Jump to content

The Robert Mueller Investigation


Hugo Stiglitz

Recommended Posts

Off topic but related:

There are other ways to leak besides bringing your story to the press.  I'm sure Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee would be interested.  If the documents were pulled for good reason then they could keep it secret.

If you take the position that no one in power can be trusted you'd just as well fade into Bolivian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hobbes2702 said:

This is such a stupid post.

I’m sorry you feel that way. The endless investigation at our expense.  Maybe he gets him maybe he doesn’t.  Let’s get on with Stage 2 of the shit show.  

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, FUBAR said:

Only one of those is trying to destroy our system of checks and balances.

 

27 minutes ago, FUBAR said:

Yes - the DOJ and FBI.  I agree with you. 

 

Thanks 

Did they forgot to teach you how to count at the troll farm?  BTW-one is singular.

Edited by ShaggyBevo RIP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

Off topic but related:

There are other ways to leak besides bringing your story to the press.  I'm sure Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee would be interested.  If the documents were pulled for good reason then they could keep it secret.

If you take the position that no one in power can be trusted you'd just as well fade into Bolivian.

You should focus on the administration who is committing the crimes, rather than the people exposing them and the methods they are choosing to use to expose the corruption. 

Edited by Pods
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FUBAR said:

I’m sorry you feel that way. The endless investigation at our expense.  Maybe he gets him maybe he doesn’t.  Let’s get on with Stage 2 of the shit show.  

You’re fucking retarded. Maybe we should let the investigation into fucking treason run it’s course in due time. Your following post proves you’re a troll. Fuck off

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, no one is interested in the fact that Veselnitskaya and Ike obviously thought that Trump was going to get rid of Preet? I thought that was huge since everyone involved in that meeting has explicitly testified that neither Preet nor the prevezon cases were discussed with the Trump team. Why would they be surprised that Trump would (initially) retain Preet? For that matter, why would Ike even be interested in it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tuco said:

So, no one is interested in the fact that Veselnitskaya and Ike obviously thought that Trump was going to get rid of Preet? I thought that was huge since everyone involved in that meeting has explicitly testified that neither Preet nor the prevezon cases were discussed with the Trump team. Why would they be surprised that Trump would (initially) retain Preet? For that matter, why would Ike even be interested in it?

Lotsa peanuts packed in this turd, so little time.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Pods said:

Shocker, turns out Rudy was full of shit. Mueller did not say anything. 

 

Rudy being a piece of shit. No surprise.

The real surprise is no 9/11 references while beatin' his pud yet

It's a miracle 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, burntorangebongos said:

hey, don't the banks have copies of the SARs they filed or is this like a lock box system that they put the info on and destroy all other copies. also, could the system have been hacked? 

 

n_up_9satire_130929.blocks_desktop_large

Edited by HornPhD
  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, burntorangebongos said:

hey, don't the banks have copies of the SARs they filed or is this like a lock box system that they put the info on and destroy all other copies. also, could the system have been hacked? 

 

If not, they still have all the transaction records that triggered filing the SARs

Edited by ShaggyBevo RIP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm trying to figure out why the finCEN official felt the information if lost from the system signaled something so alarming as to make them go into whistle blower mode. whoever it was  must have not trusted his superiors in the Treasury. I need to read the Ronan Farrell piece in its entirety, as I admit I did not. But throwing someone into an action that has such serious reprocussions  to themselves is amazing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought it was already posted, but CNN has a nice little page on Mueller’s team and what their backgrounds and specialities are. 

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2018/politics/meet-the-mueller-team/index.html

it really is an experienced team, meanwhile Trump has people like Giuliani out there acting like a fucking idiot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, burntorangebongos said:

I'm trying to figure out why the finCEN official felt the information if lost from the system signaled something so alarming as to make them go into whistle blower mode. whoever it was  must have not trusted his superiors in the Treasury. I need to read the Ronan Farrell piece in its entirety, as I admit I did not. But throwing someone into an action that has such serious reprocussions  to themselves is amazing. 

I could see the possibility that he saw it, stewed on it for a couple of hours, and then went into Fuck-It-All mode.  Let's not pretend people always have the most reasoned reactions and develop well thought out plans.  Regardless, it's out there now.  You'd like to see some official body (SDNY, Mueller, Congress) state that they will investigate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think they should be able to indict a sitting president.  Never had. That doesn't mean they can't indict everyone around him, submit a report to Congress which compels them to remove him, and then indict him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Its testimony given under oath.

 

Now, written, pre-packaged testimony can absolutely be coordinated with your other buddies. It is NOT the product of real cross-examination.

 

And...here’s the big thing: testimony does not PROVE anything. It is evidence, which a finder of fact can decide is credible or bullshit. Which is considered in light of other evidence.

 

For example, one of these folks may testify “I wasn’t at Trump Tower that day.” To Sheeit and Trumpkins, that PROVES that she wasn’t there. But...there’s a photo of her in the Trump Tower lobby that day. So, as the finder of fact, tell me: was she there, or not? She says no, the photo says yes.

 

If you believe the photo, then you necessarily conclude that she was lying. This happens. It happens a lot. Like, all the time. Folks lie, not knowing that there’s other evidence out there that will bust them.

 

So, what we know is that several folks who have a mutual interest in explaining away the meeting tried to do so via written statements under oath that have not been subjected to cross-examination or counter-evidence from objective/third party sources. In short, we know what these people have said. That’s it.

Actually, only Nataliya provided written answers.  jr, Rinat, Ike, the interpreter and Goldstone all testified live and were subject to questions and cross examination.  

Even you have to admit to certain realities.  Of course, one person's testimony alone means very little.  But we have testimony now from everyone in the meeting.  They all said essentially the same thing.  Of course there will be some minor differences (differences about who sat where or how long Kushner was in the meeting but nothing substantial) as you are getting testimony from people about a 30 minute meeting a year or so before.  But on the main points, all the stories were the same.  

Just as I predicted, the response now is that all of them are lying.  I think that is crazy but I suppose it is remotely possible.  But even if we assume they might be lying, what do you have?  No one else is in the meeting.  It was not recorded.  What are you or mueller going to do?  You are the attorney.  When you depose a group of people that were in a meeting and evey person in the meeting says the same thing, what do you do?  You either believe them or you think they are all lying but you realize there isnt anything you can do to prove that.  If you put all of those people on the stand the jury is going to believe them.  Their stories are all the same.

Bottom line, if their testimony is detrimental to your case you would not want them within a mile of the courthouse.

Just speculate, lets just assume that no other information about this meeting exists, do you see any possible way that mueller, or anyone, could use this meeting to further a case for collusion/conspiracy?  I do not.  If you do, please elaborate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Just speculate, lets just assume that no other information about this meeting exists, do you see any possible way that mueller, or anyone, could use this meeting to further a case for collusion/conspiracy?  I do not.  If you do, please elaborate.

If no other evidence exists besides the suspects' testimonies, I'm thinking the suspects will not go to jail.  That goes for any case that doesn't include a confession.  Any other brilliant hypotheticals you wish to ask about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Tuco said:

I don't think they should be able to indict a sitting president.  Never had. That doesn't mean they can't indict everyone around him, submit a report to Congress which compels them to remove him, and then indict him. 

First, it's astounding that we're watching the POTUS' attorney attempt to shape public perception about whether or not a sitting US president can be indicted for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Here's a useful counter opinion while we wait from Philip Allen Lacovara, a former U.S. deputy solicitor general in the Justice Department, served as counsel to Watergate special prosecutors Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworski:

 

Yes, Trump could be indicted. The 'Nixon tapes' case proves it.

 

"A single section in Article II of the Constitution specifies, without distinction, that the "president, vice president, and all civil officers" may be impeached by the House and may be removed upon conviction by the Senate of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The Constitution does not distinguish between treatment of the president on the one hand and the vice president and other civil officers on the other. History has demonstrated, however, that hundreds of civil officers, as well as Vice President Spiro Agnew, have been prosecuted for federal offenses without having been impeached and removed from office.

In addition, criminal prosecution and impeachment are fundamentally different. Impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate represent a political judgment that an official is unfit for office. By contrast, the federal criminal code includes many offenses of a nonpolitical nature, and these offenses are pursued by grand juries, conducted by professional prosecutors and ultimately tried before civil courts and juries."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tuco said:

If no other evidence exists besides the suspects' testimonies, I'm thinking the suspects will not go to jail.  That goes for any case that doesn't include a confession.  Any other brilliant hypotheticals you wish to ask about?

Lulz.  This is the problem when people get so emotionally invested in something that they do not know all of the facts.  I get that it is hard to admit that perhaps people have been duped.  That the media has the perfect storm of simultaneously wanting trump to go down and that everything they write about it or talk about drives their ratings to vastly increased revenue.  It is their absolute dream.  They get to try and tarnish trump (and he is unquestionably tarnishable) which they would do in any event, and they get record revenue at the same time.  So they take a case like this meeting and they print a combination of truths, half truths, out of context statements, innuendo, and straight fabrications to create a narrative.  That narrative is gobbled up by a lot of people.  Then, when the actual facts of the meeting come out people refuse to admit it.  No one wants to admit they were duped.  People are rightly embarrassed that they invested so much faith in something that was built on bullshit speculation.

Please explain, anyone, how this meeting (just this meeting) can be used to further the case for collusion/conspiracy.  I realize that it is in the realm of slight possibility that one of the meeting participants could show up with a taped message of the meeting or that someone could suddenly recant their testimony and tell a different story and then all of them agree with that new story but the odds of any of that happening are less than 1%.  As it stands right now, it is over for this meeting.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

First, it's astounding that we're watching the POTUS' attorney attempt to shape public perception about whether or not a sitting US president can be indicted for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Here's a useful counter opinion while we wait from Philip Allen Lacovara, a former U.S. deputy solicitor general in the Justice Department, served as counsel to Watergate special prosecutors Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworski:

 

Yes, Trump could be indicted. The 'Nixon tapes' case proves it.

 

"A single section in Article II of the Constitution specifies, without distinction, that the "president, vice president, and all civil officers" may be impeached by the House and may be removed upon conviction by the Senate of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The Constitution does not distinguish between treatment of the president on the one hand and the vice president and other civil officers on the other. History has demonstrated, however, that hundreds of civil officers, as well as Vice President Spiro Agnew, have been prosecuted for federal offenses without having been impeached and removed from office.

In addition, criminal prosecution and impeachment are fundamentally different. Impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate represent a political judgment that an official is unfit for office. By contrast, the federal criminal code includes many offenses of a nonpolitical nature, and these offenses are pursued by grand juries, conducted by professional prosecutors and ultimately tried before civil courts and juries."

 

I don't find that persuasive.  It's not the availability of impeachment that makes an indictment feasible/not feasible.  It's the nature of the office and separation of powers.  The President is the embodiment of the executive branch.  In addition to the practical, structural arguments concerning discharge of his duties while under indictment, the judicial branch, followed by executive officers, are the least responsive to the will of the people and I think it is at least theoretically hazardous, from a separation of powers perspective, to permit the judicial branch, through indictment, to operate on a sitting President.  Because the legislative branch implements impeachment (and it is the only thing that actually provides for removal from office**), and the legislative branch is more theoretically responsive to the will of the people, it should be the only remedy for Presidential malfeasance.

 

Also, I thnk the Supreme Court probably fucked up when they let private civil proceedings go forward against Clinton.  A much better solution would be to toll statutes of limitation, both civil and criminal, until the President is out of office.

 

**Theoretically, one could indict, try and convict a sitting President without his removal from office, leaving him to carry out his executive duties from prison or house arrest or some such.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Please explain, anyone, how this meeting (just this meeting) can be used to further the case for collusion/conspiracy. 

Because there is other evidence around this meeting.  Some of it we know, some of it we don't.

We know that the top members of the Trump campaign met with what they understood to be representatives from the Russian government, with the expressed purpose of receiving "dirt" on Hillary Clinton.  Included in this meeting were, 1) the lawyer representing Prevezon in their case against SDNY and Preet Bharara, 2) her associate who has bragged about his ties to Russian intelligence, who has testified that he has the ability to do tasks which law firms cannot, and who has been implicated in sworn testimony in two hacking for smear campaigns, 3) a lawyer acting on the behalf of Russian oligarchs and Trump associate, the Agalorovs.  We know that within two weeks of the meeting, hackers associated with Russian intelligence released hacked information from the DNC in order to damage Clinton's campaign.  And, from the released testimony about recovered emails, we know that the Prevezon lawyer and the Agalorov attorney expressed surprise and confusion that President Elect Trump would initially retain Preet Bharara, and then suggested that it might just mean Trump is deciding whether to crush him or not.  We know that Trump personally reached out to Bharara on multiple occasions, and fired him (with dozens of other district attorneys) the day after Bharara responded that he did not feel direct interaction with the President was appropriate.  We know that that the Prevezon case was settled shortly after in a manner which the Prevezon lawyer not only found acceptable, but lauded as an apology from the US government. 

Is that enough to send people to prison?  Probably not.  But it's a shit load of dots which I expect to be connected with additional evidence.

Edited by Tuco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimately it doesn't matter whether or not POTUS can be indicted if the Special Counsel investigating him doesn't agree.  

I don't know if this has been verified or if we're still going off Rudy's word, but if Mueller ain't bringing indictments against Trump then there's nothing more to talk about regarding the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Longhorn94 said:

yeah, i am not seeing a good reason the President should be above the law. if he commits a crime, he should be subject to the criminal justice system just like any other citizen or politician. 

I do not feel that unelected officials should have the power to removed the highest elected official from office.  Detainment is effectively making it impossible for the President to execute his duties.  That shouldn't come down to a cop and a judge, or even a special council and a grand jury.  It makes sense that the first step should be a supermajority of a body of the next highest elected officials - the Senate. It's a question of how stable to you make the government.  A government which allows the majority vote to be superseded by a few unelected people is not a stable structure, and could be toppled by conspiracy.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Longhorn94 said:

yeah, i am not seeing a good reason the President should be above the law. if he commits a crime, he should be subject to the criminal justice system just like any other citizen or politician. 

Preventing him from being indicted doesn't place him above the law.  There's impeachment, there are presumably post-Presidential remedies.  The concept of official immunity is deeply entrenched in American law for the lowly official, cops, all the way to the President.  When you consider some of the prosecutorial and civil suit abuses and the toll that such litigation takes on the defendants, it makes a certain amount of sense.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tuco said:

I do not feel that unelected officials should have the power to removed the highest elected official from office.  Detainment is effectively making it impossible for the President to execute his duties.  That shouldn't come down to a cop and a judge, or even a special council and a grand jury.  It makes sense that the first step should be a supermajority of a body of the next highest elected officials - the Senate. It's a question of how stable to you make the government.  A government which allows the majority vote to be superseded by a few unelected people is not a stable structure, and could be toppled by conspiracy.

i never said remove. i said subject to the criminal justice system. if he commits a crime and a prosecutor can persuade a grand jury to indict, he/she should be indicted and tried by a jury of his peers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Preventing him from being indicted doesn't place him above the law.  There's impeachment, there are presumably post-Presidential remedies.  The concept of official immunity is deeply entrenched in American law for the lowly official, cops, all the way to the President.  When you consider some of the prosecutorial and civil suit abuses and the toll that such litigation takes on the defendants, it makes a certain amount of sense.

oh i get immunity for official acts but we are discussing criminal conduct that no one is immune from at any level of government. i agree that impeachment works well most of the time. our current state has exposed a weakness in our system that warrants review and consideration. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that any POTUS probably should not be able to be indicted while in office.  

Mueller should complete his investigation and give the results to congress and let them decide if the POTUS should be removed from office.  

After trump is out of office,  he should be subject to the same standards as anyone else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Longhorn94 said:

i never said remove. i said subject to the criminal justice system. if he commits a crime and a prosecutor can persuade a grand jury to indict, he/she should be indicted and tried by a jury of his peers.

Indictment without the ability to punish? He'd still be above the law. I guess I can see that from a symbolic standpoint, and to support an impeachment hearing.  But I still think the impeachment process is the main avenue of recourse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tuco said:

Indictment without the ability to punish? He'd still be above the law. I guess I can see that from a symbolic standpoint, and to support an impeachment hearing.  But I still think the impeachment process is the main avenue of recourse.

We're mostly on the same page, but as noted above, criminal prosecution itself does not provide for removal from office.  In addition to enduring the difficulties of being prosecuted/sued, he could actually be sentenced and serve the sentence while in office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

We're mostly on the same page, but as noted above, criminal prosecution itself does not provide for removal from office.  In addition to enduring the difficulties of being prosecuted/sued, he could actually be sentenced and serve the sentence while in office.

yeah thats where i am. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of Preet, looks like he considering making a bid for NY State AG.  Which, considering the speculation on whether some in the Trump world would get charged with state crimes, could be an interesting twist.  From a practical standpoint, does that make sense?  I assume he knows federal law much better than state law, but does that matter?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

 In addition to enduring the difficulties of being prosecuted/sued, he could actually be sentenced and serve the sentence while in office.

I get that from a letter-of-the-law standpoint, but if you were in the Supreme Court, would you actually rule that way?  From a practical standpoint, I don't believe the President could execute his duties from a prison cell.  I don't think he could effectively negotiate treaties or hold meetings with his cabinet.  I don't think he could secure, in a normal prison setting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...