Jump to content

The Robert Mueller Investigation

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15698

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Pods said:

Dems win the House in 2018 and votes to refer impeachment to the Senate. The Senate does nothing. 

That's actually an interesting question.  I don't know that they can do nothing.  The Constitution says that the "Senate shall have the sole Power to try Impeachments," but I don't know if that leaves them the option of not trying an impeachment.

Irrespective, I think it's politically untenable not to have a trial and take a vote.  And that would be one very uncomfortable vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 34.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    3238

  • Anastasis

    2088

  • David Dennison

    1559

  • triplehorn

    1384

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Goredho
Goredho

Just to make sure I have the alternative facts straight...  Our government -- but I'm guessing only the deep state part of it --- is now guilty of torturing a poor, naive Russian exchange student who

Incredulity
Incredulity

liberals suddenly being terrified of Russia and manic for election integrity is just pure comedy gold.

Chooky
Chooky

I don't believe for a moment that any of this is entertaining to you.  I think it gives you a bit of anxiety knowing that your best weapon against a group who you despise is a bumbling fraud as a busi

Posted Images

TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32078

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Then he should be impeached and subsequently charged. The fuck?

Well it's certainly not a requirement that impeachment be based on misconduct in office, but that's what everyone expects.  And, there's an argument that Mueller should not include much on criminal activity outside the scope of campaign-election-related "collusion."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pods

Pods 7637

Posted
Posted

That's the hope. Unfortunately, hope hasn't gotten us very much with this shit show though. The Republic hinges on the voters in 2018 and 2020.

The big variable to me is how much Russia will successfully interfere in the 2018 and 2020 elections. They don't have to interfere in that many to have the GOP keep the House. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 13475

Posted
Posted
Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Well it's certainly not a requirement that impeachment be based on misconduct in office, but that's what everyone expects.  And, there's an argument that Mueller should not include much on criminal activity outside the scope of campaign-election-related "collusion."

That argument isn’t based on fact since, as has been stated numerous times, that’s not Mueller’s mandate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Pods said:

They're only admitting to about $2500 in membership dues and small contributions. They've changed their answer on Torshin to no comment. 

The response to Wyden has to do with altering the number of foreign (Russian) contributions to the NRA.  However, go back to the initial McClatchy article reporting on this and you see the massive hidden dimension to this.  It's notable that they're shifting their stance with Wyden given his limited ability to look behind the curtain.  What a multi-agency U.S. law enforcement and counterintelligence investigation into Russia’s intervention has been able to access is likely a very different matter:

see bolded text:

Quote

Disclosure of the Torshin investigation signals a new dimension in the 18-month-old FBI probe of Russia’s interference. McClatchy reported a year ago that a multi-agency U.S. law enforcement and counterintelligence investigation into Russia’s intervention, begun even before the start of the 2016 general election campaign, initially included a focus on whether the Kremlin secretly helped fund efforts to boost Trump, but little has been said about that possibility in recent months.

The extent to which the FBI has evidence of money flowing from Torshin to the NRA, or of the NRA’s participation in the transfer of funds, could not be learned.

However, the NRA reported spending a record $55 million on the 2016 elections, including $30 million to support Trump – triple what the group devoted to backing Republican Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential race. Most of that was money was spent by an arm of the NRA that is not required to disclose its donors.

Two people with close connections to the powerful gun lobby said its total election spending actually approached or exceeded $70 million. The reporting gap could be explained by the fact that independent groups are not required to reveal how much they spend on Internet ads or field operations, including get-out-the-vote efforts.

FBI investigating whether Russian money went to NRA to help Trump

Evidence the money was there exists.  Now where'd it come from and where did it go ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
52 minutes ago, relapse98 said:

But when is the investigation gonna lead to anything?

Seems like the same people ruined by 24 hour Twitter from the president and Fox News can't just sit back and let an investigation run its course. They've become so used to 40 minute TV shows solving murders and getting convictions that they don't realize in the real world it takes time to be thorough.

Murder She Wrote has destroyed America. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kringelbert Fishtybuns

Kringelbert Fishtybuns 947

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

What is becoming interesting to me is that I have little doubt that Donald Trump is dirty and indictable from his pre-election business dealings (possibly no more so than a lot of politicians and other public figures).  If the Special Counsel report shows all kinds of criminal dealings (money laundering, mortgage/lending fraud, etc.)  with Russians or others that precede the election and campaign (and minimal actual "collusion") what then?

I think this would hinge on whether sufficient grounds for obstruction of justice are found as well.  No obstruction and your scenario, I think Pods scenario plays out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29579

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

That's actually an interesting question.  I don't know that they can do nothing.  The Constitution says that the "Senate shall have the sole Power to try Impeachments," but I don't know if that leaves them the option of not trying an impeachment.

Irrespective, I think it's politically untenable not to have a trial and take a vote.  And that would be one very uncomfortable vote.

A few years ago, most if not all of us would have thought similarly about a Supreme Court nominee.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32078

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, hobbes2702 said:

That argument isn’t based on fact since, as has been stated numerous times, that’s not Mueller’s mandate.

We can disagree on that. But non campaign or election related criminal conduct by Trump, say in 2013 or 2014, is not within his mandate.  He can investigate it, but if it doesn't lead to mandate-related criminal conduct, he should probably leave it out of his report and refer it to the appropriate US Attorney for investigation and prosecution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pods

Pods 7637

Posted
Posted

I didn't mean literally do nothing. That was imprecise. I meant vote not to convict. 

I'm pleasantly surprised at some of the movement I've seen very recently with a few GOP, so maybe there is some hope. Maybe that's just hope fucking with us though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 13475

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

We can disagree on that. But non campaign or election related criminal conduct by Trump, say in 2013 or 2014, is not within his mandate.  He can investigate it, but if it doesn't lead to mandate-related criminal conduct, he should probably leave it out of his report and refer it to the appropriate US Attorney for investigation and prosecution.

Crime that arises from his investigation is within his mandate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well it's certainly not a requirement that impeachment be based on misconduct in office, but that's what everyone expects.  And, there's an argument that Mueller should not include much on criminal activity outside the scope of campaign-election-related "collusion."

While there is likely ample evidence of Trump criminality outside of campaign-election-related "collusion," I think what gets revealed by Mueller's investigation within the mandate will shock the conscience.  The only GOP in Congress not responding accordingly will be those who are also criminally complicit.  Anything less will get processed by the electorate, but I don't think Trump survives Mueller's findings.

Edited by triplehorn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pods

Pods 7637

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

 

 

Mueller has also got a special authorization for certain areas from Rosenstein, most of which are still blacked out. One section that isn't specifically authorizes Mueller to go after Manafort's Ukraine work on behalf of Russia. We don't know what most of this covers, since it is still classified so as not to tip the potential defendants. 

Quote

Mueller was also empowered by Rosenstein to investigate Manafort's payments from Ukrainian politicians, a cornerstone of the Trump adviser's decades-long lobbying career that has resulted in several financial criminal charges so far[/quote]

 

 

Quote

The memo, attached to Monday night's court argument and not previously disclosed even to Manafort, describes how Rosenstein's public order that appointed Mueller in May left out some details so it didn't confirm "specific investigations involving specific individuals." 

Most of the investigations and individuals that Rosenstein named in that memo are now redacted -- amounting to almost a full page of withheld information. 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/03/politics/mueller-manafort-rosenstein-memo/index.html

Edited by Pods
Link to comment
Share on other sites
yaqdum

yaqdum 182

Posted
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

While there is likely ample evidence of Trump criminality outside of campaign-election-related "collusion," I think what gets revealed by Mueller's investigation within the mandate will shock the conscience.  The only GOP in Congress not responding accordingly will be those who are also criminally complicit.  Anything less will get processed by the electorate, but I don't think Trump survives Mueller's findings.

i think you have got it exactly right.

 

12 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

When you take a step back and look at Mueller's mandate and the team he has assembled, it looks more like Donald is just that first pebble in the dam that dislodges, triggering a sudden massive flood.  This is about a lot more than "getting POTUS."

yes, indeed.  think back when comey was fired.  at that time it was all about potus, and the investigation was probably weeks from the big climax.  but comey got the ax and mueller got tabbed to go after whatever he could turn up.  immediately the whole game changed.  many, many who get pole-axed by this investigation will want to draw and quarter said potus after the dust settles.  he got everybody into the mix.

if for no other reason this country owes potus a debt of gratitude.  we'll be a different nation after this is completed.

Edited by yaqdum
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buzzrock

Buzzrock 15136

Posted
Posted
yes, indeed.  think back when comey was fired.  at that time it was all about potus, and the investigation was probably weeks from the big climax.  but comey got the ax and mueller got tabbed to go after whatever he could turn up.  immediately the whole game changed.  many, many who get pole-axed by this investigation will want to draw and quarter said potus after the dust settles.  he got everybody into the mix.
if for no other reason this country owes potus a debt of gratitude.  we'll be a different nation after this is completed.


Srs question: at what point was Mueller ordered to go find “whatever he could turn up”? I missed that chapter. It’s been my understanding that Mueller has been tasked with investigating two things 1) in what ways did the Russians interfere in the 2016 election, and 2) did Trump and Putin conspire to get Trump elected.

And I respect your optimism, but I don’t know why impeaching Trump would heal the nation. His base will be livid.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Kingsley

Hank Kingsley 21784

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Buzzrock said:

And I respect your optimism, but I don’t know why impeaching Trump would heal the nation. His base will be livid.

 

Fuck Trump's base.  This country will never be "healed" as long as Trumpism is considered a viable political (or moral) position.

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 47191

Posted
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, yaqdum said:

we'll be a different nation after this is completed.

My biggest hope after "I hope we survive" is that kids will learn far more about our government than the last generation or two did.  I mean, I've had many more discussions with my kids about gun control, abortion, freedom of the press, etc. than my parents ever did with me, and they were highly educated, highly involved parents.

Edited by jimmyjazz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32078

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, hobbes2702 said:

Crime that arises from his investigation is within his mandate. 

I understand where you're coming from, but that (para b) ii)) really is no limit at all.  And Mueller understands this and won't depart from the spirit of the mandate, as shown by his recently revealed consultations with Rosenstein, the "taint team," etc.  Even the Manafort stuff is acknowledged to have been triggered by an expiring statute of limitations, with the implication being that otherwise Mueller would have referred it out.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pods

Pods 7637

Posted
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

 


Srs question: at what point was Mueller ordered to go find “whatever he could turn up”? I missed that chapter. It’s been my understanding that Mueller has been tasked with investigating two things 1) in what ways did the Russians interfere in the 2016 election, and 2) did Trump and Putin conspire to get Trump elected.

And I respect your optimism, but I don’t know why impeaching Trump would heal the nation. His base will be livid.

 

 

I had just posted this 4 posts before your question.

We literally have NO IDEA what Mueller is authorized to INVESTIGATE. There is a special MEMO Rosenstein wrote that STILL has about a full PAGE REDACTED.  

58 minutes ago, Pods said:

 

 

 

Mueller has also got a special authorization for certain areas from Rosenstein, most of which are still blacked out. One section that isn't specifically authorizes Mueller to go after Manafort's Ukraine work on behalf of Russia. We don't know what most of this covers, since it is still classified so as not to tip the potential defendants. 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/03/politics/mueller-manafort-rosenstein-memo/index.html

 

Anyone saying Mueller is outside his mandate is full of SHIT because it's possible no one but Rosenstein and Mueller know what his full mandate is.  

 

Edited by Pods
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90645

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, triplehorn said:

This isn't about saving POTUS from himself.  No GOP on the Hill believes Mueller and his team of 16+ ace prosecutors is running clock empty handed.  The next step POTUS takes "fighting back" will put the onus squarely on them to DO SOMETHING!  Under no circumstances do they want that anchor dropping in their lap.  Amazing how much of a consensus view this is.  It's bad, but keeping Mueller intact helps keep it somewhat compartmentalized to the WH.

Yep.  Right now, Republicans in Congress, everybody in the House, and some in the Senate, are already running with Trump's stink on them.  It may not affect most of them too bad, but there are plenty who have been watching elections in areas that Trump won by double digits flipping over to Dems over the past year.  And Ryan's bailing out.  So plenty are nervous.

For them, it's best that Mueller complete his investigation.  They just want to throw their hands up and run the clock out until November.  They don't have to pick sides then.

If Trump fires Mueller, their hand will be forced, and they will be running on a single issue - Trump firing Mueller.  That's not what any of them want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32078

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Pods said:

 

I had just posted this 4 posts before your question.

We literally have NO IDEA what Mueller is authorized to INVESTIGATE. There is a special MEMO Rosenstein wrote that STILL has about a full PAGE REDACTED.  

 

Anyone saying Mueller is outside his mandate is full of SHIT because it's possible no one but Rosenstein and Mueller know what his full mandate is.  

 

No one is saying he's outside his mandate, yet, well except Manafort tried to.  But obviously Mueller isn't taking that order reproduced above at face value.  He apparently is constantly going back to Rosenstein to confirm that areas of investigation are within the mandate.  And, actually, even Rosenstein's "word" isn't law.  The great limiter on Special Counsel is 28 CFR 600.1:

Quote

That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances

And clearly, Mueller does not want to make those decisions unilaterally.  Nor does he want to subject his investigation to allegations that it exceeds his mandate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90645

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:


Woah.  

If he's going to go there, he has the blessings of McConnell to proceed.  

 

Yep.  I'd wager Grassley and McConnell have both looked at plenty of internal polling numbers as well.

Also means they aren't afraid of Trump.   That says more than the fact they are concerned Trump is going to do something stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lemonlime

lemonlime 5503

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Really thinking Ryan is bailing not because he's going to lose the Speakership come January, but because he sees plenty we aren't, and wants to GTFO of Dodge before it goes down.  Dude's only 48 and he's trying to preserve his political future.

This.  It also is odd that if he really just wanted to retire, he didn't make sure there was a better GOP candidate in his district than the neo-Nazi running.  If this was truly about spending time with his kids, he would have gotten out earlier and worked on the succession in his district.  Something has him spooked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buzzrock

Buzzrock 15136

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

I cannot believe we are having the same fucking discussion again. For fucks sake

I don't have time to keep up with this thread on a daily basis. If my questions enrage you so please feel free to put me on ignore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DixonHur

DixonHur 11959

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

This.  It also is odd that if he really just wanted to retire, he didn't make sure there was a better GOP candidate in his district than the neo-Nazi running.  If this was truly about spending time with his kids, he would have gotten out earlier and worked on the succession in his district.  Something has him spooked.

An interesting conversation with a hacker on a flight from Prague to Seattle, perhaps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pods

Pods 7637

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

I don't have time to keep up with this thread on a daily basis. If my questions enrage you so please feel free to put me on ignore.

also post 1014 on this thread, 4 posts before yours explaining that there is an entire classified page worth of areas that Rosenstein has specifically authorized Mueller to investigate. They are keeping them classified so as to not tip off the defendants.

Not trying to be snarky, so I hope it doesn't come off that way. 

1 hour ago, Pods said:

 

 

 

Mueller has also got a special authorization for certain areas from Rosenstein, most of which are still blacked out. One section that isn't specifically authorizes Mueller to go after Manafort's Ukraine work on behalf of Russia. We don't know what most of this covers, since it is still classified so as not to tip the potential defendants. 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/03/politics/mueller-manafort-rosenstein-memo/index.html

Edited by Pods
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 47191

Posted
Posted

I don't think the average person is going to be inclined to read the mandate with the bright light of "is it true his mandate is limited"?  I err on the side that says the language is clear, but I've certainly seen enough lawyer types say it's more subtle than that.  I don't really get how that could be, given the fact that the entire practice of law seems to be heavily wrapped up in the meaning of words, sentences, and phrases, but I have definitely run into plenty of circumstances where historical context colors interpretation.  

Perhaps we could cut a well-intentioned poster some slack for not having been through the argument before.  Or maybe we should feed him his nuts and laugh.  <trump> Vote? </trump>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 26239

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't think the average person is going to be inclined to read the mandate with the bright light of "is it true his mandate is limited"?  I err on the side that says the language is clear, but I've certainly seen enough lawyer types say it's more subtle than that.  I don't really get how that could be, given the fact that the entire practice of law seems to be heavily wrapped up in the meaning of words, sentences, and phrases, but I have definitely run into plenty of circumstances where historical context colors interpretation.  

Perhaps we could cut a well-intentioned poster some slack for not having been through the argument before.  Or maybe we should feed him his nuts and laugh.  <trump> Vote? </trump>

How the fuck is it "clear" when it's been redacted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...