The Robert Mueller Investigation

[Jive Turkey 12640]

2 hours ago, conVINCEd said:

Rudy and Trump remind me of the 2 most coherent people at my grandfather’s Alzheimer’s care facility.

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

2 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

Funny but it is known that that's actually a pic of Sydney Carton and CloseToJumping

[BLKNSTY 289]

6 hours ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Where were y’all back during the run up to the Iraq War where we lost thousands of valiant soldiers and many more came home broken. I railed against that bullshit war during the hornfans days and was hated for it. We were committing torture. According to the press right now is the worst days of the Republic. Compare the disaster of W’s war to this bullshit and it’s not even the same ballpark when it comes to seriousness.

Is the motherfucker who's advocating for a war with Iran, bitching about the war in Irag?

[Chad Fuck 17725]

3 minutes ago, BLKNSTY said:

Is the motherfucker who's advocating for a war with Iran, bitching about the war in Irag?

Forget it Jack, it's Iconoclast.

[ChiTownDoc 21154]

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Does Rudy even speak English anymore?

It is kNOwn

 

I really think he wouldn't even make it in gen pop at a nursing home.  This motherfucker would be in the lock down dementia unit.  Zero question about it.  He'd be shitting on his meal tray and trying to eat out of the staff toilet.  He'd lose a dozen pair of glasses every week.  What a fucking idiot. 

[ShaggyBevo RIP 3868]

2 hours ago, lemonlime said:

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.  I know we've lost all sense of normalcy in the past year, but JFC, regardless of whether it was a crime, the president when he was a candidate paid off at least two women with whom he had affairs, while his wife was at home with their 3 month old baby, keeping the affairs hidden from the public in a successful effort to win the presidency.  But apparently republicans' moral barometer is just whether this conduct violated a criminal statute.  And if it did, then their moral barometer will go even lower.  Party of "family values" my ass.

Remember when Clinton lying about getting a BJ as a major crime?

[ChiTownDoc 21154]

3 hours ago, conVINCEd said:

Rudy and Trump remind me of the 2 most coherent people at my grandfather’s Alzheimer’s care facility.

Fuck, I honestly didn't read this before making my damn post.  

[TwiceHorn 31520]

3 hours ago, Buzzrock said:

So my question is: should a SP just be full time job? Would it be good for the country if every administration knew there was a watchdog turning over rocks day and night? Or would it be unconstitutional without specific grounds for investigation?
 

This post kind of highlights why you have to be careful with "special" or "independent" counsel.  We have a very large and expensive federal investigatory and prosecutorial service for just the purpose of investigating and prosecuting crime at the federal level.  It even has "public integrity" units dedicated to uncovering and prosecuting public corruption.  It so happens that under our current scheme, those agencies (FBI, DOJ, others) are "executive" agencies, meaning their heads are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the executive, ie the President.

One might quibble as to whether those agencies should maybe be under congressional or judicial "control," but the system is fairly well understood and we have a pretty good notion of how the checks and balances work on that system.  We know how the congress and the courts and even the president can operate to correct malfunctions in the system.  The agencies are full of civil servants whose employment is not generally subject to political influence or whim and are believed to be "professional." The existing apparatus seems to do just fine with congressmen, judges, and state officials.

The special or independent counsel, as conceived in American law, (technically, they were "special prosecutors," then "independent counsel" under an act of congress, then "special counsel" after the act of congress expired) is appointed ONLY when there is a conflict of interest posed by the investigation or prosecution, which typically means that the special prosecutor is charged to investigate and/or prosecute wrongdoing at the upper reaches of the executive branch, where the officials under investigation might have both the inclination and the power to curb the investigation/prosecution.

All of the special/independent/prosecutors/counsel have operated outside the normal confines of the executive agencies that would investigate/prosecute if not for the conflict of interest.  They have not been full time employees of the agencies and they are not under the day-to-day supervision or control of the AG or the President.

A speclal counsel is not, and never has been, some roving public integrity investigator/prosecutor.  Most legal scholars and political scientists believe that such counsel should be used very sparingly and under very controlled conditions to avoid undue accretion of power and rogue prosecutions not subject to the normal checks and balances applicable to the FBI and DOJ, among others, in other words, the standard federal law enforcement apparatus.

Before the Independent Counsel Law, in 1978, and after it expired in 1998, special prosecutors and counsel were appointed by the President or the AG and weren't very far outside the normal apparatus.  The actual Independent Counsel, though, was subject to a more complex appointment and supervision scheme involving the AG, Congress, and a three-judge panel of the DC Circuit.  Those independent counsel were actually more independent than the current and past versions.

So, should we have "public watchdog" investigators and prosecutors?  We already have em.  Should they be outside the normal apparatus we have for that purpose?  Probably not.

Should we have an act of congress governing appointment, removal, and reporting functions of a special or independent counsel, and subjecting them to control of the legislative and/or judicial branches?  Very probably so.  A bonus effect of such an act is an argument that by signing such a law, the president may waive immunity to prosecution for the office of the president.

 

 

[Gil Bang 25990]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

This post kind of highlights why you have to be careful with "special" or "independent" counsel.  We have a very large and expensive federal investigatory and prosecutorial service for just the purpose of investigating and prosecuting crime at the federal level.  It even has "public integrity" units dedicated to uncovering and prosecuting public corruption.  It so happens that under our current scheme, those agencies (FBI, DOJ, others) are "executive" agencies, meaning their heads are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the executive, ie the President.

One might quibble as to whether those agencies should maybe be under congressional or judicial "control," but the system is fairly well understood and we have a pretty good notion of how the checks and balances work on that system.  We know how the congress and the courts and even the president can operate to correct malfunctions in the system.  The agencies are full of civil servants whose employment is not generally subject to political influence or whim and are believed to be "professional." The existing apparatus seems to do just fine with congressmen, judges, and state officials.

The special or independent counsel, as conceived in American law, (technically, they were "special prosecutors," then "independent counsel" under an act of congress, then "special counsel" after the act of congress expired) is appointed ONLY when there is a conflict of interest posed by the investigation or prosecution, which typically means that the special prosecutor is charged to investigate and/or prosecute wrongdoing at the upper reaches of the executive branch, where the officials under investigation might have both the inclination and the power to curb the investigation/prosecution.

All of the special/independent/prosecutors/counsel have operated outside the normal confines of the executive agencies that would investigate/prosecute if not for the conflict of interest.  They have not been full time employees of the agencies and they are not under the day-to-day supervision or control of the AG or the President.

A speclal counsel is not, and never has been, some roving public integrity investigator/prosecutor.  Most legal scholars and political scientists believe that such counsel should be used very sparingly and under very controlled conditions to avoid undue accretion of power and rogue prosecutions not subject to the normal checks and balances applicable to the FBI and DOJ, among others, in other words, the standard federal law enforcement apparatus.

Before the Independent Counsel Law, in 1978, and after it expired in 1998, special prosecutors and counsel were appointed by the President or the AG and weren't very far outside the normal apparatus.  The actual Independent Counsel, though, was subject to a more complex appointment and supervision scheme involving the AG, Congress, and a three-judge panel of the DC Circuit.  Those independent counsel were actually more independent than the current and past versions.

So, should we have "public watchdog" investigators and prosecutors?  We already have em.  Should they be outside the normal apparatus we have for that purpose?  Probably not.

Should we have an act of congress governing appointment, removal, and reporting functions of a special or independent counsel, and subjecting them to control of the legislative and/or judicial branches?  Very probably so.  A bonus effect of such an act is an argument that by signing such a law, the president may waive immunity to prosecution for the office of the president.

 

 

I think that the indictment of Duncan Hunter, a fucking 100% trumpkin dipshit, by a GOP led DOJ,  reinforces your point nicely. 

[TwiceHorn 31520]

9 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

I think that the indictment of Duncan Hunter, a fucking 100% trumpkin dipshit, by a GOP led DOJ,  reinforces your point nicely. 

Yeah, there's tons of examples of prosecutions of non-executive branch politicians and judges by the normal FBI and DOJ.  Are they aggressive enough?  I don't know, but I don't believe that problem, if it exists, is solved by an independent or special counsel.

I forgot to add that Ken Starr was the most prominent independent counsel appointed under the 10 or so years of independent counsel law.  He was all over the fucking place, BUT, each time his investigation took on a new direction, he had to apply to that three-judge panel of the DC Circuit for approval, and received it.  I think those kind of procedures are a good thing.  it increases independence, and decreases the amount of "witch hunt" bitching that targets can do.

Edited August 23, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Homercles 10206]

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.  I know we've lost all sense of normalcy in the past year, but JFC, regardless of whether it was a crime, the president when he was a candidate paid off at least two women with whom he had affairs, while his wife was at home with their 3 month old baby, keeping the affairs hidden from the public in a successful effort to win the presidency.  But apparently republicans' moral barometer is just whether this conduct violated a criminal statute.  And if it did, then their moral barometer will go even lower.  Party of "family values" my ass.

This is our concern dude

[triplehorn 2664]

A post upstream mentioned the imminent NY AG civil case against the Trump Foundation which includes Trump and three kids, and has the potential to lead to criminal charges.

Tonight on another Trump entity, the Trump Organization:

- Not Fed

- 2 senior company officials under scrutiny, one strong candidate:   Allen Weisselberg. Trump Organization CFO AND Trump Foundation Treasurer

 

Edited August 24, 2018 by triplehorn

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

She’s going on every show and all but begging for a pardon.

Anderson Cooper is tomorrow 

Edited August 24, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[RayDog 682]

37 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

A post upstream mentioned the imminent NY AG civil case against the Trump Foundation which includes Trump and three kids, and has the potential to lead to criminal charges.

Tonight on another Trump entity, the Trump Organization:

- Not Fed

- 2 senior company officials under scrutiny, one strong candidate:   Allen Weisselberg. Trump Organization CFO AND Trump Foundation Treasurer

 

The two officials from the Cohen plea, executive-1 and executive-2 who approved payment on the phoney invoice are Eric and Don Jr.

[suddenly shaggy 929]

7 minutes ago, RayDog said:

The two officials from the Cohen plea, executive-1 and executive-2 who approved payment on the phoney invoice are Eric and Don Jr.

It's going to be Weisselberg +1.

[TwiceHorn 31520]

31 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

She’s going on every show and all but begging for a pardon.

Anderson Cooper is tomorrow 

Having her on national TV shows seems rather cruel.  Georgie Porgie is a pimple on the ass of this whole thing.

[Jack Straw 2954]

14 hours ago, Bevo VIII said:

Is iconoclast the dude who sucked dick for drugs and from the Houston area?

He’s the dude who openly supports treason. 

[RayDog 682]

I love the fact that the N.Y. AG is going to need the Trump Foundation tax returns in order to investigate the tax fraud. I suspect that once they start pulling on that thread there will be a lot of unraveling. If we are lucky they might even be made public at some point.

[RayDog 682]

Note that I meant the Trump organization tax returns.

[Buzzrock 14936]

It matters if the conduct they can prove is against some criminal statute.  That’s what makes it criminal. 

He knows that.

[Buzzrock 14936]

We are all taking crazy pills and have been for two years.  2018.  Nothing.  Matters.

Manafort and Cohen might disagree.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

7 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Having her on national TV shows seems rather cruel.  Georgie Porgie is a pimple on the ass of this whole thing.

Maybe it’s just me but she’s working her ass off begging for pardons and legal fees for a coffee boy that’s only looking at six months max.

Me thinks Papadopoulos might be facing more criminal charges.  Like obstruction or Papi could get rolled up in the larger conspiracy to defraud charge. 18 USC 371

[Anastasis 23481]

20 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 Maybe it’s just me but she’s working her ass off begging for pardons and legal fees for a coffee boy that’s only looking at six months max.

 Me thinks Papadopoulos might be facing more criminal charges.  Like obstruction or Papi could get rolled up in the larger conspiracy to defraud charge. 18 USC 371

Or she's a prime grade attention horse. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

19 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Or she's a prime grade attention horse. 

Perhaps some of that too but I’ve been following her Twitter account for a year and her feed was quiet up until a few weeks ago and now it looks like she’s in panic mode. 21 tweets over the past two days.

There’s probably something to that. 

Edited August 24, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[lemonlime 5503]

17 hours ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

It matters if the conduct they can prove is against some criminal statute.  That’s what makes it criminal. 

It doesn't matter.  As a practical matter, trump won't be indicted.  And he's already committed multiple impeachable offenses, not the least of which is his repeated violations of the emoluments clause.  He won't be indicted and he won't be impeached.  Whether his conduct violated a criminal statute (it did) doesn't matter.  

[lemonlime 5503]

24 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Perhaps some of that too but I’ve been following her Twitter account for a year and her feed was quiet up until a few weeks ago and now it looks like she’s in panic mode. 21 tweets over the past two days.

There’s probably something to that. 

Maybe her house is about to be foreclosed.  Or she has a sick parent.  Or anything.  Why would P's wife have any inside knowledge on the Russia investigation?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, lemonlime said:

Maybe her house is about to be foreclosed.  Or she has a sick parent.  Or anything.  Why would P's wife have any inside knowledge on the Russia investigation?

Papadopoulos is forbidden to speak publicly about the investigation.  He’s using his wife as a proxy.  

 

In other news:

 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Nm

Edited August 24, 2018 by Mojo Hand
too complicated

[triplehorn 2664]

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Maybe it’s just me but she’s working her ass off begging for pardons and legal fees for a coffee boy that’s only looking at six months max.

Me thinks Papadopoulos might be facing more criminal charges.  Like obstruction or Papi could get rolled up in the larger conspiracy to defraud charge. 18 USC 371

 

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Perhaps some of that too but I’ve been following her Twitter account for a year and her feed was quiet up until a few weeks ago and now it looks like she’s in panic mode. 21 tweets over the past two days.

There’s probably something to that. 

If Papadopolous blows his plea deal, per the original arrest warrant, he could be looking at 10 years, not six months.  And yes obstruction of justice was listed in addition to lying to FBI.

I know translating Spicey is a beating, but she caught some important events that went largely unnoticed:

and

 

[atomheartbevo 89775]

20 hours ago, DiceHands said:

If Pecker has immunity, he must have something pretty good.  No one gets that deal without having a smoking gun. 

This potentially ruins a lot of his business going forward, and not just the National Enquirer part. There’s going to be a whole lot of people wondering a) what did the FBI see or learn about me, and b) will Pecker flip on me.

Some serious shit went down for Pecker to tell-all. 

Also means he’s not afraid of Trump.  

[Hiphopopotamos 20876]

 

[NameAlreadyInUse 5114]

1 minute ago, Hiphopopotamos said:

 

Ruh Roh.

[atomheartbevo 89775]

2 minutes ago, Hiphopopotamos said:

 

That seems kind of important.  Trump Org CFO, seems like he would know something is up.  Maybe. 

[TwiceHorn 31520]

Seems much ado about very little.  The government's sentencing memorandum argues for a term of imprisonment, rather than no imprisonment.  At no point does it argue that more than six months should be imposed, nor does it strenuously argue for the full six months.

 

I don't recall any "arrest warrant," and it isn't on the OSC site.  The initiating document there is the information, which alleges a single count of false statement, with a maximum sentence of five years.  Inasmuch as the sentencing memorandum indicates that he provided no meaningful cooperation, it seems that further charges would be warranted, if that was "under the table."

[Pescado_Rojo 19427]

6 minutes ago, Hiphopopotamos said:

 

Is this a big deal? This seems like a big deal. 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

The increased pace certainly seems like a big deal.  Seems like Mueller feels like he's hot on the trail of something and knows what stones to look under.

[Biff Tannen 45702]

19 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Seems much ado about very little.  The government's sentencing memorandum argues for a term of imprisonment, rather than no imprisonment.  At no point does it argue that more than six months should be imposed, nor does it strenuously argue for the full six months.

 

I don't recall any "arrest warrant," and it isn't on the OSC site.  The initiating document there is the information, which alleges a single count of false statement, with a maximum sentence of five years.  Inasmuch as the sentencing memorandum indicates that he provided no meaningful cooperation, it seems that further charges would be warranted, if that was "under the table."

This is regarding Pops right?  Not the new immunity deal?

[David Dennison 18944]

DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON CLINTON FOUNDATION: SHUT IT DOWN

Hillary Clinton is the defender of the corrupt and rigged status quo. The Clintons have spent decades as insiders lining their own pockets and taking care of donors instead of the American people. It is now clear that the Clinton Foundation is the most corrupt enterprise in political history. What they were doing during Crooked Hillary’s time as Secretary of State was wrong then, and it is wrong now. It must be shut down immediately.

– Donald J. Trump

[horn4life 3780]

I hardly even log on anymore but I was curious to see the reaction to the Chief Financial Officer of the Trump Organization being granted immunity.  The guy knows everything about Trump Inc and this is the point at which Trump will realize his goose is completely cooked. Weisselberg knows the depth of Trump's corruption, and he ONLY will recieve immunity for crimes he confesses and testifies to.  

He's gonna need to take a week of vacation to testify...

[Hiphopopotamos 20876]

Bloomberg editor who has covered Trump and his finances for years.

[Todd Gack 432]

22 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

Is this a big deal? This seems like a big deal. 

So a sitting president can't be indicted.  Fine, whatever.  His term will end, he'll be indicted as a citizen, and he will die in prison.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON CLINTON FOUNDATION: SHUT IT DOWN

Hillary Clinton is the defender of the corrupt and rigged status quo. The Clintons have spent decades as insiders lining their own pockets and taking care of donors instead of the American people. It is now clear that the Clinton Foundation is the most corrupt enterprise in political history. What they were doing during Crooked Hillary’s time as Secretary of State was wrong then, and it is wrong now. It must be shut down immediately.

– Donald J. Trump

When and where is this from?

[Superhero 8833]

20 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Pecker has the pee pee tape.

It doesn’t matter to the evangelicals. What he did in the past is for the Lord to forgive. He had put his faith in the Lord the FIRST TIME he put his hand on the Bible during the inauguration. 

[Superhero 8833]

20 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Pecker has the pee pee tape.

What da double post. 

Edited August 24, 2018 by Superhero
Dumbass

[Superhero 8833]

20 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Pecker has the pee pee tape.

What da triple post

Edited August 24, 2018 by Superhero
Dumbass ^2

[David Dennison 18944]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

When and where is this from?

https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/posts/donald-j-trump-statement-on-clinton-foundation-shut-it-downhillary-clinton-is-th/10157542172590725/

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Due to the unwritten 60 days before election rule, we may get a flurry of developments next week before the investigations go dark until after the midterms.

The first thing investigators would have likely looked with regards to Trump is the finances.  That area is still a black box. 

It’s still up in the air if we’re going to get a pre-election ruling on the big elephant in the room, obstruction of justice.  However, at this point I’m not sure Mueller telling us all Trump certainly obstructed justice would do much good.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/posts/donald-j-trump-statement-on-clinton-foundation-shut-it-downhillary-clinton-is-th/10157542172590725/

Not clicking that shit.  What is the date?

[Biff Tannen 45702]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Due to the unwritten 60 days before election rule, we may get a flurry of developments next week before the investigations go dark until after the midterms.

The first thing investigators would have likely looked with regards to Trump is the finances.  That area is still a black box. 

It’s still up in the air if we’re going to get a pre-election ruling on the big elephant in the room, obstruction of justice.  However, at this point I’m not sure Mueller telling us all Trump certainly obstructed justice would do much good.  

What 60 day rule?

[David Dennison 18944]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Not clicking that shit.  What is the date?

August 2016.