The Robert Mueller Investigation

[GRHorn 105]

44 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I also think it’s important to note between Mueller and Barr, only one of them still has any credibility. 

Barr released the report in a timely fashion, with minimal redactions which is more than was legally required. Where is the credibility hit coming from?

[DDD Dad 14339]

4 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

certainly could've been me.

last weekend i was around some people who just wanted to argue, and definitely had the "if he's so guilty than why is he still president" attitude that we see around here.  i tried to inject some logic and reason and saying it wasn't necessarily "hard evidence" but behavior is something that should always be considered.  jurors check that shit out all the time.  how people react to accusations or bombshell revelations from witnesses.

it's not just impeachment or the court of law, but the court of public opinion, which in this case, is the election.  the american people know what an innocent person looks like.

a couple weeks ago i asked why the president wasn't doing a national address and screaming bloody murder pounding his fist when a report came out saying a hostile foreign entity attacked our elections.  the answer was, "why would he, he was in on it."  if you want people to think you're innocent, at least try to be a good actor for christ's sake. 

maybe i've been in hollywood too long.

I think I was responding to someone else's post.  Apologies.  Played golf this morning so I was way behind on the thread.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just asking questions! 

[henrygandorf 29190]

4 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

I think I was responding to someone else's post.  Apologies.  Played golf this morning so I was way behind on the thread.

for the last half hour this thread has moved quicker than an old school hornfans chatroom.

[jimmyjazz 45926]

19 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Barr released the report in a timely fashion, with minimal redactions which is more than was legally required. Where is the credibility hit coming from?

Are you this transparent in real life?

[Doc Sam Beckett 5793]

47 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Or you could hand her your phone and say, sure, have at it.  Nothing to see.  If you're innocent of course.  Very legal and very cool.

You don't hold the upper hand acting like that, bro

[WhatTheBuck 28780]

13 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

for the last half hour this thread has moved quicker than an old school hornfans chatroom.

It's troll feeding time. 

[Thetexashammer 1062]

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

if my wife thinks i'm cheating on her and carrying on with various women via texts and emails, and asks to see my phone, i can tell her no, and that i'm not cheating.  or i can smash it into a thousand pieces and throw it into the river while yelling and screaming at her and then have a camera crew follow me as i drive to some chick's house.  i may come off less innocent in the second version.

So you're saying you think Hillary is guilty? The only person who smashed phones into a thousand pieces with a hammer is Hillary, who subsequently went and got intelligence from the Russians to try and alter the election outcome.

 

Edited May 10, 2019 by Thetexashammer

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[GRHorn 105]

29 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Just asking questions! 

I asked because I listened to a conservative podcast, hosted by a few Never Trumpers and they were discussing Barr being held in contempt. One had a great line that reminded me of people here.  

The proceedings by Nadler and Dems against Barr are part of a game “explicitly aimed at stupid people...aimed at people who have been brain damaged by Trump and who believe that Rachel Maddow is an oracle. And it’s aimed at the media, which will cover for Democrats”

[elguapo 4586]

[henrygandorf 29190]

16 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

So you're saying you think Hillary is guilty? The only person who smashed phones into a thousand pieces with a hammer is Hillary, who subsequently went and got intelligence from the Russians to try and alter the election outcome.

are you trying to get me to defend hillary clinton? 

she's part of the reason we're in this mess.  i'm not a republican senator.  i don't blindly tunnel-vision my thoughts blue or red.

do you think trump has acted like an innocent "transparent" participant in this process?  do you think his administration has?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

5 minutes ago, elguapo said:

 

Volume 3: More Obstruction

[wildcat09 29354]

1 hour ago, ChickenSandwich said:

He would also probably have to answer questions about the outside agencies he hired to “investigate” and if one of them was Fusion GPS or C Steele

Are you lying or just really dumb?

[henrygandorf 29190]

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

if my wife thinks i'm cheating on her and carrying on with various women via texts and emails, and asks to see my phone, i can tell her no, and that i'm not cheating.  or i can smash it into a thousand pieces and throw it into the river while yelling and screaming at her and then have a camera crew follow me as i drive to some chick's house.  i may come off less innocent in the second version.

and then, in the following days and weeks, i asked a bunch of my friends to call her and tell her that i wasn't a cheater, but they said no, they weren't comfortable with that.  then when she asked me for their numbers to call and talk to them, i didn't give her their info.  and then told them i wasn't going to be friends with them anymore, then trashed them to everyone else i know.

[retread 2951]

Edited May 10, 2019 by retread

[Poolflood 845]

On 5/9/2019 at 4:31 PM, Red Five said:

Are there any “conservative” posters left that aren’t straight fucking trolls?

Yes, but I've got better things to do than getting called a racist trumpkin.  This thread reminds me of going to the zoo and seeing monkeys throwing shit around the cage.  Best I can tell the JJ's and DD are covered in feces but laugh when they get in a good shot.

[henrygandorf 29190]

2 minutes ago, retread said:

one could certainly argue that the obstruction has gotten worse since the original obstruction.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

11 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

one could certainly argue that the obstruction has gotten worse since the original obstruction.

The funny thing is the original sin of firing Comey and then covering up the reasoning for firing him is among the tamer episodes of obstruction of justice.

#1 most egregious episode for me is Trump ordering Lewendowski to deliver a letter to Sessions which instructs him to first un-recuse from the Russia investigation and then for him to limit the scope to only “future crimes”.  Nothing that happened with Russia in 2016 can be investigated.  Moreover, if Sessions didn’t comply, Lewendowski was instructed to terminate the employment of the Attorney General.

I mean, holy fuck, that actually happened.  

Edited May 10, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[henrygandorf 29190]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The funny thing is the original sin of firing Comey and then covering up the reasoning for firing him is among the more tame episodes of obstruction of justice.

#1 most egregious episode for me is Trump ordering Lewendowski to deliver a letter to Sessions which instructs him to first un-recuse from the Russia investigation and then for him to limit the scope to only “future crimes”.  Nothing that happened with Russia in 2016 can be investigated.  Moreover, if Sessions didn’t comply, Lewendowski was instructed to terminate the employment of the Attorney General.

I mean, holy fuck, that actually happened.  

yep.  imagine how bad it would read if his people actually listened to him and followed every ridiculous demand?

still a ton of "intent to obstruct" that doesn't really count as obstruction because people were like, no fucking way dude.

[wildcat09 29354]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

yep.  imagine how bad it would read if his people actually listened to him and followed every ridiculous demand?

still a ton of "intent to obstruct" that doesn't really count as obstruction because people were like, no fucking way dude.

That those attempts are still, legally speaking, obstruction of justice. 

[henrygandorf 29190]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

That those attempts are still, legally speaking, obstruction of justice. 

this president obstructs justice 2-3x a day before breakfast i'm sure.

and then one more time before breakfast part ii.

you gotta eat breakfast part ii.  it's the 2nd most important meal of the day.

[retread 2951]

The more this drags on and the more the WH resists, I think it's all the more reason to be heartened. There are the obvious dangers like McGahn's testimony, but they're trying to squelch everything that the House wants. There have to be some juicy, financial shenanigans yet to be revealed.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

16 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

yep.  imagine how bad it would read if his people actually listened to him and followed every ridiculous demand?

still a ton of "intent to obstruct" that doesn't really count as obstruction because people were like, no fucking way dude.

Oh no, it’s totally obstruction of justice because if his subordinates did follow through with his orders, not only him but also Russia would have more than likely gotten away with everything. 

The reason people TRY to obstruct justice is because sometimes it works and if it works, you are never held accountable for your crimes and therefore above the law. 

The fact that the most powerful man on earth attempted to do this makes it even more nefarious and criminal. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Crusher 127]

53 minutes ago, retread said:

Just asking because not a lawyer and shit... In what ways can a person obstruct an investigation that has been closed?

I could see it if they were tampering with a new witness that hadn't already testified who could bring new evidence that could change the judgement rendered but, asking an already examined witness to agree with what the AG has concluded? Would that meet the threshold?

Or, if McGahn was on the fence and changing his story? If they knew he had damning evidence and were tampering with him I could definitely see obstruction. But, that is not what the WSJ is saying in the article.

Not really sure why Trump cares what McGahn thinks anyway? It was not his job to render a decision on obstruction after Mueller pussed out.. Just better optics on the whole if everyone is on board I guess.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Mueller made it subtly clear Trump can be charged with obstruction of justice related crimes with the evidence laid out in his report the moment he’s not president and protected by DOJ policy. 

[retread 2951]

Trump is a dumbass who can't get out of his own way, and he's going to keep adding insult to injury as this goes along.

[wildcat09 29354]

13 minutes ago, Crusher said:

Just asking because not a lawyer and shit... In what ways can a person obstruct an investigation that has been closed?

I could see it if they were tampering with a new witness that hadn't already testified who could bring new evidence that could change the judgement rendered but, asking an already examined witness to agree with what the AG has concluded? Would that meet the threshold?

Or, if McGahn was on the fence and changing his story? If they knew he had damning evidence and were tampering with him I could definitely see obstruction. But, that is not what the WSJ is saying in the article.

Not really sure why Trump cares what McGahn thinks anyway? It was not his job to render a decision on obstruction after Mueller pussed out.. Just better optics on the whole if everyone is on board I guess.

 

A congressional inquiry is also a proceeding that obstruction statutes protect.

[henrygandorf 29190]

9 minutes ago, Crusher said:

Just asking because not a lawyer and shit... In what ways can a person obstruct an investigation that has been closed?

I could see it if they were tampering with a new witness that hadn't already testified who could bring new evidence that could change the judgement rendered but, asking an already examined witness to agree with what the AG has concluded? Would that meet the threshold?

Or, if McGahn was on the fence and changing his story? If they knew he had damning evidence and were tampering with him I could definitely see obstruction. But, that is not what the WSJ is saying in the article.

Not really sure why Trump cares what McGahn thinks anyway? It was not his job to render a decision on obstruction after Mueller pussed out.. Just better optics on the whole if everyone is on board I guess.

 

without possibly full understanding of the basis of your question, i would say as a blanket statement that trump can obstruct justice in pretty much any situation where someone is doing their job and trying to get information.  obstruction doesn't have to be tagged with a specific investigation or case or hearing (although it should, because there are so many happening at once).

in this case, i think it was more of a good spirited use of the meme (although my use of the xzibit meme for this same purpose last week was better).  i think the wh telling mcgahn to say trump didn't obstruct justice twice and mcgahn telling him to go kick rocks is just funny and very consistent with this same narrative flowing steadily from 1600 penn ave.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

3 minutes ago, retread said:

Trump is a dumbass who can't get out of his own way, and he's going to keep adding insult to injury as this goes along.

And somehow simultaneously getting away with everything 

[Crusher 127]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Mueller made it subtly clear Trump can be charged with obstruction of justice related crimes with the evidence laid out in his report the moment he’s not president and protected by DOJ policy. 

That part reminds me , I'm hungry... Think I will have some jumbo shrimp. Then definitely maybe watch the Rockets. But my knee hurts so I may have to rub some Icy Hot on it.

[David Dennison 18856]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

And somehow simultaneously getting away with everything 

Sure, if the world ended today.

[retread 2951]

He's gonna make the Ds earn it. They're going to have to proceed on principle regardless of polls.

[henrygandorf 29190]

Just now, retread said:

He's gonna make the Ds earn it. They're going to have to proceed on principle regardless of polls.

polls are moving in the right direction anyway.  that should make it easier.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just now, retread said:

He's gonna make the Ds earn it. They're going to have to proceed on principle regardless of polls.

The polls NOT supporting impeachment actually gives the Democrats great cover to demonstrate that it’s not political when they begin the proceedings. 

[GRHorn 105]

Barr’s actions defended here. Maybe Surly attorneys could make objections?

[Crusher 127]

40 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

A congressional inquiry is also a proceeding that obstruction statutes protect.

I agree.

But, asking McGahn to say he believes the outcome of the Mueller report is not the same as asking him to lie or withhold some relevant information that could change that outcome after the fact..

McGahn was examined by the Mueller Team. If he was withholding evidence he would also be guilty of obstruction himself. Not to mention perjury.

So, if he goes before Nadler's committee and starts dropping bombshells he will have some 'splaining to do afterward.

[wildcat09 29354]

5 minutes ago, Crusher said:

I agree.

But, asking McGahn to say he believes the outcome of the Mueller report is not the same as asking him to lie or withhold some relevant information that could change that outcome after the fact..

McGahn was examined by the Mueller Team. If he was withholding evidence he would also be guilty of obstruction himself. Not to mention perjury.

So, if he goes before Nadler's committee and starts dropping bombshells he will have some 'splaining to do afterward.

Instructing a witness to a proceeding on how to testify is absolutely obstructive behavior. This shit isn’t complicated and it’s the reason everyone before Trump would as a matter of course refuse to comment on ongoing investigations.

[Crusher 127]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Instructing a witness to a proceeding on how to testify is absolutely obstructive behavior. This shit isn’t complicated and it’s the reason everyone before Trump would as a matter of course refuse to comment on ongoing investigations.

I'm not sure. Trying to nail down the time line. Had McGahn been called to testify before Nadler's Committee at the time of the alleged conversation?

Either way what McGahn believes and what he can prove are two very different things. Especially considering he has already been interviewed under threat of perjury by Mueller's team.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[wildcat09 29354]

Just now, Crusher said:

I'm not sure. Trying to nail down the time line. Had McGahn been called to testify before Nadler's Committee at the time of the alleged conversation?

Either way what McGahn believes and what he can prove are two very different things. Especially considering he has already been interviewed under threat of perjury by Mueller's team.

Previous testimony by the witness as to similar facts in a different proceeding has nothing to do with the legal analysis of whether later directing him on how to testify in a different proceeding constitutes obstruction. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13585]

Not sure if subject of an invesigation instructing a witness how to testify is obstruction of justice.

 

This is up for debate.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

[Crusher 127]

11 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Previous testimony by the witness as to similar facts in a different proceeding has nothing to do with the legal analysis of whether later directing him on how to testify in a different proceeding constitutes obstruction. 

Really? Even if that secondary proceeding didn't exist at the time. Depending when the alleged conversation took place you're saying that Trump could have possibly obstructed an investigation that was over and obstructed an investigation that didn't exist yet?

All this is speculation based on the timing. I believe you are a lawyer based on past posts, so I will take your word for it but seems a bit sketchy to me.

Edited May 11, 2019 by Crusher

[GRHorn 105]

12 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

But what does Rachel Maddow think?

[Crusher 127]

2 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

But what does Rachel Maddow think?

Hard to tell them apart but, I don't think that is Rachell?

But, to the point, WOW talk about the definition of projection.

[bolverk 29671]

6 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

But what does Rachel Maddow think?

What do you think?

Is Trump throwing sand in the gears of the investigation? Did Putins Kremlin actively coordinate efforts to support Trump's election? Did Trump and/or his campaign know that the Kremlin was helping? Did he welcome that help? Did he ask for help? Did he attempt to capitalize on that help?

What do you think?

[JimmyJames 12271]

3 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Are you lying or just really dumb?

He’s both. 

The trumpkins and their trolls on this website are now constantly pushing the “move on” narrative. Problem is, like “release the memo” it aint working.

The big problem with this is, “move on” to what? They have no agenda that they want to pass or they already would have passed it. The dems have an agenda they want to pass but Benedict mitch will put a cold hard stop to any of that. So what now?

The country will never move on until trump is defeated and the corrupt republican party is both crushed and exposed for the complete fraud that it is. 

In the meantime we will just have to put up with nonsense put up by the board’s resident trolls pushing talking points of the right wing troll army. 

I guess it sure beats storming the beaches of Normandy. 

[deech 2275]

8 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

He’s both. 

The trumpkins and their trolls on this website are now constantly pushing the “move on” narrative. Problem is, like “release the memo” it aint working.

The big problem with this is, “move on” to what? They have no agenda that they want to pass or they already would have passed it. The dems have an agenda they want to pass but Benedict mitch will put a cold hard stop to any of that. So what now?