Jump to content

The Robert Mueller Investigation


Hugo Stiglitz

Recommended Posts

Just now, Anastasis said:

What ever you are smoking, I want a hit.  I think that you misunderstand my point completely.

Mueller could have (I would suggest, should have), put a very fine point that the constitutional responsibility for acting on the evidence contained in Vol 2 of his report was with Congress.  If he makes a statement along the lines of what I wrote, impeachment is virtually assured. 

He didn't though. He doesn't want to tread directly into the politics of impeachment process. 

Nadler got the message.  And if the standing ovation Amash just got at his town hall is any indication, the general public is way out front this.  Impeachment is coming.  The ongoing court battles around subpoenas in which TrumpCo is batting 0.000 are already the beginnings of an impeachment hearing without calling it one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Zavala said:

Ok great, what for? Where's the evidence? 

 

This bullshit was just cover because they got spooked that their illegal domestic spying came out. 

I know you're one of the worst trolls out there and I shouldn't even bother responding but you realize words have meanings right? There is evidence of obstruction. There is substantial evidence of obstruction. This is not an opinion. This is fact. You continue to lie in almost every post you make. You are either a troll intending to mislead or too dumb to understand what's happening. Either way, you deserve to get called on it.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Impeachment proceedings will happen. Too much pressure on Dems to not start. My guess is by mid week Nancy will make it official or at least announce her intentions. What day does everything happen on again? Tuesdays? Wednesdays?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sachick said:

Impeachment proceedings will happen. Too much pressure on Dems to not start. My guess is by mid week Nancy will make it official or at least announce her intentions. When day does everything happen on again? Tuesdays? Wednesdays?

Wednesdays.

Tuesdays we eat birds.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Nadler got the message.  And if the standing ovation Amash just got at his town hall is any indication, the general public is way out front this.  Impeachment is coming.  The ongoing court battles around subpoenas in which TrumpCo is batting 0.000 are already the beginnings of an impeachment hearing without calling it one.

This momentum seems to sustain Pelosi's hesitation if she was seeking the optimal amount of public support. I suspect she knew what she was doing by waiting and making a show of reluctance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

What would it have taken for Mueller to recommend charges against a sitting president? Shooting someone on 5th Ave? Anything? If Mueller decided that the Trump campaign was probably guilty of conspiracy with the Russian government, what would he have said in his report? Would the OLC opinion that you can't indict a sitting president not apply in that case?

If you mean indictment, there's no crime a sitting President could commit that would subject them to indictment and criminal trial.  The OLC opinion is that indictment and subsequent trial of a sitting President is unconstitutional, period.  The remedy for crimes in office is impeachment and removal (and possible subsequent indictment and trial).

That is a different issue from what set of facts might convince a DOJ to change its policy or, more accurately, its opinion on the constitutionality of indicting and trying a sitting President.

Most would probably think that the constitutionality of something is not affected by the gravity of the thing, or lack thereof.  That is, a rule that says indictment for minor crimes is unconstitutional but indictment for capital offenses is constitutional is an unseemly rule.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

This momentum seems to sustain Pelosi's hesitation if she was seeking the optimal amount of public support. I suspect she knew what she was doing by waiting and making a show of reluctance. 

The wishcasting will never end. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I said before that Mueller shouldn’t testify until they started impeachment proceedings.  This is why:

 

Nah.  I expected Mueller to decline to testify, even imagining that he would say "the report speaks for itself."  That's a very lawyerly answer.

With respect to judicial or quasi judicial things, such as impeachment, he's not an eyewitness, he's more of an advocate/court officer/even fact-finder.  I don't think the nature of the proceeding changing would change his view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Nah.  I expected Mueller to decline to testify, even imagining that he would say "the report speaks for itself."  That's a very lawyerly answer.

With respect to judicial or quasi judicial things, such as impeachment, he's not an eyewitness, he's more of an advocate/court officer/even fact-finder.  I don't think the nature of the proceeding changing would change his view.

His testimony would be relevant for the obstruction related to attempts to fire Mueller. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

His testimony would be relevant for the obstruction related to attempts to fire Mueller. 

If he's a fact witness to something, that's an altogether different question than rehashing and restating the report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, UncleCharlie said:

How you see that as a mic drop in DJT's favor is just incomprehensible.

He is telling Congress to do their job and the House is but there is no way to get an impeachment vote past a Republitard controlled Senate.

i know what you're saying, but if the dems controlled the senate 65-35, there would still be no way to get him removed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Nah.  I expected Mueller to decline to testify, even imagining that he would say "the report speaks for itself."  That's a very lawyerly answer.

Barr spoke for the report, reportedly compelling Mueller to inform him disagreed with his characterization. That's not in the Mueller Report and something Mueller is a witness to.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

If he's a fact witness to something, that's an altogether different question than rehashing and restating the report.

 

9 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Barr spoke for the report, reportedly compelling Mueller to inform him disagreed with his characterization. That's not in the Mueller Report and something Mueller is a witness to.

I mentioned that upthread - Mueller's testimony to Congress would help disinfect Barr's fuckery around his handling of the report and his initial testimony to Congress, both of which involved interactions with Mueller, before Barr then chose to ignore a subsequent subpoena to return.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pelosi chimes in.  No impeachment today fellas. 

https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/52919/

Pelosi Statement on Special Counsel Mueller’s Press Statement Reiterating the President’s Obstruction

MAY 29, 2019

San Francisco – Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued this statement after Special Counsel Mueller made a press statement reiterating the extent of Russian efforts to disrupt our elections and that President Trump was not exonerated of obstructing the Trump-Russia investigation:

“It is with the greatest respect for Special Counsel Robert Mueller and the deepest disappointment in the Department of Justice holding the President above the law, that I thank Special Counsel Mueller for the work he and his team did to provide a record for future action both in the Congress and in the courts regarding the Trump Administration involvement in Russian interference and obstruction of the investigation.

“Special Counsel Mueller made clear that he did not exonerate the President when he stated, ‘If we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.’  He stated that the decision not to indict stemmed directly from the Department of Justice’s policy that a sitting President cannot be indicted.  Despite Department of Justice policy to the contrary, no one is above the law – not even the President.

“The Special Counsel’s report revealed that the President’s campaign welcomed Russian interference in the election, and laid out eleven instances of the President’s obstruction of the investigation.  The Congress holds sacred its constitutional responsibility to investigate and hold the President accountable for his abuse of power.

“The Congress will continue to investigate and legislate to protect our elections and secure our democracy.  The American people must have the truth.  We call upon the Senate to pass H.R. 1, the For The People Act, to protect our election systems.

“We salute Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team for his patriotic duty to seek the truth.”

Edited by Anastasis
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

 

I mentioned that upthread - Mueller's testimony to Congress would help disinfect Barr's fuckery around his handling of the report and his initial testimony to Congress, both of which involved interactions with Mueller, before Barr then chose to ignore a subsequent subpoena to return.

 

I wasn't able to give full attention to today's monologue -- did he say anything about Barr beyond he thought Barr acted in good faith?  Did he comment one way or another on the veracity of Barr's summation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Zavala said:

Y I K E S 

He answers the questions by re-reading his little statement. Smooth

 

He actually didn't do that.  It doesn't surprise me that you're too stupid to actually listen to 2 different statement and realize they aren't the same, but hey, Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Captainant said:

So, not discussing the substance of what he said but rather the style? Of course not, that would require critical thinking skills.

He didn't say anything to answer the question, so there is no substance to what he said...

Will you impeach? Will you subpoena Mueller?

-all options are on the table (re-read previous statement)

What does that mean?

-we will continue to investigate and make decisions

Will you subpoena Mueller?

-Mr. Mueller told us a lot of what we needed to hear (re-read previous statement)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Zavala said:

He didn't say anything to answer the question, so there is no substance to what he said...

Will you impeach? Will you subpoena Mueller?

-all options are on the table (re-read previous statement)

What does that mean?

-we will continue to investigate and make decisions

Will you subpoena Mueller?

-Mr. Mueller told us a lot of what we needed to hear (re-read previous statement)

 

LOL.  Doubling down on your dumbfuckery.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I wasn't able to give full attention to today's monologue -- did he say anything about Barr beyond he thought Barr acted in good faith?  Did he comment one way or another on the veracity of Barr's summation?

He briefly commented very narrowly in support of Barr releasing the report, and said nothing about Barr’s preemptive  memo or any other Barr conduct or interactions.  Technically Barr didn’t have to release the report, but the deceptive damage on behalf of serving Trump was done.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

If he's a fact witness to something, that's an altogether different question than rehashing and restating the report.

I don't know that that's accurate (and I usually appreciate your views on this).  But, this is a congressional inquiry, not a criminal trial.  Mueller's testimony would essentially be in lieu of calling all the FBI agents who conducted the investigation as to each individual finding.  Mueller could put it all together for Congress and for the country.  Mueller couldn't testify in a criminal trial against trump for obstructing justice, except as a fact witness with respect to the attempts to fire Mueller.  But I don't see why he'd be precluded from testifying before Congress as to the investigation he headed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the feeling Pelosi knows exactly what's up and more importantly what else is in store straight ahead.

The greater than 10 cases of serial obstruction of justice by Trump detailed in the Mueller report will probably only be one part of articles impeachment.  Add to it whatever comes from Trump tax returns, Trump/Mazars accounting records, Trump/Deutsche Bank dealings via Congressional subpoenas, and god knows what else.  

I could be misreading it, but it sure feels like Pelosi also wants GOP Senate to know what real pain is, and she's going to take it there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

I get the feeling Pelosi knows exactly what's up and more importantly what else is in store straight ahead.

The greater than 10 cases of serial obstruction of justice by Trump detailed in the Mueller report will probably only be one part of articles impeachment.  Add to it whatever comes from Trump tax returns, Trump/Mazars accounting records, Trump/Deutsche Bank dealings via Congressional subpoenas, and god knows what else.  

I could be misreading it, but it sure feels like Pelosi also wants GOP Senate to know what real pain is, and she's going to take it there.

All of this. At the very least they still have to see all of the redacted cases of obstruction of justice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the feeling Pelosi knows exactly what's up and more importantly what else is in store straight ahead.
The greater than 10 cases of serial obstruction of justice by Trump detailed in the Mueller report will probably only be one part of articles impeachment.  Add to it whatever comes from Trump tax returns, Trump/Mazars accounting records, Trump/Deutsche Bank dealings via Congressional subpoenas, and god knows what else.  
I could be misreading it, but it sure feels like Pelosi also wants GOP Senate to know what real pain is, and she's going to take it there.

Emoluments
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

I get the feeling Pelosi knows exactly what's up and more importantly what else is in store straight ahead.

The greater than 10 cases of serial obstruction of justice by Trump detailed in the Mueller report will probably only be one part of articles impeachment.  Add to it whatever comes from Trump tax returns, Trump/Mazars accounting records, Trump/Deutsche Bank dealings via Congressional subpoenas, and god knows what else.  

I could be misreading it, but it sure feels like Pelosi also wants GOP Senate to know what real pain is, and she's going to take it there.

got an estimate on when the secrit plan will begin? 

Trump is for sure finished this time right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...