Jump to content

The Robert Mueller Investigation


Hugo Stiglitz

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Pretty much anything Mueller subpoena's him for he can claim executive privilege.  He also doesn't necessarily have to fire Mueller to stop it.  Courts could rule against Mueller.  Let's say Mueller tells the court he needs Trump to answer these questions because he is investigating Trump for obstruction of justice.  Trump's lawyers could then demand Mueller tell them what justice Trump is obstructing.   In other words obstruction of justice means covering up or destroying evidence of a crime or of an attempted crime.  So far Mueller has not charged Trump with a crime.  If there is no crime then there is no obstruction of justice.  If Mueller can not prove he has sufficient evidence of a crime to begin with the courts can rule that he has no case for obstruction of justice and allow Trump's refusal.

This is not true.  Stop saying it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

And again, absence of a crime does not preclude obstruction. 

And, of course, the obstruction was for investigating Michael Flynn, who is currently awaiting sentencing. 

But, heh, Trumpkins will continue to recycle the bullshit line because it sounds truthish.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, TornACL said:

That was exactly my point. That it would take him sexing and murdering young boys for his fan base to move off of their position. Sorry that I was just using humorous exaggeration instead of painting by numbers.

No worries.  I'm not reading all that closely myself today as I am trying to get work done in between all of these very important posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Pretty much anything Mueller subpoena's him for he can claim executive privilege.  He also doesn't necessarily have to fire Mueller to stop it.  Courts could rule against Mueller.  Let's say Mueller tells the court he needs Trump to answer these questions because he is investigating Trump for obstruction of justice.  Trump's lawyers could then demand Mueller tell them what justice Trump is obstructing.   In other words obstruction of justice means covering up or destroying evidence of a crime or of an attempted crime.  So far Mueller has not charged Trump with a crime.  If there is no crime then there is no obstruction of justice.  If Mueller can not prove he has sufficient evidence of a crime to begin with the courts can rule that he has no case for obstruction of justice and allow Trump's refusal.

Are you gaslighting or do you really not understand what constitutes the crime of obstruction?

Also, even Dershowitz (who has been pitching the idea that obstruction requires an underlying crime) stated just the other night that he thought Trump would have to respond to a subpoena and that he may well have waived any executive privilege by virtue of his social media and other public comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Fuck off.  

The questions were not revelatory, that is my only point.  If you read what I posted on this thread, I say exactly the same thing regarding what the ACTUAL questions may reveal, but these are not them, unless Mueller adopts the strategy of letting Trump hoist himself and the leak of these questions gives no insight on that whatsoever.

The questions are also unrevealing because they came from Team Trump as a transcription/paraphrase of the areas of questioning that Team Mueller was willing to tell them about.  I seriously doubt that Team Mueller revealed anything that Team Trump couldn't figure out for itself.

I've been reading them as being akin to a list of topics for the deposition of a corporate representative; they don't state EVERY question to be asked, but they give the witness notice "I'll be asking you about this topic."  In a courtesy exchange of "so what's this interview going to be about?" information, that's how I would share info with the other side.

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

So, a question for the litigators:  within a broad range of questions, how difficult is it for the average non-pathological liar to stay out of the weeds?  We all think Donnie will fail to stay on narrative and eventually get himself in serious trouble, but for the rest of us, is this kind of questioning designed to trip us up or is the truth a fairly easy defense?  (Depending, of course, on what the truth is.)

It all depends on the witness.  Some folks are really good at just answering the question asked.  Others feel the need to "tell their story" at every opportunity.  Folks who do that almost always end up saying WAY more than they should.

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

How to attack Donald is a fascinating question to me.  One way would be to ask these open-ended questions, thereby inviting him to narrate and almost assuredly causing him to lie about something, whether actually material to the proceedings or not.  But it would take longer probably than anyone cares to sit and listen.**  The other way is to lead him down a primrose path of tight, concise questions with clear answers mandated by other evidence so that he either has to admit wrongdoing or the constituent elements of an offense, or destroy his own credibility.  Or some combination.

**any agreed questioning session one would think would be time-limited to make this difficult.  I would think that the ins and outs of "Presidential testimony" would also encourage the presiding judge of any grand jury to also time-limit the testimony.

 

1 hour ago, ShaggyBevo RIP said:

Bingo. Good attorneys don't ask questions that they don't already know the answer.

 

1 hour ago, Pig Bellmont said:

A lot depends on the evidence out there and the underlying facts. That said I think generally these sorts of things are slanted in the government’s favor, meaning there is a high likelihood an average person could fuck themselves - even if represented by an attorney. I think a large factor depends on the government’s motives with that person and what the overall purpose of the investigation is. 

Some of the people who screw themselves the most are the ones who think they are the smartest person in the room. It’s incredibly dangerous to underestimate an adversary attorney or make assumptions why they are asking certain questions. 

What's fascinating here is that I think the best approach is a little of both.

You absolutely ask the tight, direct questions where you think you'll put him in a corner and/or catch him in a lie.  He'll STILL give rambling responses (go back and read any of his deposition transcripts from prior cases -- it takes multiple tries to get him to answer the actual question asked).  So, there will be a good number of those -- the "don't ask questions to which you don't already know the answer."

But at the same time, sometimes, you get a witness who you KNOW will bite if you put enough bait in the water.  And that's where we get to the "thinks they're the smartest person in the room" witness.  Seriously, all of the REALLY TERRIBLE (as opposed to just weak, mediocre, etc.) witnesses I have seen in my career have been of that variety.  Feed out line and bait, and watch what they do with it.  For those types, one of the best "questions" is, after they've talked for a minute, just look at him and nod your head, like "go on" -- and oh, they do.  They tell you ALL the reasons why they are the best and greatest, and handled the deal perfectly, and nobody could have done what I did, wanna know how clever I was?  I even used a BURNER phone when I called my Russian contact to arrange for the money delivery!  

I guarantee you that Mueller has read EVERY SINGLE deposition that Trump has ever given.  He knows EXACTLY his style of testifying.  If he ever gets a shot at it, he'll be able to play it perfectly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^

Can he claim executive privilege for events that happened before he was elected?

Nope.

 
I also understand there is no Constitutional protection for crimes committed before becoming POTUS.
 
Also recall sealed indictments circumvent statute of limitations once filed.  There was sustantial chatter before Comey got fired that sealed indictments got filed against Trump, for what, I have no idea.  They're not skating.
 
I expect we will be privy to all kinds of firsts wrt to Trump and the Constitution.  Lots of hypotheticals and opining will be put to the test.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EMAWesome said:

Pretty much anything Mueller subpoena's him for he can claim executive privilege.  He also doesn't necessarily have to fire Mueller to stop it.  Courts could rule against Mueller.  Let's say Mueller tells the court he needs Trump to answer these questions because he is investigating Trump for obstruction of justice.  Trump's lawyers could then demand Mueller tell them what justice Trump is obstructing.   In other words obstruction of justice means covering up or destroying evidence of a crime or of an attempted crime.  So far Mueller has not charged Trump with a crime.  If there is no crime then there is no obstruction of justice.  If Mueller can not prove he has sufficient evidence of a crime to begin with the courts can rule that he has no case for obstruction of justice and allow Trump's refusal.

Wrong.

Wrong, even firing Mueller won't stop it in the end.

Yes, but courts go with precedent and it's well established according to every lawyer but Dersh and Twicehorn. 

Okay, Mueller tells the court he needs Trump to answer. Trump's attorney's demand to know what justice Trump is obstructing. Mueller says the investigations into Michael Flynn and the rest of the treason bunch. Doesn't matter if there was a crime or not, Trump has clearly and repeatedly attempted to obstruct that investigation. 

I have to hand it to you, you dropped an impressive amount of lies in one post. It was very Trumpeque in tone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EMAWesome said:

Pretty much anything Mueller subpoena's him for he can claim executive privilege.  He also doesn't necessarily have to fire Mueller to stop it.  Courts could rule against Mueller.  Let's say Mueller tells the court he needs Trump to answer these questions because he is investigating Trump for obstruction of justice.  Trump's lawyers could then demand Mueller tell them what justice Trump is obstructing.   In other words obstruction of justice means covering up or destroying evidence of a crime or of an attempted crime.  So far Mueller has not charged Trump with a crime.  If there is no crime then there is no obstruction of justice.  If Mueller can not prove he has sufficient evidence of a crime to begin with the courts can rule that he has no case for obstruction of justice and allow Trump's refusal.

Actually, oral testimony isn't broadly subject to a privilege claim the way documentary evidence might be.  Any court would rule that the privilege has to be asserted on a question by question basis and sorted out later, in a civil case.  That judge could order Trump or any witness to answer any question that does not seek privileged material in the answer.

The kind of weird thing here is that Trump can probably refuse to answer any question he/his lawyers want without immediate ramification because there isn't a "judge" on this "case."  Unless it was before the grand jury.  Of course, that might have the same effect as taking the Fifth in any impeachment proceeding.

And you are not correct on obstruction.  It's been discussed before, but 18 USC 1503:

Quote

(a)

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, and the act in violation of this section involves the threat of physical force or physical force, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.

And Pig is right about this being slanted in Mueller's favor.  In a civil deposition, both sides presumably have exchanged all the relevant documents and diligent counsel will know "what's out there" that the deposing lawyer is gonna try to shove up his client's ass and can prepare accordingly.  In criminal litigation, there are no reciprocal discovery rules, so Trump's lawyers don't know what Mueller has, so there is a much greater chance that Trump is confronted with a "smoking gun" document that belies his testimony or paints him in a corner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not following why some of you think it matters so much about things like the details of the Comey firing.  As I see it he didn't want Comey investigating and prosecuting Flynn.  We know that.  What we (I) don't know is whether (1)Trump and Flynn were in on some crime together, (2) Flynn knew of some crime by Trump or (3) Trump knew of some crime by Flynn that reflected badly on Trump.  Said another way, was he trying to protect himself or did he just not like the idea of the government going after a "good guy"?

Firing Comey to protect a "good guy" is not going anywhere.  You can create a perjury trap, you can expose some ominous details, and you can illustrate that it was even more inappropriate than we knew.  But that dog won't hunt in Congress and I don't see it possible to indict the Prez over that (but what do I know about that).  The thing that would play is if Flynn was working with Trump on something nefarious and Trump wanted to keep his own role secret.  One way the obstruction is a bunch of nothing; the other way it gets Trump bounced from office.  So tell me about what Trump and Flynn were doing, and I don't need any more info on the Comey firing.

All the issues are the same.  Tell me about the underlying crime, not the mechanics of obstruction.

Edited by TahoeHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

KIEV, Ukraine — In the United States, Paul J. Manafort is facing prosecution on charges of money laundering and financial fraud stemming from his decade of work for a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine.

But in Ukraine, where officials are wary of offending President Trump, four meandering cases that involve Mr. Manafort, Mr. Trump’s former campaign chairman, have been effectively frozen by Ukraine’s chief prosecutor.

The cases are just too sensitive for a government deeply reliant on United States financial and military aid, and keenly aware of Mr. Trump’s distaste for the investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, into possible collusion between Russia and his campaign, some lawmakers say.

The decision to halt the investigations by an anticorruption prosecutor was handed down at a delicate moment for Ukraine, as the Trump administration was finalizing plans to sell the country sophisticated anti-tank missiles, called Javelins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

I'm not following why some of you think it matters so much about things like the details of the Comey firing.  As I see it he didn't want Comey investigating and prosecuting Flynn.  We know that.  What we (I) don't know is whether (1)Trump and Flynn were in on some crime together, (2) Flynn knew of some crime by Trump or (3) Trump knew of some crime by Flynn that reflected badly on Trump.  Said another way, was he trying to protect himself or did he just not like the idea of the government going after a "good guy"?

Firing Comey to protect a "good guy" is not going anywhere.  You can create a perjury trap, you can expose some ominous details, and you can illustrate that it was even more inappropriate than we knew.  But that dog won't hunt in Congress and I don't see it possible to indict the Prez over that (but what do I know about that).  The thing that would play is if Flynn was working with Trump on something nefarious and Trump wanted to keep his own role secret.  One way the obstruction is a bunch of nothing; the other way it gets Trump bounced from office.  So tell me about what Trump and Flynn were doing, and I don't need any more info on the Comey firing.

All the issues are the same.  Tell me about the underlying crime, not the mechanics of obstruction.

Wait....you think that "obstruction of justice" is only a crime if it's to hide a crime committed by the obstructor?

Really?

If you commit a crime, are on the run, hide out on my property -- and look, I like you, you're a good guy...you bring me donuts -- and I tell the FBI "nope, haven't seen Tahoe, don't know where he is, in fact, I'd go look for him in Alaska"....I'm gonna be in heap big trouble.  And that wasn't to cover up JACK SHIT that I did wrong.  I just did it because...wait for it....I think you're a "good guy."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Nivek said:

why are they spending so much on attorneys?  if they were not doing anything wrong....

I worked (briefly) on several civil litigations where I thought the plaintiff's claims had no merit.  One had been going for eight years and the defense had spent over $70MM, and that's at 1980s billing rates.  I'll guess you could double it for today.  They were in phase I of what could theoretically have been seven phases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

I'm not following why some of you think it matters so much about things like the details of the Comey firing.  As I see it he didn't want Comey investigating and prosecuting Flynn.  We know that.  What we (I) don't know is whether (1)Trump and Flynn were in on some crime together, (2) Flynn knew of some crime by Trump or (3) Trump knew of some crime by Flynn that reflected badly on Trump.  Said another way, was he trying to protect himself or did he just not like the idea of the government going after a "good guy"?

Firing Comey to protect a "good guy" is not going anywhere.  You can create a perjury trap, you can expose some ominous details, and you can illustrate that it was even more inappropriate than we knew.  But that dog won't hunt in Congress and I don't see it possible to indict the Prez over that (but what do I know about that).  The thing that would play is if Flynn was working with Trump on something nefarious and Trump wanted to keep his own role secret.  One way the obstruction is a bunch of nothing; the other way it gets Trump bounced from office.  So tell me about what Trump and Flynn were doing, and I don't need any more info on the Comey firing.

All the issues are the same.  Tell me about the underlying crime, not the mechanics of obstruction.

You are sniffing around the right area, but Trump's answers could be key to obstruction, at least in the courts.  If he admits that his motive in firing Comey was "corrupt," ie to bail out his friends/family or prevent the discovery of wrongdoing, then he's fucked.  But he can probably couch it in terms of it being a waste of time and resources and bring it within traditional executive prerogatives that aren't "corrupt."  He can certainly muddle the intent issue.  And remember that any theoretical jury is not likely going to be composed of Trump-haters or Trump-likers, either, so they aren't sharing the predilections of people on this thread, either way.

I doubt this Congress, or maybe even any Congress, would go to the mat on impeachment on obstruction on these "facts", as currently known.  But, the first article of impeachment against Nixon for obstruction was based on his refusal to turn over the Watergate tapes, which at least presented some novel legal questions.  But the tapes themselves established that he approved payments to the burglars after the fact.  So it all depends on what comes out in the wash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You are sniffing around the right area, but Trump's answers could be key to obstruction, at least in the courts.  ...

My argument was not a legal argument.  It was a "getting bounced" argument.

I have argued that the people and Congress will have some concept of what they find abhorrent or corrupt.  It won't be a legal test, just as Clinton's sins weren't judged with a legal test.

Imagine that instead of a Comey firing it was a Flynn pardon.  Ask yourself whether it would have been a corrupt pardon.  I think that's the way the Comey firing will be viewed by the public.  That's the way I'll view it.  Was it corrupt?  Was it about protecting Trump?

There are sleazy pardons (e.g. Marc Rich, Joe Arpaio).  But that's different than a corrupt pardon.  Tell me whether a Flynn pardon would have been corrupt.

Edited by TahoeHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

KIEV, Ukraine — In the United States, Paul J. Manafort is facing prosecution on charges of money laundering and financial fraud stemming from his decade of work for a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine.

But in Ukraine, where officials are wary of offending President Trump, four meandering cases that involve Mr. Manafort, Mr. Trump’s former campaign chairman, have been effectively frozen by Ukraine’s chief prosecutor.

The cases are just too sensitive for a government deeply reliant on United States financial and military aid, and keenly aware of Mr. Trump’s distaste for the investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, into possible collusion between Russia and his campaign, some lawmakers say.

The decision to halt the investigations by an anticorruption prosecutor was handed down at a delicate moment for Ukraine, as the Trump administration was finalizing plans to sell the country sophisticated anti-tank missiles, called Javelins.

The Javelins have already been delivered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's almost as if the latest newsletter laid out explicit instructions for the donut gatherers to obfuscate potential obstruction of justice by Trump.

Fortunately, Robert Mueller isn't going to overlook the fact that Trump TOLD LESTER HOLT that his motivation for firing Comey was (in part) frustration with the investigation into ties between Russia and the Trump campaign.

Try harder, donut gatherers.  You fucking traitors.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

My argument was not a legal argument.  It was a "getting bounced" argument.

I have argued that the people and Congress will have some concept of what they find abhorrent or corrupt.  It won't be a legal test, just as Clinton's sins weren't judged with a legal test.

Imagine that instead of a Comey firing it was a Flynn pardon.  Ask yourself whether it would have been a corrupt pardon.  I think that's the way the Comey firing will be viewed by the public.  That's the way I'll view it.  Was it corrupt?  Was it about protecting Trump?

There are sleazy pardons (e.g. Marc Rich, Joe Arpaio).  But that's different than a corrupt pardon.  Tell me whether a Flynn pardon would have been corrupt.

Well, unlike an ongoing investigation or court case, in the pardon scenario, justice has run its course and can no longer be obstructed.  So, no matter how corrupt the motive in the pardon, it isn't obstruction.  I suppose a pre-conviction pardon could be considered obstruction, but I think that's getting way out over the skis.  Let me remind you that Rich wasn't just sleazy, it was the subject of a criminal investigation for pardon obtained by quid pro quo in the form of a donation to the Clinton library fund.

But, you are probably right in that there most likely will never be any sort of criminal case, arising out of this, against Donald Trump.  It's all going to be sorted out in the political arena on the basis of Mueller's report.  And people are going to think whatever they probably already think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's almost as if the latest newsletter laid out explicit instructions for the donut gatherers to obfuscate potential obstruction of justice by Trump.

Fortunately, Robert Mueller isn't going to overlook the fact that Trump TOLD LESTER HOLT that his motivation for firing Comey was (in part) frustration with the investigation into ties between Russia and the Trump campaign.

Try harder, donut gatherers.  You fucking traitors.

Don't forget that literally every person that handwaves away obstruction also cites "respect for rule of law" as a positive quality of Trump 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of Lester Holt, here's a partial transcript of the interview.  https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3718523-NBC-News-Exclusive-Interview-With-Donald-Trump.html#document/p2

 

What a fucking mess.  If you're Mueller, and this thing is transcribed, this is just exactly what you don't want the interview to look like.  And I suspect it will be a real challenge to keep it on track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Speaking of Lester Holt, here's a partial transcript of the interview.  https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3718523-NBC-News-Exclusive-Interview-With-Donald-Trump.html#document/p2

 

What a fucking mess.  If you're Mueller, and this thing is transcribed, this is just exactly what you don't want the interview to look like.  And I suspect it will be a real challenge to keep it on track.

giphy.gif?w=326&zoom=2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ShaggyBevo RIP said:

 

With more thought, should that question should be before he was sworn in?

Executive privilege only applies to "deliberations" or deliberative communications with advisors and in some cases between advisors, while in office, performing executive functions.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, seven said:

Don't forget that literally every person that handwaves away obstruction also cites "respect for rule of law" as a positive quality of Trump 

In fairness to Tahoe, what I think he's trying to say (in his typical Grandpa Simpson manner) is that since impeachment is a political process and not a strictly legal one, then we have to keep the optics, or politics, in mind for building pressure on the Senate to actually do the right thing and oust the orange, pink, and yellow motherfucker.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, bolverk said:

In fairness to Tahoe, what I think he's trying to say (in his typical Grandpa Simpson manner) is that since impeachment is a political process and not a strictly legal one, then we have to keep the optics, or politics, in mind for building pressure on the Senate to actually do the right thing and oust the orange, pink, and yellow motherfucker.

Certainly. 

And the political process will be decided by GOP Senators and traditional Republicans who think pretty much as I do.  We suspect a problem but we're not ousting the guy unless we're shown the facts.  Show me that he had a deal with Russia, or that he had a money laundering operation, or that there was massive bribery in overseas development, or that he was doing illegal deals with the mob in NYC or Atlantic City.  All these are plausible but I've seen nothing real.  Mueller acts like he has something.  Trump acts like Mueller has something.  But I haven't seen anything big yet.  I've seen inappropriate acts, sleazy acts and suspicious acts.  I've seen conflicts of interest.  Maybe illegal acts.  But I haven't seen the stuff that says we've got a corrupt President who has committed serious crimes.

Mueller may take his report straight to McConnell.  McConnell (actually all the leaders of both parties) is smart as a whip.  He doesn't lead; he interprets how his caucus thinks.  All the leaders do. They're almost never wrong about reading their caucus.  Everybody will know whether it's Nixon stuff or Clinton stuff.  They'll know right away.  They'll move fast and in concert.  You'll know right away whether they plan to bounce Trump.

Mueller will decide when this drama plays out.  He knows not to play his hand before it's time.  Trump is a formidable manipulator of the media.  Mueller will have a clear strategy about whether and when to shoot at the King.  He won't present a half-ass case.  If that's all he has he won't go after the President.  He'll know how to read the tea leaves too.  He'll know whether his facts spell horror the centrist Republicans or not.

If you want to read this find people like me because my wing of the GOP will decide this.  If we say I'm out it's over.  If we don't Trump is safe.  And right now we await Mueller's investigation with an open mind.  We want it to go forward but want the truth.  I believe we'll get it and the truth will rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Certainly. 

And the political process will be decided by GOP Senators and traditional Republicans who think pretty much as I do.  We suspect a problem but we're not ousting the guy unless we're shown the facts.  Show me that he had a deal with Russia, or that he had a money laundering operation, or that there was massive bribery in overseas development, or that he was doing illegal deals with the mob in NYC or Atlantic City.  All these are plausible but I've seen nothing real.  Mueller acts like he has something.  Trump acts like Mueller has something.  But I haven't seen anything big yet.  I've seen inappropriate acts, sleazy acts and suspicious acts.  I've seen conflicts of interest.  Maybe illegal acts.  But I haven't seen the stuff that says we've got a corrupt President who has committed serious crimes.

Mueller may take his report straight to McConnell.  McConnell (actually all the leaders of both parties) is smart as a whip.  He doesn't lead; he interprets how his caucus thinks.  All the leaders do. They're almost never wrong about reading their caucus.  Everybody will know whether it's Nixon stuff or Clinton stuff.  They'll know right away.  They'll move fast and in concert.  You'll know right away whether they plan to bounce Trump.

Mueller will decide when this drama plays out.  He knows not to play his hand before it's time.  Trump is a formidable manipulator of the media.  Mueller will have a clear strategy about whether and when to shoot at the King.  He won't present a half-ass case.  If that's all he has he won't go after the President.  He'll know how to read the tea leaves too.  He'll know whether his facts spell horror the centrist Republicans or not.

If you want to read this find people like me because my wing of the GOP will decide this.  If we say I'm out it's over.  If we don't Trump is safe.  And right now we await Mueller's investigation with an open mind.  We want it to go forward but want the truth.  I believe we'll get it and the truth will rule.

You don't say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Pods said:

Wrong.

Wrong, even firing Mueller won't stop it in the end.

Yes, but courts go with precedent and it's well established according to every lawyer but Dersh and Twicehorn. 

Okay, Mueller tells the court he needs Trump to answer. Trump's attorney's demand to know what justice Trump is obstructing. Mueller says the investigations into Michael Flynn and the rest of the treason bunch. Doesn't matter if there was a crime or not, Trump has clearly and repeatedly attempted to obstruct that investigation. 

I have to hand it to you, you dropped an impressive amount of lies in one post. It was very Trumpeque in tone. 

Wut?


Because I explore the ways Trump could avoid a conviction, which isn't going to happen anyway, doesn't mean I support Trump or think he should walk.  "Obstruction of justice" doesn't exist in a vacuum, it exists when a jury or some other fact-finder finds someone guilty of it, particularly when the statute is written in the vague-y "corruptly" way that it is.  Your opinion and my opinion on whether Trump's motive was "corrupt" is not relevant.

And Mueller hasn't said a goddamn thing about obstruction.  Obviously, he's chasing it down, but we don't have the first clue what he's really thinking other than Manafort and Gates are money launderers and Flynn and Papawhatsit lied to federal investigators.  And the Russians did foul stuff related to the campaign.

Is there enough "obstruction" or "abuse of power" to support an impeachment and conviction if Congress would do it, yes I think so, it wouldn't bother me if they did.  I'd like to see Trump not President anymore, but impeachment takes its own toll.  I think the reality is that this Congress won't do it absent some more explosive allegations and proof, which may be forthcoming.

And let me make it clear in case you are confused:  I am not saying Trump skates because he can fire Comey because he's the President, but because he can point to "non-corrupt" reasons for so doing and whomever is responsible for finding the facts might well buy them.  Precedent has nothing to do with it, but the hazards of proof of "corrupt intent" do. 

For many years, patent litigators asserted the patent invalidity/unenforceablity "defense" of fraud on the Patent Office, which required showing the withholding of a prior art reference with the intent to deceive or defraud the Patent Office.  In most of those cases, like obstruction, proof of intent was the key factor and I have seen some weird-ass (in my opinion) jury verdicts (and even judge decisions).  It can get real hairy and that's just with a clear and convincing standard of proof, to the point where it has become a rarely asserted claim.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

What makes you think you should have seen anything?  Your concern would be comforting, except that you're full shit.

You're a rude moron.  No need to answer you.  Everybody with sense knows my opinion on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...