Jump to content

The Robert Mueller Investigation


Hugo Stiglitz

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Country 1 steals toxic material from the United States for an upcoming attack.

Country 1 then uses organization 1 as the delivery system to disseminate the toxic material on the target population.

Individual 1 intentionally disseminates the stole toxic material with the help of country 1 and organization 1 on the target population.

Individual 1 did this with full knowledge that country 1 stole the the material with the intention of using on the target population.

What is the criminal liability for individual 1?

 

Seems to me you have two likely offenses here and three defendants.  The two offenses are 1) distributing toxic shit on a population and  2) stealing toxic shit, in descending order of "seriousness," with maximum penalties of life for 1) and 50 years for 2).

You have Individual 1 dead on distributing toxic shit and probably Organization 1, also.  You have Country 1 dead on stealing toxic shit.  All of this disregarding the difficulties of indiciting/convicting countries or organizations.

So, the problem is that you want to get Country 1 on the max charge, distributing toxic shit, despite its indirect involvement in the disribution.  You could go with conspiracy, but you would have to prove an agreement between at least two of them to distribute toxic shit.  It would be easier to convict Country 1 of aiding and abetting either or both of the other two. 18 USC 2.  Might charge the conspiracy, also.

If your goal is to charge as much shit as you can make up, you might do so, but I think that is generally disfavored unless you think you will have trouble getting convictions on some of the charges, particularly the more serious ones.

Individual 1 cannot be convicted of conspiracy on these facts because he did not agree ahead of time with Country 1 or Organzaion 1 to steal the toxic shit.  Why indict him for conspiracy to distribute, when you have him dead on distribution because he did.

Not a particularly apt hypothetical as I have fleshed it out because distributing has a higher penalty than stealing.  If they both have the same penalty, I think you lose any motivation to indict Country 1 for aiding or conspiracy.

Now, if Individual 1 had funded Country 1s theft and directed them to use Organization 1 to distribute and helped Org 1 plan the disribution, but didnt actually distribute the only way to convict Individual 1 is by conspiracy or aiding and abetting.  That's a conspiracy count I would endorse.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Stone indictment kinda leads me to believe Mueller isn’t going to charge the Trump folks with conspiracy.

The indictment of the Russians in July combined with the Stone indictment tells the story of a criminal conspiracy but without the specific charge for Stone. 

Perhaps that’s the way they’re leaning with others? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The Stone indictment kinda leads me to believe Mueller isn’t going to charge the Trump folks with conspiracy.

The indictment of the Russians in July combined with the Stone indictment tells the story of a criminal conspiracy but without the specific charge for Stone. 

Perhaps that’s the way they’re leaning with others? 

But conspiracy to do what?  You don't charge people with "conspiracy;" you charge them with conspiracy to commit some crime.  I think there's facts currently that seem to support a possible conspiracy to violate FEC laws or 18 USC 371, but I would honestly hope for more, whether by conspiracy or direct liability.

A fun conspiracy count for Trump would be conspiracy to gain unauthorized access to DNC computers (ir hack em), but I don't think the facts revealed thus far support that.

*I guess I should say implicated in the Mueller report because I don't think Trump will br indicted by Mueller for anything.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

But conspiracy to do what?  You don't charge people with "conspiracy;" you charge them with conspiracy to commit some crime.  I think there's facts currently that seem to support a possible conspiracy to violate FEC laws or 18 USC 371, but I would honestly hope for more, whether by conspiracy or direct liability.

A fun conspiracy count for Trump would be conspiracy to gain unauthorized access to DNC computers (ir hack em), but I don't think the facts revealed thus far support that.

18 USC 371 - Conspiracy to defraud the United States 

You know, the conspiracy charge that shows up in almost every Mueller indictment.

ETA: I think conspiracy to obstruct justice will also show up down the road.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The Stone indictment kinda leads me to believe Mueller isn’t going to charge the Trump folks with conspiracy.

The indictment of the Russians in July combined with the Stone indictment tells the story of a criminal conspiracy but without the specific charge for Stone. 

Perhaps that’s the way they’re leaning with others? 

If they charged him with conspiracy today, wouldn't they have to be ready to disclose info as to why when they could just do it later down the road. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, shnsajax said:

If they charged him with conspiracy today, wouldn't they have to be ready to disclose info as to why when they could just do it later down the road. 

I have no idea what the thinking is but I can speculate.

Someone on the inside freaked out enough with the Buzzfeed report to have SCO make a statement.  The reason that was done, it appears, is because it was going to force the hand of democrats to start the impeachment process.

Assuming this is true, if they charged Stone with conspiracy to defraud, that could be perceived as proof of collusion/conspiracy/coordination and pushed to envelope with the democrats.

The funny thing is the whole conspiracy between Stone, Wikileaks, and Russian intelligence is laid out in black and white between the two indictments.  Mueller just didn’t charge him for it. 

Mueller charged the Russians in groups of 12 and 11 with conspiracy to defraud.  Perhaps that’s what he’s looking to do on the American side as well.  Hit them all with the same criminal charge at once. 

Maybe not but I don’t think Mueller is going to let these folks go lightly.  This is something that needs to never happen again and people need to hang. 

However, there is another narrative that the Trump campaign was mostly the unwitting victims of a Russian military intelligence operation.  They lied and tried to cover their tracks once they realized they were the setup fall guys.  That’s still criminal obstruction and conspiracy to obstruct but not necessarily conspiracy to defraud.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Without knowing a great deal about Stone, I kind of equate him with Lee Atwater and James Carville, about whom I share many of the same sentiments.  Karl Rove, too, but he doesn't seem like he would be any fun.

Stone is more like Randall Flagg, imo.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Stone is more like Randall Flagg, imo.

He does seem more diabolical and insidious than your average political consultant, but I fear that reflects a certain naivete and lack of explicit knowledge about political consultants.

To wit, I'm pretty cynical about politics and until recent revelations about Stone would have had few qualms about lumping him with Atwater, Carville, and Matalin for that matter, just perhaps a slightly more eccentric version.  I don't know if Stone is worse than "average" or they are all depraved freaks.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

He does seem more diabolical and insidious than your average political consultant, but I fear that reflects a certain naivete and lack of explicit knowledge about political consultants.

To wit, I'm pretty cynical about politics and until recent revelations about Stone would have had few qualms about lumping him with Atwater, Carville, and Matalin for that matter, just perhaps a slightly more eccentric version.  I don't know if Stone is worse than "average" or they are all depraved freaks.

You really need to watch “Get me Roger Stone”

Stone is in a class by himself as far as horrible human beings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, triplehorn said:

DyCHvB7UUAA5DFs?format=jpg&name=small

 

Our AG looks like Vic Mackey right after you tell him he's stuck working behind a desk the rest of his career.

Or our Vic Mackey after you tell him only skinny white girls from here on out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mueller team signals to Stone associate another indictment may be in the works

 

Washington (CNN)

A defense attorney for Andrew Miller, who's fighting a subpoena from Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, learned Monday afternoon that the special counsel still wants witness testimony for a federal grand jury.

Paul Kamenar, the defense attorney, says the assertion from Mueller's team made clear to him that Mueller and the Justice Department are considering an additional indictment of Roger Stone or have plans to charge others.

The development sets up the potential for another twist in the Russia probe. It comes hours after acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker said that Mueller's investigation was "close to being completed.

cont. 

 

tenor.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He eluded to the fact that this investigation has real legs to it. He made a comment that his previous opinions on it were based on public information and now that he has been fully briefed, he'll protect the investigation. Always fun that, regardless of side, anyone who has seen the evidence starts supporting and protecting the investigation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He eluded to the fact that this investigation has real legs to it. He made a comment that his previous opinions on it were based on public information and now that he has been fully briefed, he'll protect the investigation. Always fun that, regardless of side, anyone who has seen the evidence starts supporting and protecting the investigation. 
Nunes says, "hold my beer".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Bruh Man said:

I'd trade immunity for Don Jr., Stone, Manafort, & Cohen for Mitch's head.

I wouldn't go that far. Donny jr and Cohen, I could probably spare due to them having daddy issues and just tried to appease daddy Trump. Stone and Manafort, however, are a large reason why modern politics is so toxic and anti-democratic. They need to be shown as an example of the worst part of American politics, excised from the system. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...