Jump to content

The Robert Mueller Investigation


Hugo Stiglitz

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Where were y’all back during the run up to the Iraq War where we lost thousands of valiant soldiers and many more came home broken. I railed against that bullshit war during the hornfans days and was hated for it. We were committing torture. According to the press right now is the worst days of the Republic. Compare the disaster of W’s war to this bullshit and it’s not even the same ballpark when it comes to seriousness.

Is the motherfucker who's advocating for a war with Iran, bitching about the war in Irag?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:


Does Rudy even speak English anymore?

It is kNOwn

 

I really think he wouldn't even make it in gen pop at a nursing home.  This motherfucker would be in the lock down dementia unit.  Zero question about it.  He'd be shitting on his meal tray and trying to eat out of the staff toilet.  He'd lose a dozen pair of glasses every week.  What a fucking idiot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours 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.

Remember when Clinton lying about getting a BJ as a major crime?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours 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?
 

This post kind of highlights why you have to be careful with "special" or "independent" counsel.  We have a very large and expensive federal investigatory and prosecutorial service for just the purpose of investigating and prosecuting crime at the federal level.  It even has "public integrity" units dedicated to uncovering and prosecuting public corruption.  It so happens that under our current scheme, those agencies (FBI, DOJ, others) are "executive" agencies, meaning their heads are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the executive, ie the President.

One might quibble as to whether those agencies should maybe be under congressional or judicial "control," but the system is fairly well understood and we have a pretty good notion of how the checks and balances work on that system.  We know how the congress and the courts and even the president can operate to correct malfunctions in the system.  The agencies are full of civil servants whose employment is not generally subject to political influence or whim and are believed to be "professional." The existing apparatus seems to do just fine with congressmen, judges, and state officials.

The special or independent counsel, as conceived in American law, (technically, they were "special prosecutors," then "independent counsel" under an act of congress, then "special counsel" after the act of congress expired) is appointed ONLY when there is a conflict of interest posed by the investigation or prosecution, which typically means that the special prosecutor is charged to investigate and/or prosecute wrongdoing at the upper reaches of the executive branch, where the officials under investigation might have both the inclination and the power to curb the investigation/prosecution.

All of the special/independent/prosecutors/counsel have operated outside the normal confines of the executive agencies that would investigate/prosecute if not for the conflict of interest.  They have not been full time employees of the agencies and they are not under the day-to-day supervision or control of the AG or the President.

A speclal counsel is not, and never has been, some roving public integrity investigator/prosecutor.  Most legal scholars and political scientists believe that such counsel should be used very sparingly and under very controlled conditions to avoid undue accretion of power and rogue prosecutions not subject to the normal checks and balances applicable to the FBI and DOJ, among others, in other words, the standard federal law enforcement apparatus.

Before the Independent Counsel Law, in 1978, and after it expired in 1998, special prosecutors and counsel were appointed by the President or the AG and weren't very far outside the normal apparatus.  The actual Independent Counsel, though, was subject to a more complex appointment and supervision scheme involving the AG, Congress, and a three-judge panel of the DC Circuit.  Those independent counsel were actually more independent than the current and past versions.

So, should we have "public watchdog" investigators and prosecutors?  We already have em.  Should they be outside the normal apparatus we have for that purpose?  Probably not.

Should we have an act of congress governing appointment, removal, and reporting functions of a special or independent counsel, and subjecting them to control of the legislative and/or judicial branches?  Very probably so.  A bonus effect of such an act is an argument that by signing such a law, the president may waive immunity to prosecution for the office of the president.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

This post kind of highlights why you have to be careful with "special" or "independent" counsel.  We have a very large and expensive federal investigatory and prosecutorial service for just the purpose of investigating and prosecuting crime at the federal level.  It even has "public integrity" units dedicated to uncovering and prosecuting public corruption.  It so happens that under our current scheme, those agencies (FBI, DOJ, others) are "executive" agencies, meaning their heads are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the executive, ie the President.

One might quibble as to whether those agencies should maybe be under congressional or judicial "control," but the system is fairly well understood and we have a pretty good notion of how the checks and balances work on that system.  We know how the congress and the courts and even the president can operate to correct malfunctions in the system.  The agencies are full of civil servants whose employment is not generally subject to political influence or whim and are believed to be "professional." The existing apparatus seems to do just fine with congressmen, judges, and state officials.

The special or independent counsel, as conceived in American law, (technically, they were "special prosecutors," then "independent counsel" under an act of congress, then "special counsel" after the act of congress expired) is appointed ONLY when there is a conflict of interest posed by the investigation or prosecution, which typically means that the special prosecutor is charged to investigate and/or prosecute wrongdoing at the upper reaches of the executive branch, where the officials under investigation might have both the inclination and the power to curb the investigation/prosecution.

All of the special/independent/prosecutors/counsel have operated outside the normal confines of the executive agencies that would investigate/prosecute if not for the conflict of interest.  They have not been full time employees of the agencies and they are not under the day-to-day supervision or control of the AG or the President.

A speclal counsel is not, and never has been, some roving public integrity investigator/prosecutor.  Most legal scholars and political scientists believe that such counsel should be used very sparingly and under very controlled conditions to avoid undue accretion of power and rogue prosecutions not subject to the normal checks and balances applicable to the FBI and DOJ, among others, in other words, the standard federal law enforcement apparatus.

Before the Independent Counsel Law, in 1978, and after it expired in 1998, special prosecutors and counsel were appointed by the President or the AG and weren't very far outside the normal apparatus.  The actual Independent Counsel, though, was subject to a more complex appointment and supervision scheme involving the AG, Congress, and a three-judge panel of the DC Circuit.  Those independent counsel were actually more independent than the current and past versions.

So, should we have "public watchdog" investigators and prosecutors?  We already have em.  Should they be outside the normal apparatus we have for that purpose?  Probably not.

Should we have an act of congress governing appointment, removal, and reporting functions of a special or independent counsel, and subjecting them to control of the legislative and/or judicial branches?  Very probably so.  A bonus effect of such an act is an argument that by signing such a law, the president may waive immunity to prosecution for the office of the president.

 

 

I think that the indictment of Duncan Hunter, a fucking 100% trumpkin dipshit, by a GOP led DOJ,  reinforces your point nicely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

I think that the indictment of Duncan Hunter, a fucking 100% trumpkin dipshit, by a GOP led DOJ,  reinforces your point nicely. 

Yeah, there's tons of examples of prosecutions of non-executive branch politicians and judges by the normal FBI and DOJ.  Are they aggressive enough?  I don't know, but I don't believe that problem, if it exists, is solved by an independent or special counsel.

I forgot to add that Ken Starr was the most prominent independent counsel appointed under the 10 or so years of independent counsel law.  He was all over the fucking place, BUT, each time his investigation took on a new direction, he had to apply to that three-judge panel of the DC Circuit for approval, and received it.  I think those kind of procedures are a good thing.  it increases independence, and decreases the amount of "witch hunt" bitching that targets can do.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 1
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.


This is our concern dude
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A post upstream mentioned the imminent NY AG civil case against the Trump Foundation which includes Trump and three kids, and has the potential to lead to criminal charges.

Tonight on another Trump entity, the Trump Organization:

- Not Fed

- 2 senior company officials under scrutiny, one strong candidate:   Allen Weisselberg. Trump Organization CFO AND Trump Foundation Treasurer

 

Edited by triplehorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

A post upstream mentioned the imminent NY AG civil case against the Trump Foundation which includes Trump and three kids, and has the potential to lead to criminal charges.

Tonight on another Trump entity, the Trump Organization:

- Not Fed

- 2 senior company officials under scrutiny, one strong candidate:   Allen Weisselberg. Trump Organization CFO AND Trump Foundation Treasurer

 

The two officials from the Cohen plea, executive-1 and executive-2 who approved payment on the phoney invoice are Eric and Don Jr.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the fact that the N.Y. AG is going to need the Trump Foundation tax returns in order to investigate the tax fraud. I suspect that once they start pulling on that thread there will be a lot of unraveling. If we are lucky they might even be made public at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Having her on national TV shows seems rather cruel.  Georgie Porgie is a pimple on the ass of this whole thing.

Maybe it’s just me but she’s working her ass off begging for pardons and legal fees for a coffee boy that’s only looking at six months max.

Me thinks Papadopoulos might be facing more criminal charges.  Like obstruction or Papi could get rolled up in the larger conspiracy to defraud charge. 18 USC 371

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 Maybe it’s just me but she’s working her ass off begging for pardons and legal fees for a coffee boy that’s only looking at six months max.

 Me thinks Papadopoulos might be facing more criminal charges.  Like obstruction or Papi could get rolled up in the larger conspiracy to defraud charge. 18 USC 371

Or she's a prime grade attention horse. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Or she's a prime grade attention horse. 

Perhaps some of that too but I’ve been following her Twitter account for a year and her feed was quiet up until a few weeks ago and now it looks like she’s in panic mode. 21 tweets over the past two days.

There’s probably something to that. 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

It matters if the conduct they can prove is against some criminal statute.  That’s what makes it criminal. 

It doesn't matter.  As a practical matter, trump won't be indicted.  And he's already committed multiple impeachable offenses, not the least of which is his repeated violations of the emoluments clause.  He won't be indicted and he won't be impeached.  Whether his conduct violated a criminal statute (it did) doesn't matter.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Perhaps some of that too but I’ve been following her Twitter account for a year and her feed was quiet up until a few weeks ago and now it looks like she’s in panic mode. 21 tweets over the past two days.

There’s probably something to that. 

Maybe her house is about to be foreclosed.  Or she has a sick parent.  Or anything.  Why would P's wife have any inside knowledge on the Russia investigation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, lemonlime said:

Maybe her house is about to be foreclosed.  Or she has a sick parent.  Or anything.  Why would P's wife have any inside knowledge on the Russia investigation?

Papadopoulos is forbidden to speak publicly about the investigation.  He’s using his wife as a proxy.  

 

In other news:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Maybe it’s just me but she’s working her ass off begging for pardons and legal fees for a coffee boy that’s only looking at six months max.

Me thinks Papadopoulos might be facing more criminal charges.  Like obstruction or Papi could get rolled up in the larger conspiracy to defraud charge. 18 USC 371

 

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Perhaps some of that too but I’ve been following her Twitter account for a year and her feed was quiet up until a few weeks ago and now it looks like she’s in panic mode. 21 tweets over the past two days.

There’s probably something to that. 

If Papadopolous blows his plea deal, per the original arrest warrant, he could be looking at 10 years, not six months.  And yes obstruction of justice was listed in addition to lying to FBI.

I know translating Spicey is a beating, but she caught some important events that went largely unnoticed:

and

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, DiceHands said:

If Pecker has immunity, he must have something pretty good.  No one gets that deal without having a smoking gun. 

This potentially ruins a lot of his business going forward, and not just the National Enquirer part. There’s going to be a whole lot of people wondering a) what did the FBI see or learn about me, and b) will Pecker flip on me.

Some serious shit went down for Pecker to tell-all. 

Also means he’s not afraid of Trump.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems much ado about very little.  The government's sentencing memorandum argues for a term of imprisonment, rather than no imprisonment.  At no point does it argue that more than six months should be imposed, nor does it strenuously argue for the full six months.

 

I don't recall any "arrest warrant," and it isn't on the OSC site.  The initiating document there is the information, which alleges a single count of false statement, with a maximum sentence of five years.  Inasmuch as the sentencing memorandum indicates that he provided no meaningful cooperation, it seems that further charges would be warranted, if that was "under the table."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Seems much ado about very little.  The government's sentencing memorandum argues for a term of imprisonment, rather than no imprisonment.  At no point does it argue that more than six months should be imposed, nor does it strenuously argue for the full six months.

 

I don't recall any "arrest warrant," and it isn't on the OSC site.  The initiating document there is the information, which alleges a single count of false statement, with a maximum sentence of five years.  Inasmuch as the sentencing memorandum indicates that he provided no meaningful cooperation, it seems that further charges would be warranted, if that was "under the table."

This is regarding Pops right?  Not the new immunity deal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON CLINTON FOUNDATION: SHUT IT DOWN

Hillary Clinton is the defender of the corrupt and rigged status quo. The Clintons have spent decades as insiders lining their own pockets and taking care of donors instead of the American people. It is now clear that the Clinton Foundation is the most corrupt enterprise in political history. What they were doing during Crooked Hillary’s time as Secretary of State was wrong then, and it is wrong now. It must be shut down immediately.

– Donald J. Trump

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hardly even log on anymore but I was curious to see the reaction to the Chief Financial Officer of the Trump Organization being granted immunity.  The guy knows everything about Trump Inc and this is the point at which Trump will realize his goose is completely cooked. Weisselberg knows the depth of Trump's corruption, and he ONLY will recieve immunity for crimes he confesses and testifies to.  

He's gonna need to take a week of vacation to testify...

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON CLINTON FOUNDATION: SHUT IT DOWN

Hillary Clinton is the defender of the corrupt and rigged status quo. The Clintons have spent decades as insiders lining their own pockets and taking care of donors instead of the American people. It is now clear that the Clinton Foundation is the most corrupt enterprise in political history. What they were doing during Crooked Hillary’s time as Secretary of State was wrong then, and it is wrong now. It must be shut down immediately.

– Donald J. Trump

When and where is this from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Anastasis said:


Pecker has the pee pee tape.

It doesn’t matter to the evangelicals. What he did in the past is for the Lord to forgive. He had put his faith in the Lord the FIRST TIME he put his hand on the Bible during the inauguration. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Due to the unwritten 60 days before election rule, we may get a flurry of developments next week before the investigations go dark until after the midterms.

The first thing investigators would have likely looked with regards to Trump is the finances.  That area is still a black box. 

It’s still up in the air if we’re going to get a pre-election ruling on the big elephant in the room, obstruction of justice.  However, at this point I’m not sure Mueller telling us all Trump certainly obstructed justice would do much good.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Due to the unwritten 60 days before election rule, we may get a flurry of developments next week before the investigations go dark until after the midterms.

The first thing investigators would have likely looked with regards to Trump is the finances.  That area is still a black box. 

It’s still up in the air if we’re going to get a pre-election ruling on the big elephant in the room, obstruction of justice.  However, at this point I’m not sure Mueller telling us all Trump certainly obstructed justice would do much good.  

What 60 day rule?

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...