former AG Muskasey.
During a segment with former Attorney General Michael Mukasey on Monday night, Burnett repeatedly pressed him to say Trump’s rumored campaign talks with the Russians were illegal, going so far as to speculate the accusations amounted to “treason.”
Mukasey, who swatted down Burnett’s conspiracy theories by citing the law, was left in a position where he could only be stunned by her words.
Video at link.
“Should he recuse himself and get a special prosecutor?” she asked.
“No!” Mukasey said. “Special prosecutor of what? Where’s the crime? We haven’t even named the crime, let alone suggested that charges are going to be brought.”
Mukasey swatted down Burnett’s apparent hope that any proof of conversations would be “a criminal act.”
“No, it wouldn’t,” he said.
“Even if they had regular contact talking about working together?” Burnett asked.
“The only statute I know that that conceivably violates is the Logan Act and that hasn’t been prosecuted since 1793,” he said.
I doubt it dashed her hopes.
CNN host Erin Burnett was determined to get to the truth in an interview with former AG Muskasey.
During a segment with former Attorney General Michael Mukasey on Monday night, Burnett repeatedly pressed him to say Trump’s rumored campaign talks with the Russians were illegal, going so far as to speculate the accusations amounted to “treason.”
Mukasey, who swatted down Burnett’s conspiracy theories by citing the law, was left in a position where he could only be stunned by her words.
Video at link.
“Should he recuse himself and get a special prosecutor?” she asked.
“No!” Mukasey said. “Special prosecutor of what? Where’s the crime? We haven’t even named the crime, let alone suggested that charges are going to be brought.”
Mukasey swatted down Burnett’s apparent hope that any proof of conversations would be “a criminal act.”
“No, it wouldn’t,” he said.
“Even if they had regular contact talking about working together?” Burnett asked.
“The only statute I know that that conceivably violates is the Logan Act and that hasn’t been prosecuted since 1793,” he said.
I doubt it dashed her hopes.