Jump to content

The Robert Mueller Investigation


Hugo Stiglitz

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

With Pecker's apparent flip, Mueller might actually have this wrapped up and a report on the president's conduct by Sept 1.

I actually like to pretend that Mueller has had this thing wrapped up since May and spends all day playing Fortnite and reading Black Twitter

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DiceHands said:

It would have to be something on this level if he got full immunity.  

Trump's wildest wish is that it's tape of sexual proclivities.  That would be a sigh of relief.  It's not.

At the very least, Pecker is getting immunity for Trump conspiracy charges 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me it is just corroborating evidence of Cohen's.  My guess is that convicting someone who received the money of conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws is a lot harder than the person paying.  There was little risk of conviction, and little value in the testimony.  So this was a small trade of corroborating evidence for getting rid of a little risk.

Edited by SuingToGetAMessageBoard?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, TornACL said:

Only one of them would have ghost written the intro to the acceptance speech, where the claim was made that this was the most exhaustive search by any president in history. 

Blinking red Trumpy superlative tell right there. 

Upon acceptance, literally the first thing that came out of Kavanaugh’s mouth was a lie.

He should never live that down.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, retread said:

Pleading guilty to non-crimes. Someone should tell the judge.

From a purely legal standpoint, it's quite feasible.  I believe the bank fraud charge he pled to carries the most weight, and therefore defines his sentencing range.

Also, I think the reality for just about anyone who pleads guilty is that the sentence is all that matters.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing changes the fact Trump conspired with his attorney and a media outlet to knowingly violate/circumvent campaign finance laws in order to cheat in an election.  

He then tried to cover it up by lying about it to the American people. 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went back and looked through all the times a Special Prosecutor (now called Independent Counsel) has been used in US government history.

Ok I actually looked through about half of them and then I got kind of bored, but the trend seemed to be that the SP almost never finds enough evidence of the crime s/he is investigating for prosecution, or of s/he does it doesn’t stick.

However what s/he does often find is all sorts of other stuff. The classic case is Ken Starr investigating Whitewater and ending up with perjury for the President and convictions of 14 other people.

So my question is: should a SP just be full time job? Would it be good for the country if every administration knew there was a watchdog turning over rocks day and night? Or would it be unconstitutional without specific grounds for investigation?

It would defuse all the witch hunt stuff, and it would encourage administrations not to hire shitheads (and discourage shitheads from going to work for campaigns/administrations).

It’s probably a bad idea but it got me thinking.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing changes the fact Trump conspired with his attorney and a media outlet to knowingly violate/circumvent campaign finance laws in order to cheat in an election.  
He then tried to cover it up by lying about it to the American people. 


The local radio legal analyst here said yesterday that there is a lot of debate in legal circles around whether or not those payments are actually campaign contributions. Who passes judgment on that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

So my question is: should a SP just be full time job? Would it be good for the country if every administration knew there was a watchdog turning over rocks day and night? Or would it be unconstitutional without specific grounds for investigation?

Ironically, this is exactly why the FBI was set up 100 years ago.

However, over the years the FBI’s mission evolved to go after bank robbers, corporate criminals, spies, and terrorists.

Warren’s new anti-corruption legislation calls for developing a new permanent independent agency to investigate public corruption. 

Not the worst idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

 


The local radio legal analyst here said yesterday that there is a lot of debate in legal circles around whether or not those payments are actually campaign contributions. Who passes judgment on that?

 

Cohen has said under oath those payments were made to directly influence the outcome of the election.

Therefore, campaign money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Cohen has said under oath those payments were made to directly influence the outcome of the election.

Therefore, campaign money. 

the question is a little more nuanced than that.  he's asking if they were against the law.  not whether cohen thought it was "campaign money," or even another step removed, whether it is illegal.

 

and the answer to the question is:  it seems to facially fit the campaign finance law statute.  some future court in a motion to dismiss the indictment or the appellate court appealing the conviction would decide if they haven't already.  

 

edit to add:  the conviction/the indictment meaning some indictment/conviction on similar facts.  not cohen's, because of his voluntary plea

Edited by SuingToGetAMessageBoard?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

I went back and looked through all the times a Special Prosecutor (now called Independent Counsel) has been used in US government history.

Ok I actually looked through about half of them and then I got kind of bored, but the trend seemed to be that the SP almost never finds enough evidence of the crime s/he is investigating for prosecution, or of s/he does it doesn’t stick.

However what s/he does often find is all sorts of other stuff. The classic case is Ken Starr investigating Whitewater and ending up with perjury for the President and convictions of 14 other people.

So my question is: should a SP just be full time job? Would it be good for the country if every administration knew there was a watchdog turning over rocks day and night? Or would it be unconstitutional without specific grounds for investigation?

It would defuse all the witch hunt stuff, and it would encourage administrations not to hire shitheads (and discourage shitheads from going to work for campaigns/administrations).

It’s probably a bad idea but it got me thinking.

1. No, actually now it is the special counsel, created by Justice Department regulations to replace the Independent Counsel Act that previously was in place (and which governed Ken Starr's investigation of Whitewater/Lewinsky).  Today's The Daily podcast from the NY Times actually spends the entire episode talking about how the current system came into being (from Watergate to Clinton to Trump).  The current practice was a correction from what was perceived as too much independence and not enough accountability of the special prosecutor to the people, so the special counsel now must report to the AG, who defines the scope of the counsel's authority.

2. To answer your question, no.  Not only no, but hell no.  I think it would be a terrible idea to install a full time special counsel, without even considering the constitutionality of such a position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rudy is not this stupid. I will not follow his stupid whataboutism. A candidate can not launder money through intermediaries in a deliberate and intentional attempt to thwart campaign finance laws for the purpose of influencing an election and defrauding the American electorate. It is a felony in and of itself and conspiring with others to do so is a felony that is punishable by longer prison sentences. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.  I know we've lost all sense of normalcy in the past year, but JFC, regardless of whether it was a crime, the president when he was a candidate paid off at least two women with whom he had affairs, while his wife was at home with their 3 month old baby, keeping the affairs hidden from the public in a successful effort to win the presidency.  But apparently republicans' moral barometer is just whether this conduct violated a criminal statute.  And if it did, then their moral barometer will go even lower.  Party of "family values" my ass.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.  I know we've lost all sense of normalcy in the past year, but JFC, regardless of whether it was a crime, the president when he was a candidate paid off at least two women with whom he had affairs, while his wife was at home with their 3 month old baby, keeping the affairs hidden from the public in a successful effort to win the presidency.  But apparently republicans' moral barometer is just whether this conduct violated a criminal statute.  And if it did, then their moral barometer will go even lower.  Party of "family values" my ass.

He knowingly broke campaign finance laws in an effort to defraud the American public to win an election.

And that's just one of the things he's done.

He should be removed from office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

He knowingly broke campaign finance laws in an effort to defraud the American public to win an election.

And that's just one of the things he's done.

He should be removed from office.

I have a feeling once more stuff comes out we will be comparing this to tan suits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

He knowingly broke campaign finance laws in an effort to defraud the American public to win an election.

And that's just one of the things he's done.

He should be removed from office.

Regardless of whether he broke the law, he defrauded the American public to win an election.  And he did so to hide reprehensible behavior that was about to come out around the same time as the grab them by the pussy tape.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...