The Robert Mueller Investigation

[texas08 1,599]

Serious question, does Mueller have private security guarding him 24/7? Does he have a food taster? What is the speculation on this?

I know he has balls of steel and probably sleeps with two pistols and one eye open...but shit...there’s a fuck ton of maniacs out there that could try some dumb shit to save dear leader. See Florida bomb man.

[Patrick Bateman 3,966]

 

[Ghost of LL 15,674]

 

Inadvertent inadvertent? Or purposefully inadvertent?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gil Bang 26,190]

this is our concern dude. 

[Biff Tannen 46,074]

Someone tell me what this means.

[shnsajax 3,605]

Someone tell me what this means.

Doesn’t mean shit till we get him on US soil.

[deech 2,381]

2 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

Yep. Pardon Don Jr.  I fucking dare you.   That's political poison, and it's gonna be REAL hard for McConnell and the rest of the usual dipshits to defend it on my TV on Sunday morning.  And much, much harder on the campaign trail. 

They've shown no spine to date.  Can't fathom that changes for this reason.  It also won't change anyone's opinion because 'Merica.

[Gil Bang 26,190]

1 minute ago, deech said:

They've shown no spine to date.  Can't fathom that changes for this reason.  It also won't change anyone's opinion because 'Merica.

It could very well result in fewer Americans identifying as Republicans. 

[DanRydell 799]

Inadvertent inadvertent? Or purposefully inadvertent?

It looks genuinely inadvertent. Particularly since they don’t have him custody yet.

[shnsajax 3,605]

It looks genuinely inadvertent. Particularly since they don’t have him custody yet.

I don’t know. Ecuador has been looking to boot him and it could be a tell to Trump/Stone that we have the evidence while he is filling out his take home exam.

[Mdhorn 6,153]

53 minutes ago, shnsajax said:

 

I don’t know. Ecuador has been looking to boot him and it could be a tell to Trump/Stone that we have the evidence while he is filling out his take home exam.

 

First step he takes on American soil, Trump and McConnell will be there to greet him.  I'd probably throw Lindsey in that meeting as well.  They're going to need to coach his testimony to keep their stories straight--provided they haven't already been communicating.   

Edited November 16, 2018 by Mdhorn

[Goredho 17,633]

4 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

For McConnell and the rest of the dipshits, all you would get from a pardon of Junior would be furrowed brows and concern.

 

On the campaign trail, it would be celebrated.  

Furrowed brow?  Try righteous fury that the crazed Mueller would target Trump’s children with his witch hunt. It would be characterized as a despicable and desperate ploy to harm the President due to the investigation having turned up NO COLLUSION!

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

It was clear in the last indictment of the Russians that WikiLeaks (Assange, Organization 1) was going to get rolled up in an indictment.

[bolverk 30,253]

5 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It was clear in the last indictment of the Russians that WikiLeaks (Assange, Organization 1) was going to get rolled up in an indictment.

[Francisco 2.0 32,545]

9 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

Inadvertent inadvertent? Or purposefully inadvertent?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm thinking it might have been on purpose.

Muller's team isn't leaking anything, and this may have a hidden in plain sight signal to just how deep they are going in without lube.

 

[Tuco 5,093]

Yep, I do indeed.  
But, the public will see through the bullshit.  At least enough of them will to make a difference at the polls. 

At the polls?? Two years from now ? I want Don Jr to go to prison. If Mueller throws out some perjury charge without the context of the overall conspiracy, Trump will absolutely cry “witch hunt” and pardon him. And no one will be surprised in the least. There is a line when you get close enough to Donald’s inner circle where you can’t just can’t nibble anymore. Manafort was very close to that line. Jr is clearly inside of it. To charge Jr you have to show enough evidence that it’s not a witch hunt. Trump may pardon anyway, but there is a constitutional grey area around impeachment.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[Pig Bellmont 8,878]

8 hours ago, shnsajax said:

 

Doesn’t mean shit till we get him on US soil.

 

According to Twitter, Russian tv says Assange is being extradited...

[bad_teammate 13,485]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

hahaha that's great

[kevwun 16,360]

Mueller has to be the one working on his extradition.  Any other Gov employee who even suggests it is gonna get fired.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,410]

7 hours ago, shnsajax said:

 

I don’t know. Ecuador has been looking to boot him and it could be a tell to Trump/Stone that we have the evidence while he is filling out his take home exam.

 

This still baffles me as to why they don't just throw his ass out if they don't want him hanging around.

[Pig Bellmont 8,878]

 

[kevwun 16,360]

Ecuador is friendly with Russia.  It is a tricky situation for them because of that.

Edited November 16, 2018 by kevwun

[Francisco 2.0 32,545]

1 minute ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

This still baffles me as to why they don't just throw his ass out if they don't want him hanging around.

Bargaining chip of some kind for Ecuador is the only explanation I could ever come up with.  

[Biff Tannen 46,074]

Felony Friday?

[Longhorn94 2,494]

16 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

this sounds familiar. hmmmm who else has published something that was not intended to be public without notice? anyone? i just cant place it....

[Fozzz 152]

I don't personally like Assange, but using the Espionage Act against him is a much greater threat to the freedom of the press than the silly Acosta bullshit.  Isn't it funny that there is no movement to repeal a law that is likely unconstitutional and is generally used against government whistleblowers?  Wonder why that is.

Edited November 16, 2018 by Fozzz

[BurntOrange&White 41,700]

I don't personally like Assange, but using the Espionage Act against him is a much greater threat to the freedom of the press than the silly Acosta bullshit.  Isn't it funny that there is no movement to repeal a law that is likely unconstitutional and is generally used against government whistleblowers?  Wonder why that is.

Wut?

[Fozzz 152]

Just now, Bevo VIII said:

Wut?

Maybe this will help.

Quote

But prosecuting Assange and/or WikiLeaks for publishing classified documents would be in an entirely different universe of press freedom threats. Reporting on the secret acts of government officials or powerful financial actors – including by publishing documents taken without authorization – is at the core of investigative journalism. From the Pentagon Papers to the Panama Papers to the Snowden disclosures to publication of Trump’s tax returns to the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs, some of the most important journalism over the last several decades has occurred because it is legal and constitutional to publish secret documents even if the sources of those documents obtained them through illicit or even illegal means.

The Obama DOJ – despite launching notoriously aggressive attacks on press freedoms – recognized this critical principle when it came to WikiLeaks. It spent years exploring whether it could criminally charge Assange and WikiLeaks for publishing classified information. It ultimately decided it would not do so, and could not do so, consistent with the press freedom guarantee of the First Amendment. After all, the Obama DOJ concluded, such a prosecution would pose a severe threat to press freedom because there would be no way to prosecute Assange for publishing classified documents without also prosecuting the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian and others for doing exactly the same thing.

As the Washington Post put it in 2013 when it explained the Obama DOJ’s decision not to prosecute Assange:

Justice officials said they looked hard at Assange but realized that they have what they described as a “New York Times problem.” If the Justice Department indicted Assange, it would also have to prosecute the New York Times and other news organizations and writers who published classified material, including The Washington Post and Britain’s Guardian newspaper.

https://theintercept.com/2018/11/16/as-the-obama-doj-concluded-prosecution-of-julian-assange-for-publishing-documents-poses-grave-threats-to-press-freedom/

[BurntOrange&White 41,700]

Aren’t they being prosecuted for publishing stolen documents in an effort to sway an election?

[atomheartbevo 90,567]

10 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I don't personally like Assange, but using the Espionage Act against him is a much greater threat to the freedom of the press than the silly Acosta bullshit.  Isn't it funny that there is no movement to repeal a law that is likely unconstitutional and is generally used against government whistleblowers?  Wonder why that is.

I know it's way oversimplifying, but one or more groups, potentially included state actors, attacked the computer systems of a candidate for one of our elections, and then Assange released the contents to influence our elections, down to releasing them at particular points of the election/campaign process.

If Assange was working for the KGB successor, you'd have no problem bringing him in. 

This wasn't him releasing everything at once and saying "SHE'S A BAD PERSON".  He had those emails released at specific times to damage/influence our election process.

 

Edited November 16, 2018 by atomheartbevo

[Fozzz 152]

We'll see what he's actually charged with, but irrespective of his motives for publishing those docs he shouldn't be criminally charged for simply publishing them.  Subjective motive of the publisher shouldn't matter.  What if someone published stolen docs with subjective bad faith motives (e.g., as a partisan effort to hurt the admin in power), but the stolen docs showed egregious and widespread illegal activity by the US government?  Should that person be thrown in the clink?  

[BurntOrange&White 41,700]

We'll see what he's actually charged with, but irrespective of his motives for publishing those docs he shouldn't be criminally charged for simply publishing them.  Subjective motive of the publisher shouldn't matter.  What if someone published stolen docs with subjective bad faith motives (e.g., as a partisan effort to hurt the admin in power), but the stolen docs showed egregious and widespread illegal activity by the US government?  Should that person be thrown in the clink?  

They were stolen documents. I think his situation is completely different than whistle blowing.

[Fozzz 152]

What do you think whistleblowing is?  Do you think the Pentagon Papers were leaked to the press legally?  

[Chad Fuck 18,103]

He's also not a U.S. Citizen, so he's a hostile foreign actor who isn't entitled to all the same protections a citizen would be.  

[SameSame 1,745]

31 minutes ago, Longhorn94 said:

this sounds familiar. hmmmm who else has published something that was not intended to be public without notice? anyone? i just cant place it....

That has to be one of the most ironic things ever written.

[Francisco 2.0 32,545]

1 minute ago, Fozzz said:

We'll see what he's actually charged with, but irrespective of his motives for publishing those docs he shouldn't be criminally charged for simply publishing them.  Subjective motive of the publisher shouldn't matter.  What if someone published stolen docs with subjective bad faith motives (e.g., as a partisan effort to hurt the admin in power), but the stolen docs showed egregious and widespread illegal activity by the US government?  Should that person be thrown in the clink?  

He's also a foreign national, that possibly was working in conjunction with other foreign states and US citizens.

Quite a bit different than the Pentagon Papers, a whistleblower, etc.

[Fozzz 152]

Just now, Chad Fuck said:

He's also not a U.S. Citizen, so he's a hostile foreign actor who isn't entitled to all the same protections a citizen would be.  

Where does the first amendment mention citizenship?  Constitutional protections are afforded to non-citizens.  

[DixonHur 11,948]

5 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Where does the first amendment mention citizenship?  Constitutional protections are afforded to non-citizens.  

Really?  That's the argument you're going with?  So does everyone in the world get all US Constitutional protection when they are not on US soil?

[Chad Fuck 18,103]

7 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Where does the first amendment mention citizenship?  Constitutional protections are afforded to non-citizens.  

I didn't say anything about the First Amendment.  Some Constitutional protections are afforded to non-citizens, like those in the 1st Amendment.  But some are not.  

We don't have all the information about what he's charged with.  So it's premature to ramp up a 1st Amendment argument, or any defensive argument, here.

I was just making note of the fact that the is not a U.S. Citizen, and therefore, is not accorded all the rights that we freely banter about here.  Mueller will be acutely aware of this and any restraints, or lack of restraints, it puts on him.

[crash_davis 23,465]

assange was some sort of hero to some but turns out he maybe was just a pawn in russian's game.  if true, fuck that asshat for helping get trump elected.

[Dahobbs 18,205]

Just now, DixonHur said:

Really?  That's the argument you're going with?  So does everyone in the world get all US Constitutional protection when they are not on US soil?

In a way, yes. First, the Constitution created a government of limited or enumerated powers. Anything outside of those powers is something the government cannot do. And that limit would apply regardless of the status of any persons or entities affected by the exercise of government power. So, those sorts of constitutional limits protect everyone. On the other hand, the Bill of Rights turned the original framework on its head a bit by restricting existing power rather than granting power. As a result, the protections provided by the Bill of Rights do vary in their scope depending on the status of the person or entity affected. 

[David Dennison 19,442]

12 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Really?  That's the argument you're going with?  So does everyone in the world get all US Constitutional protection when they are not on US soil?

They are if they are going to be charged with crimes by the state.

 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

26 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

We'll see what he's actually charged with, but irrespective of his motives for publishing those docs he shouldn't be criminally charged for simply publishing them.  Subjective motive of the publisher shouldn't matter.  What if someone published stolen docs with subjective bad faith motives (e.g., as a partisan effort to hurt the admin in power), but the stolen docs showed egregious and widespread illegal activity by the US government?  Should that person be thrown in the clink?  

mere publishing stolen papers isn't illegal.  like you said, SCOTUS said that with the pentagon papers.  but that is more of a prior restraint case then a 'this-is-never-illegal' case.

 

you stole our nuclear codes?  those are truthful.  so publish them.  and you will go to jail.

 

you stole classified information?  hop in line with reality winner.

 

Who knows what the extra stuff is there to make it illegal.  like you said, the charging document will let us know.  but if we just argue "is it/is it not illegal to publish something stolen" then we are only looking at 1% of the case (and a question that is easily answered).

[Chooky 13,340]

1 hour ago, Pig Bellmont said:

 

Good luck, Milky.

[yaqdum 182]

lunatic fringe finding it harder and harder to make a point.

 

[Fozzz 152]

18 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Really?  That's the argument you're going with?  So does everyone in the world get all US Constitutional protection when they are not on US soil?

So then then there was no constitutional violation in preventing non-US citizens from entering the country via Trump's Muslim ban?  These were noncitizens outside of the US (you aren't "in" the US until you pass through customs) complaining of first amendment violations.  I assume you supported Trump on that one.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

👎 socratic method posts.  Should we list all the legally important differences between a guy from Iran not being able to visit the U.S. and Acosta asking questions at a presser?  

[Fozzz 152]

12 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

mere publishing stolen papers isn't illegal.  like you said, SCOTUS said that with the pentagon papers.  but that is more of a prior restraint case then a 'this-is-never-illegal' case.

 

you stole our nuclear codes?  those are truthful.  so publish them.  and you will go to jail.

 

you stole classified information?  hop in line with reality winner.

 

Who knows what the extra stuff is there to make it illegal.  like you said, the charging document will let us know.  but if we just argue "is it/is it not illegal to publish something stolen" then we are only looking at 1% of the case (and a question that is easily answered).

I think if Ellsberg had expected the Reality Winner treatment the Pentagon Papers likely would have never been leaked.  Speaking of Ellsberg, here are his thoughts on Assange:

Quote

“Julian is not a whistleblower per se, but a facilitator of whistleblowing,” Ellsberg said, “…the point being that as a journalist, he can not fairly be tried under the Espionage Act.”

As one who only received classified material and published it, “It is essential that Julian Assange not be indicted, be convicted, or be extradited to the United States,” Ellsberg said.

https://www.mintpressnews.com/daniel-ellsberg-julian-assange-journalist-cant-tried-espionage-act/248803/

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

We'll see what the charging docs show, but "conspiracy to [x]" gets a lot of people in trouble.