The Robert Mueller Investigation

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

The dems aren't going to impeach Trump which is a mistake in my opinion because it sets a terrible precedent and further erodes the checks and balances in our democracy.  Oh I get it, Trump would never be convicted in the Senate but do you really think Trump wants to go down in history as the third president to be impeached?  I don't.  

This "fire up Trump's base" stuff is fucking nonsense.  They're already fired up.  They live in a constant state of perpetual fake outrage. That cake is baked.  The democrats have enough time left on the clock right now to get away with impeachment and a failure to convict in the Senate.  As long as the vote is take in the Senate by the end of 2019, it would just be a footnote for the 2020 election.  Even if unsuccessful, the process alone would be politically crippling for Trump because what he has done is far worse than anything Nixon did. 

Remember when Trump orchestrated the longest government shutdown in American history for absolutely nothing?  That was three months ago.  

The clock is on the democrats side but this is the only clear head shot they're going to get on Trump before 2020.  Mueller gave Congress enough information to shape public opinion through hearings and successfully remove Trump if the political will is there. 

Moreover, it's not just the democrats that are abandoning their duty here in the name of "the next election", the Republicans are also to blame but their treachery has been so normalized over the past two years we fail to call them out anymore.  

[GRHorn 105]

13 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I don’t know about Congress but I have a shitload of questions for Rod Rosenstein.  There’s no way he escaped from witnessing or playing an unwitting role in some obstructy behavior.  How many times over the last year did we hear Rosenstein was being fired or leaving?  There has to be more to those stories.

Were you ever asked to limit the scope of the Russia investigation?  Did you ever limit the scope of the investigation? 

Why didn’t Mueller follow the money? 

How many times did the President question you about the Russia investigation?  Did any of the President’s subordinates contact you about the Russia investigation?  

Rosenstein set up the special counsel correct?  Are there any rules or norms against them being involved in any way with the investigation? 

[David Dennison 18856]

9 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

It's not only a political question.  It is a Constitutional question.   You can't refuse to do what the Constitution requires you to do just because it is scary. We are 'a nation of laws.'  And the Constitution is big law.

The Constitution does not require impeachment.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

4 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Rosenstein set up the special counsel correct?  Are there any rules or norms against them being involved in any way with the investigation? 

Rosenstein was overseeing the investigation the majority of the time.  He was Mueller's boss. Any indictment or warrant had to get approval by him. 

[TwiceHorn 31456]

17 hours ago, GW Hayduke said:

This is a common misconception from folks with minimal or no experience in government or public service and who absorb excessive amounts of right wing media. 

The GOP’s selling point is that the government can’t do anything, so vote for them so they can prove the point

Dude, it's not a fucking misconception.  I've been dealing with and observing the PTO at close range for nearly 30 years. 

Only someone without experience with government/agencies would not concede that government is bloated and inefficient.

Get this.  The PTO started an electronic filing system maybe 18 years ago.  You uploaded pdf documents, which were then printed, scanned, and re-uploaded, internally, into the PTO's electronic filing system.  Part of that was driven by IT incompetence (I give them tons of credit for being early on this), and part of it was government employee unions concerned with the unemployment of filing clerks.

Edited April 23, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31456]

17 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Bloat and inefficiency ≠ "swamp." The "swamp" term has been pretty consistently used by Trump and plenty before him to symbolize corruption by the "elites" that provides them with unique advantages while fucking over everyone else. Three lower-level bureaucrats in the EPA doing an amount of work that two could do isn't remotely like that.

A political appointee leading the EPA and using his authority there to grant special favors in exchange for a nice lucrative job with an O&G company once he leaves, on the other hand, is. But that's got very little to do with the bureaucracy itself (other than the fact that it exists). And to go ahead and head off the dumb point that Onboard will probably make about its existence being the problem, abolishing law enforcement in its entirety is a really stupid answer to the problem of the chief of police accepting bribes.

Fair point I suppose.  I didn't pay enough attention to Trump to suss the finer meaning of "the swamp."

[retread 2951]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The dems aren't going to impeach Trump which is a mistake in my opinion because it sets a terrible precedent and further erodes the checks and balances in our democracy.  Oh I get it, Trump would never be convicted in the Senate but do you really think Trump wants to go down in history as the third president to be impeached?  I don't.  

There is something more compelling about live testimony in hearings. It won't sway the 40%, but it may influence the middle 20%.

[BrickHorn 18221]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Dude, it's not a fucking misconception.  I've been dealing with and observing the PTO at close range for nearly 30 years. 

Only someone without experience with government/agencies would not concede that government is bloated and inefficient.

The PTO is hardly bloated.  It is woefully understaffed.  Same with other agencies, such as the IRS.  

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

It also runs a profit.

[TwiceHorn 31456]

4 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

The PTO is hardly bloated.  It is woefully understaffed.  Same with other agencies, such as the IRS.  

It's bloated with clerks and admin people.  Understaffed with examiners.  You know, the people who actually do the work of the Office.

I've known several ALJs that said the bureaucracy and bullshit is mind bottling.  One quit because of it.

It is, mostly, as I said, one of the best government agencies.  But still rife with problems.

Edited April 23, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just now, retread said:

It won't sway the 40%

Kinda semantics, however:

I keep seeing 40% thrown around but I think that's an overly generous estimate. 

At best it's a third, at worst 25%.

Trump's approval ratings are sub 40% right now and there's no way that's all his hardcore base. 

[David Dennison 18856]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's bloated with clerks and admin people.  Understaffed with examiners.  You know, the people who actually do the work of the Office.

I've known several ALJs that said the bureaucracy and bullshit is mind bottling.  One quit because of it.

It is, mostly, as I said, one of the best government agencies.  But still rife with problems.

As is every large organization. 

[jimmyjazz 45909]

14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Only someone without experience with government/agencies would not concede that government is bloated and inefficient.

The government is inefficient, to be sure.

So is most of the private sector.  I cut my "business teeth" at a startup that transitioned from angel funding through some venture rounds to an IPO and eventual purchase by a privately-held competitor.  That arc saw the company get more and more bloated, partially due to government regulations (S/O, SEC, ISO, OSHA, etc.) and partially due to internal tribalism (sales VS marketing, marketing VS engineering, etc.).  The irony was that we actually produced tangible goods of great potential value, but because of inefficiencies throughout the company, profit remained elusive -- not breakeven, we achieved that -- but actual profit, and so we got taken out.  The irony is that the new parent company is no better, but for different reasons.  They couldn't understand how we needed a dozen or more buyers to handle annual volumes less than what they did with maybe three buyers.  So, they streamlined that part of the process.  Unfortunately (well, I don't care, they fired me on day 1), they can't get their leadership in line with what's left of engineering, and so there is no development, very little sustaining work or  troubleshooting, and it's almost a sure thing that they will eventually go under.

The even greater irony?  A few colleagues ended up at some of Austin's biggest employers -- Dell, Westinghouse, etc. -- and they tell me everything is as disorganized at the blue chips as it is at the little companies.  It's extremely rare to find an efficient, large organization, and the government is not unique.  Not by a long shot.

Edited April 23, 2019 by jimmyjazz

[SubliminalHorn 6786]

I’m coming around to the idea of impeachment. But fuck man, the biggest tragedy would be the piece of shit being re elected. That can’t happen. I know people point to Clinton’s impeachment and how he became even more popular after. The two situations aren’t analogous, IMO. One was lying over a blowjob, yes perjury is very wrong. This is a president welcoming foreign help and then doing almost everything possible to obstruct our very own justice system and processes. There must be consequences. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, David Dennison said:

As is every large organization. 

Where do you get your bizarre, and mis informed vision of the world ?

[Doc Sam Beckett 5793]

9 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

I’m coming around to the idea of impeachment. But fuck man, the biggest tragedy would be the piece of shit being re elected. That can’t happen. 

If we re-elect him, after everything he's done, then we as a nation deserve every single disaster he creates his second term. 

[TxTower 651]

I’m coming around to the idea of impeachment. 

When do the impeachment proceedings start?
Don’t listen to Pelosi - she’s a quitter!!

[wildcat09 29352]

2 minutes ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

If we re-elect him, after everything he's done, then we as a nation deserve every single disaster he creates his second term. 

His actual voters will deserve it. His victims won't, but the world has never been a just place. So it goes.

[SubliminalHorn 6786]

6 minutes ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

If we re-elect him, after everything he's done, then we as a nation deserve every single disaster he creates his second term. 

Agree. It’s difficult to beat an incumbent president. He has a fuck load of cash and constant, free advertising. I’m not counting on anything. 

[NBMisha 224]

16 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

I’m coming around to the idea of impeachment. But fuck man, the biggest tragedy would be the piece of shit being re elected. That can’t happen. I know people point to Clinton’s impeachment and how he became even more popular after. The two situations aren’t analogous, IMO. One was lying over a blowjob, yes perjury is very wrong. This is a president welcoming foreign help and then doing almost everything possible to obstruct our very own justice system and processes. There must be consequences. 

The tired phrase "its an "and" world" probably applies here.  Certainly Trump is a danger himself and it is a top priority that he be taken out in the next election.  Those that don't want to further fire up his base are speaking to that.  But an equally existential problem is that of the Trump base.  A phrase in a recent Foreign Affairs got to me:  the civil war never ended, it just has been changing locations.   The attack on the US from the inside must be beaten back.  This traitorous revolution must be defanged.

[hobbes2702 13032]

57 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I think what it also illustrates is the bases mistrust of many in gov't, and the media, and a percetion of a double standard.

Whose fault is that ?

Their own?

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

3 hours ago, troph said:

Bomb Inventory is high need to clear the shelves ... who’s next?

Kyle Field?

[wildcat09 29352]

11 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Their own?

No no no no no, nothing is ever their fault.

[Foosters 17855]

So we've sacrificed our standing in the world, weakened ties to long-standing allies, sided with Vladimir Putin over our intelligence agencies, ignored congress to continue an illegal war, emboldened ethno-nationalists, lost roughly 1000 children, attempted to strip healthcare from millions of Americans - to name just a few - and it was all worth it because gov't agencies are not that efficient? That's what all this "deep state" house-cleaning was for?

[Foosters 17855]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

No no no no no, nothing is ever their fault.

As Tom so eloquently told us, "hey faggots, thanks for making everybody vote for Trump."

[GW Hayduke 1953]

1 hour ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

It's not only a political question.  It is a Constitutional question.   You can't refuse to do what the Constitution requires you to do just because it is scary. We are 'a nation of laws.'  And the Constitution is big law.

At this point, it is only a political question. Mueller has provided enough evidence for multiple counts of obstruction.

No one is refusing to do it because it is scary. The GOP is refusing to do it because reasons - their base doesn’t want them to, they are squarely in potus’s corner - all political reasons. The Dems shouldn’t do it because it will decrease the odds of holding potus accountable at the ballot box - political reason. 

[NBMisha 224]

4 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

At this point, it is only a political question. Mueller has provided enough evidence for multiple counts of obstruction.

No one is refusing to do it because it is scary. The GOP is refusing to do it because reasons - their base doesn’t want them to, they are squarely in potus’s corner - all political reasons. The Dems shouldn’t do it because it will decrease the odds of holding potus accountable at the ballot box - political reason. 

Well, it might decrease the odds, that is an assertion.  That's not what actually happened in the WJC case.  The dems gained in the election just before the impeachment.  But not in the one immediately after.  An there is merit to the case that the proceedings tarnished Gore enought for his close loss.

[TwiceHorn 31456]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

As is every large organization. 

 

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

The government is inefficient, to be sure.

So is most of the private sector.  I cut my "business teeth" at a startup that transitioned from angel funding through some venture rounds to an IPO and eventual purchase by a privately-held competitor.  That arc saw the company get more and more bloated, partially due to government regulations (S/O, SEC, ISO, OSHA, etc.) and partially due to internal tribalism (sales VS marketing, marketing VS engineering, etc.).  The irony was that we actually produced tangible goods of great potential value, but because of inefficiencies throughout the company, profit remained elusive -- not breakeven, we achieved that -- but actual profit, and so we got taken out.  The irony is that the new parent company is no better, but for different reasons.  They couldn't understand how we needed a dozen or more buyers to handle annual volumes less than what they did with maybe three buyers.  So, they streamlined that part of the process.  Unfortunately (well, I don't care, they fired me on day 1), they can't get their leadership in line with what's left of engineering, and so there is no development, very little sustaining work or  troubleshooting, and it's almost a sure thing that they will eventually go under.

The even greater irony?  A few colleagues ended up at some of Austin's biggest employers -- Dell, Westinghouse, etc. -- and they tell me everything is as disorganized at the blue chips as it is at the little companies.  It's extremely rare to find an efficient, large organization, and the government is not unique.  Not by a long shot.

No doubt true.  But government seems to be a very special kind of bloated and inefficient.  Perhaps take the inefficiency of any large organization and apply a multiplier. 

Edited April 23, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[David Dennison 18856]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

No doubt true.  But government seems to be a very special kind of bloated and inefficient.

Which is why it's a very good thing we have elections.

[GW Hayduke 1953]

19 minutes ago, NBMisha said:

Well, it might decrease the odds, that is an assertion.  That's not what actually happened in the WJC case.  The dems gained in the election just before the impeachment.  But not in the one immediately after.  An there is merit to the case that the proceedings tarnished Gore enought for his close loss.

Yes. The assertion is that impeachment by one party that fails will harm that party at the ballot. 

[Llano Estacado 1257]

Which is why it's a very good thing we have elections.

We elect which executive department heads and Cabinet members?

Insert here// RickPerry - Eliminate Education, Commerce, and Oops //

[David Dennison 18856]

7 minutes ago, Llano Estacado said:

We elect which executive department heads and Cabinet members?

Insert here// RickPerry - Eliminate Education, Commerce, and Oops //

 

No. We elect the people who nominate and confirm them. If we don't like what they are doing, we have the ability to vote against them. It's all very straightforward.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 hour ago, GW Hayduke said:

At this point, it is only a political question. Mueller has provided enough evidence for multiple counts of obstruction.

No one is refusing to do it because it is scary. The GOP is refusing to do it because reasons - their base doesn’t want them to, they are squarely in potus’s corner - all political reasons. The Dems shouldn’t do it because it will decrease the odds of holding potus accountable at the ballot box - political reason. 

Impeachment is a political process and that’s unfortunate because it is the only way a president can be held accountable for high crimes while in office.  Trump is above the law while in power until Congress holds him accountable.  It’s really that simple. 

The American people didn’t choose Trump to be president, the electoral college did.  The people chose another candidate and when the American people were given an opportunity to check his presidency they overwhelmingly voted to do just that.  

Unfortunately the American people weren’t given the opportunity to alter the Senate enough beyond partisan lines to outright remove Trump if evidence of his crimes became public.  

However, that doesn’t mean the House should abdicated their responsibilities because the Senate has too many cult members. 

The world is watching.  History is watching.  Now is the time for Article 1 to take a stand against Article 2.  The American people have elected them to do it if necessary.  

It is necessary.

Edited April 23, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[David Dennison 18856]

9 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Impeachment is a political process and that’s unfortunate because it is the only way a president can be held accountable for high crimes while in office.  Trump is above the law while in power until Congress holds him accountable.  It’s really that simple. 

The American people didn’t choose Trump to be president, the electoral college did.  The people chose another candidate and when the American people were given an opportunity to check his presidency they overwhelmingly voted to do just that.  

Unfortunately the American people weren’t given the opportunity to alter the Senate enough beyond partisan lines to outright remove Trump if evidence of his crimes became public.  

However, that doesn’t mean the House should abdicated their responsibilities because the Senate has too many cult members. 

The world is watching.  History is watching.  Now is the time for Article 1 to take a stand against Article 2.  The American people have elected them to do it if necessary.  

It is necessary.

Not true. The only thing keeping him from being indicted is a legal memo and a willingness on the part of prosecutors to follow tradition. The law is silent on the matter.

Also, impeachment is neither a duty nor a responsibility of the House of Representatives.

Edited April 23, 2019 by David Dennison

[Anastasis 23469]

If you need a timekiller for a passive conference call, the good ole times. Try not to get any scat on your boots. 

http://www.shaggytexas.com/board/showthread.php/182577-Indictments-Pending-in-the-Robert-Mueller-Investigation

 

 

 

 

Edited April 23, 2019 by Anastasis

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

21 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Not true. The only thing keeping him from being indicted is a legal memo and a willingness on the part of prosecutors to follow tradition. The law is silent on the matter.

Also, impeachment is neither a duty nor a responsibility of the House of Representatives.

Your semantics are tiresome.  Current DOJ policy has Trump beyond the reach of the federal criminal charges while in office.  Mueller has Trump dead to rights on crimes committed while in office but he can’t call them crimes because of current policy.  Trump isn’t above the law, he can be indicted, just not while president under current DOJ guidelines.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Additionally, the title of Volume 2 in the Mueller Report should be, “Due to DOJ policy, I can’t call these crimes, but they are CRIMES.”

[GW Hayduke 1953]

43 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

However, that doesn’t mean the House should abdicated their responsibilities because the Senate has too many cult members. 

The world is watching.  History is watching.  Now is the time for Article 1 to take a stand against Article 2.  The American people have elected them to do it if necessary.  

It is necessary.

The house votes. It goes to the senate and fails. Do the Dems get constitutional medals? That is all that would happen except potentially provide fodder and fire up trump’s demagoguery and increase his odds of reelection. I don’t see how that is necessary. Removing potus from office should be what is considered necessary. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

9 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

The house votes. It goes to the senate and fails. Do the Dems get constitutional medals? That is all that would happen except potentially provide fodder and fire up trump’s demagoguery and increase his odds of reelection. I don’t see how that is necessary. Removing potus from office should be what is considered necessary. 

Impeachment is a demonstration of what kind of behavior should not be tolerated by a President.  By not impeaching the President for his criminal conduct while in office, the Democratic Congress is being complicit in Trump’s malfeasance just as the Republicans were when they controlled the House.  That matters.  

Moreover, even if Trump were convicted and removed by the Senate, it wouldn’t mean Trump has been punished for his crimes.  It would only mean he is no longer president.  What difference would that make? 

Edited April 23, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Anastasis 23469]

4 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

The house votes. It goes to the senate and fails. Do the Dems get constitutional medals? That is all that would happen except potentially provide fodder and fire up trump’s demagoguery and increase his odds of reelection. I don’t see how that is necessary. Removing potus from office should be what is considered necessary. 

The political reality is that they needed a finding from Mueller on conspiracy or coordination to flip enough Republicans in the Senate.  They didn't get that, and given concerns regarding the origins of the investigation and potential IC abuses with an IG report that would be timed for release coinciding with kicking off the Senate trial, GOP Senators who want cover to give a pass on the obstruction will have enough to do so.  So the Dems will spin up as many investigations as possible between now and 2020 without taking any action on impeachment. Nancy has more political acumen than everybody here combined. She knows exactly the right play for her team. Perhaps the calculus changes later in the year with other deveopments, but that is the near term.  

[Asithappens 974]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

By not impeaching the President for his criminal conduct while in office, the Democratic Congress is being complicit in Trump’s malfeasance....

Bullshit.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

They were never going to flip enough Republicans in the Senate even if Mueller had Trump on conspiracy.  They would have spun it the same way they’re spinning obstruction.  

“Because Mueller can’t accuse the president of crimes, no crime was committed.”

[wildcat09 29352]

8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The political reality is that they needed a finding from Mueller on conspiracy or coordination to flip enough Republicans in the Senate.  They didn't get that, and given concerns regarding the origins of the investigation and potential IC abuses with an IG report that would be timed for release coinciding with kicking off the Senate trial, GOP Senators who want cover to give a pass on the obstruction will have enough to do so.  So the Dems will spin up as many investigations as possible between now and 2020 without taking any action on impeachment. Nancy has more political acumen than everybody here combined. She knows exactly the right play for her team. Perhaps the calculus changes later in the year with other deveopments, but that is the near term.  

The political reality is that a finding from Mueller that Trump likely conspired wouldn't have led enough Republicans in the Senate to flip. 

[David Dennison 18856]

35 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Your semantics are tiresome.  Current DOJ policy has Trump beyond the reach of the federal criminal charges while in office.  Mueller has Trump dead to rights on crimes committed while in office but he can’t call them crimes because of current policy.  Trump isn’t above the law, he can be indicted, just not while president under current DOJ guidelines.  

It's not semantics. DOJ policy is not law. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just now, Asithappens said:

Bullshit.

Under our current DOJ policy, Congress is the only constitutional check on an outlaw president.  If the president proves himself to be an outlaw and the Congress fails to appropriately respond, they are complicit and there is nothing protecting the public from the abuses of power by the president. 

[GW Hayduke 1953]

10 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Impeachment is a demonstration of what kind of behavior should not be tolerated by a President.  By not impeaching the President for his criminal conduct while in office, the Democratic Congress is being complicit in Trump’s malfeasance just as the Republicans were when they controlled the House.  That matters.  

Moreover, even if Trump were convicted and removed by the Senate, it wouldn’t mean Trump has been punished for his crimes.  It would only mean he is no longer president.  What difference would that make? 

At this point, we aren’t talking about impeachment. We are talking about a failed impeachment that mobilizes potus’ base

[Anastasis 23469]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The political reality is that a finding from Mueller that Trump likely conspired wouldn't have led enough Republicans in the Senate to flip. 

Well, I disagree.  Maybe we can go back in time to the scat board thread and argue about it there. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

It's not semantics. DOJ policy is not law. 

The laws are only as good as the people and institutions that can enforce them.  If the institutions can not enforce the laws, what good are the laws? 

[BradInATX 9208]

 

 

 

They were never going to flip enough Republicans in the Senate even if Mueller had Trump on conspiracy.  They would have spun it the same way they’re spinning obstruction.  

“Because Mueller can’t accuse the president of crimes, no crime was committed.”

 

Maybe, but the optics would have been quite different. If Mueller's report outright said "we conclude that the president conspired with Russia" and the Senate failed to convict, president Sanders/Biden/Whoever would have super majorities and more in 2020.

 

Impeachment might be the morally correct path but it's also the naive and dumb path. I'm actually surprised they haven't done it yet.

[David Dennison 18856]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The laws are only as good as the people and institutions that can enforce them.  If the institutions can not enforce the laws, what good are the laws? 

Failure of people and institutions to enforce the law is as American as apple pie. Just ask African Americans.