The Robert Mueller Investigation

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

7 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

What 60 day rule?

That the DOJ doesn’t make big splashes that can influence the outcome of elections.

It’s a way to insulate the Justice Department from becoming a political weapon.

Will probably be called the “Comey Rule” from now until eternity.

[Ghost of LL 15539]

28 minutes ago, Todd Gack said:

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.  

Yeah.  That's exactly what Pompey and his supporters thought, too.  Just wait until Caesar's term of office is up--then he can be prosecuted.

[GopherRock 1765]

32 minutes ago, Hiphopopotamos said:

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

Follow the money. 

[Red Five 40880]

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. 

Whoa can you believe Trump raped that woman and got her a secret abortion?
It’s in the past. It’s up to the Lord to forgive him.
Um it was last week.
Yeah. In the past.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Tuco 5077]

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

I’m wondering if this is the source of the recent attack/response with Sessions. This is being handled by the SDNY. Sessions is not technically recused from it. The recent criticism is that Sessions didn’t “take control” of the DOJ, rather than just recusing himself about Russia. Trump is pissed Sessions isn’t stopping this.

[Pescado_Rojo 19427]

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

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

 

In other news:

 

 

1 hour ago, Hiphopopotamos said:

 

[Todd Gack 432]

9 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Yeah.  That's exactly what Pompey and his supporters thought, too.  Just wait until Caesar's term of office is up--then he can be prosecuted.

Imma google Pompey and I'll be back with a witty rebuttal.  Please don't shit on my hopes and dreams Brisket-style, mmkay...

[Biff Tannen 45702]

16 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

That the DOJ doesn’t make big splashes that can influence the outcome of elections.

It’s a way to insulate the Justice Department from becoming a political weapon.

Will probably be called the “Comey Rule” from now until eternity.

While I can see the good in that in theory, I don't think it should apply here.  The soul of this fucking country is on the line and I could give a flying fuck whether it's an election year or not.  The outcome of the election is being actively attacked by outside and inside influences RIGHT NOW.  Mueller needs to drop the hammer if there is a hammer to drop.

[Jiggy-Z 3435]

4 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

 

Would also have accepted:

[Tuco 5077]

Imma google Pompey and I'll be back with a witty rebuttal.  Please don't shit on my hopes and dreams Brisket-style, mmkay...

Go watch Rome.

[horncyclist 1391]

The immunity is likely limited to crimes around the Cohen payoffs. This doesn't mean he's spilling the beans on the whole of Trump org.

[Brisketexan 105213]

Quote

"the government relies on innuendo and undefined phrases, soundbites and alarmist buzzwords"

I presume they meant "the president" when they typed "the government," correct?

[Chad Fuck 17725]

12 minutes ago, Todd Gack said:

Imma google Pompey and I'll be back with a witty rebuttal.  Please don't shit on my hopes and dreams Brisket-style, mmkay...

Tickets for your ferry across the Rubicon here!  Get your Rubicon ferry tickets!!

[seven 1367]

Just curious, but what is the reasoning behind "you can't indict a sitting president"? It seems blatantly un-American to have policy that someone is above the law. 

[Chad Fuck 17725]

2 minutes ago, seven said:

Just curious, but what is the reasoning behind "you can't indict a sitting president"? It seems blatantly un-American to have policy that someone is above the law. 

It goes back to the Romans (and likely before).  You can't have your chief executive constantly under legal attack or else that's all they'll be doing - fending off legal attacks instead of governing.  The Founding Fathers put in the impeachment/removal bit to avoid this.  Unfortunately, that depends on the good faith of our Congresscritters, and well....

Edited August 24, 2018 by Chad Fuck

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

13 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

While I can see the good in that in theory, I don't think it should apply here.  The soul of this fucking country is on the line and I could give a flying fuck whether it's an election year or not.  The outcome of the election is being actively attacked by outside and inside influences RIGHT NOW.  Mueller needs to drop the hammer if there is a hammer to drop.

What Mueller hammer drop are you looking for?

What would it look like?

Point being, it seems like Mueller has been dropping plenty of hammers, especially on the Russians which is the real concern here.

I expect the Wikileaks/Roger Stone hammer to drop before the election but that’s about it.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

2 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

It goes back to the Romans (and likely before).  You can't have your chief executive constantly under legal attack or else that's all they'll be doing - fending off legal attacks instead of governing.  The Founding Fathers put in the impeachment/removal bit to avoid this.  Unfortunately, that depends on the good faith of our Congresscritters, and well....

there are also constitutional arguments that aren't just based on pragmatism.  google the "unitary executive" theory for further reading, but it basically says that president represents the executive, which is who does the prosecuting.  you can't prosecute yourself.  

[seven 1367]

The only reason to be under constant criminal legal attack is if you're engaging in criminal activity. 

I understand protections for liability of government actions, but protection from "private life" criminal activity is bonkers, jmho

[triplehorn 2664]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

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."

[Brisketexan 105213]

10 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

It goes back to the Romans (and likely before).  You can't have your chief executive constantly under legal attack or else that's all they'll be doing - fending off legal attacks instead of governing.  The Founding Fathers put in the impeachment/removal bit to avoid this.  Unfortunately, that depends on the good faith of our Congresscritters, and well....

 

3 minutes ago, seven said:

The only reason to be under constant criminal legal attack is if you're engaging in criminal activity. 

I understand protections for liability of government actions, but protection from "private life" criminal activity is bonkers, jmho

But see what the esteemed Chad Fuck posted.  All you'd have to do is cook up "before he became president" criminal activity, and the same problem is created: an executive who is under legal attack instead of governing.  We set up a system to balance against two different risks:

1 -- to avoid the risk of the executive being hamstrung with legal attacks, he is effectively immune from ordinary criminal prosecution WHILE IN OFFICE.  

2 -- BUT, to protect against a criminal weaseling his way into the White House, or against a rogue president actively breaking the law, we have the mechanism of impeachment.

That is, we've foregone the ordinary rule of law when it comes to the executive.  That's risky, but we built in a failsafe: impeachment.  The problem is, when that failsafe fails, and the parachute doesn't open....

 

[Hornius Emeritus 12480]

12 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.

 

But I have to say that I kind of admire her for standing by her man. 

[bolverk 29707]

On 8/23/2018 at 11:26 AM, Longhorn94 said:

I have met and worked with Erik Prince. This is spot on. Probably the most evil, corrupt, and frightening human being i have ever worked around. A truly bad man.

Couple days behind here, so sorry if addressed n the coming pages, but I have to respond before forgetting. Anyway, I sense there's a story here that you need to get off your chest.

[Chad Fuck 17725]

2 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

 

But I have to say that I kind of admire her for standing by her man. 

I admire her because tites.

[Post Oak 20256]

1 hour ago, Hiphopopotamos said:

 

[SimonBolivar 10958]

53 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Yeah.  That's exactly what Pompey and his supporters thought, too.  Just wait until Caesar's term of office is up--then he can be prosecuted.

You blocks, you stones, you worse than senseless things, O you hard hearts, you cruel men of College Station, Knew you not McCain?

[TwiceHorn 31520]

33 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

It goes back to the Romans (and likely before).  You can't have your chief executive constantly under legal attack or else that's all they'll be doing - fending off legal attacks instead of governing.  The Founding Fathers put in the impeachment/removal bit to avoid this.  Unfortunately, that depends on the good faith of our Congresscritters, and well....

That and separation of powers.  If the executive is to be regarded as a co-equal branch of the government, it can't be "acted upon" by the conventional (ie non-impeachment) powers of the legislative and judicial branches.

[TwiceHorn 31520]

22 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Ah very good then.  Still, I think if Muellerco were wont to slam him with additional charges, this would pretty much be the time.  Also, that indicates that a complaint was on file, has that been unsealed or exposed anywhere?  I'm thinking false statement can pretty easily be charged as obstruction.

[atomheartbevo 89775]

24 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

But I have to say that I kind of admire her for standing by her man. 

Yeah, many would be so lucky to have their wives out there publicly standing up for them.  

[atomheartbevo 89775]

1 hour ago, Tuco said:

I’m wondering if this is the source of the recent attack/response with Sessions. This is being handled by the SDNY. Sessions is not technically recused from it. The recent criticism is that Sessions didn’t “take control” of the DOJ, rather than just recusing himself about Russia. Trump is pissed Sessions isn’t stopping this.

It feels like we are at that point where Trump starts firing people.  

Not quite the middle of the Rubicon, but feet are wet.

[triplehorn 2664]

Impeachment watch: getting warmer

• Republican Rep. Tom Cole says Michael Cohen's plea and Paul Manafort's conviction weaken the Republican campaign to keep control of Congress.
• If special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation reveals something "clear and convincing and impeachable," Cole says he believes even a GOP Congress would act to cut Trump's presidency short.
• Tuesday's twin legal developments provide Mueller's investigation with additional insulation from efforts by Trump allies to shut down the probe.

Spoiler

 

 

[Nivek 16963]

49 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

there are also constitutional arguments that aren't just based on pragmatism.  google the "unitary executive" theory for further reading, but it basically says that president represents the executive, which is who does the prosecuting.  you can't prosecute yourself.  

Does it explicitly state this?  Seem to me that the Declaration explicitly stated something about all MEN being equal.    14th I believe mentions equal protection of the laws.     My protection is being violated by the sitting president.   He needs to be prosecuted.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

3 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Impeachment watch: getting warmer

• Republican Rep. Tom Cole says Michael Cohen's plea and Paul Manafort's conviction weaken the Republican campaign to keep control of Congress.
• If special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation reveals something "clear and convincing and impeachable," Cole says he believes even a GOP Congress would act to cut Trump's presidency short.
• Tuesday's twin legal developments provide Mueller's investigation with additional insulation from efforts by Trump allies to shut down the probe.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

All roads to impeachment go through Paul Ryan and Bob Goodlatte.

without those two on board it’s not even going to get a hearing. 

[Longhorn94 2457]

52 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Couple days behind here, so sorry if addressed n the coming pages, but I have to respond before forgetting. Anyway, I sense there's a story here that you need to get off your chest.

not really. it was back when he was running Blackwater USA. i was representing a military consulting firm. we were both working in and with the UAE royal family at the time. sat across from the guy in several meetings and meals and he always struck me as having the sort of personality that i would expect from a serial killer. and this was before any of the bad stuff came out on him. i worked with a lot of operators back then. guys that would kill bad guys without blinking an eye. but prince was different. and it wasnt just me that felt that way about him. he creeped out my whole team. 

Edited August 24, 2018 by Longhorn94

[Gil Bang 25990]

2 hours ago, GopherRock said:

Follow the money. 

[Mdhorn 5978]

5 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

 

Holy hell, this is beyond a pool of writers constructing a screen play. Just when I think I have a handle on the characters, boom another springs up from the twilight zone. Never saw this coming...Cohen's pops is a holocaust survivor. This is some as the world turns episode come to life except it's literally our world.

[triplehorn 2664]

 

Remember when Trump once said Mueller investigating his personal finances would be crossing a red line ?

Cohen, Pecker, Weiselberg ---> all SDNY.  crushing it.

[J.R. 150]

6 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Or she's a prime grade attention horse. 

I would go so far as to say Museum-Quality Specimen

[Eskimohorn 5642]

It goes back to the Romans (and likely before).  You can't have your chief executive constantly under legal attack or else that's all they'll be doing - fending off legal attacks instead of governing.  The Founding Fathers put in the impeachment/removal bit to avoid this.  Unfortunately, that depends on the good faith of our Congresscritters, and well....

No, the founding fathers did not believe this. Impeachment is about the office, not the man. Back then, the President was a citizen representative with a lot less power supposedly. Then, George Washington quickly dispelled those notions.

They believed that transgressions while in office were impeachable but made no protections for the man. A VP, for instance, could be arrested for murder while dueling. Same with the President. So if a man, who became President committed a crime as a citizen, he could be arrested like everyone else. And, if the President was at a pub and assaulted a women, he could be tried but not removed from office.

Now, the President is always on company time. So, the notion of criminal immunity has shifted.

[RomaVicta 29966]

3 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

Yeah.  That's exactly what Pompey and his supporters thought, too.  Just wait until Caesar's term of office is up--then he can be prosecuted.

I used the same reference a few weeks ago. Will Trump bring his army across the Rubicon? How far might he go?

[RomaVicta 29966]

2 hours ago, seven said:

The only reason to be under constant criminal legal attack is if you're engaging in criminal activity. 

I understand protections for liability of government actions, but protection from "private life" criminal activity is bonkers, jmho

The GOPs found a way to foul up Clinton having a special prosecutor ask him about a sexual dalliance. You can't count on the good intentions of other actors.

[atomheartbevo 89775]

47 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

Holy hell, this is beyond a pool of writers constructing a screen play. Just when I think I have a handle on the characters, boom another springs up from the twilight zone. Never saw this coming...Cohen's pops is a holocaust survivor. This is some as the world turns episode come to life except it's literally our world.

The white supremacist fans of Trump will have a field day with this.  

As will the Q fans.  

Edited August 24, 2018 by atomheartbevo

[RomaVicta 29966]

2 hours ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

 

But I have to say that I kind of admire her for standing by her man. 

She may just be showing the goods on national TV to attract a new man. 

[atomheartbevo 89775]

23 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I used the same reference a few weeks ago. Will Trump bring his army across the Rubicon? How far might he go?

Crossing the Rubicon for me is Trump starting to fire people to get at Mueller.   I thought we were coming close this week, and it feels like he is dipping his toes in the water, but he was also his usual passive-aggressive little bitch self who got put in his place by Sessions. 

If we make it through the weekend and he hasn’t fired Sessions, etc., then Trump isn’t going anywhere as far as causing a crisis.  The CFO of Trump Org. Getting immunity after David Pecker has got to be a huge mind-fuck for Trump. 

Edited August 24, 2018 by atomheartbevo

[Buzzrock 14936]

Plaid thread is plaid. Weisselberg has already testified, right? So the news isn't "He was just given immunity, now he will testify", it's "we just found out he was given immunity and he already testified". Right?

Just trying to keep some of the timeline straight.

[RomaVicta 29966]

3 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Crossing the Rubicon for me is Trump starting to fire people to get at Mueller.   I thought we were coming close this week, and it feels like he is dipping his toes in the water, but he was also his usual passive-aggressive little bitch self who got put in his place by Sessions. 

If we make it through the weekend and he hasn’t fired Sessions, etc., then Trump isn’t going anywhere as far as causing a crisis.  The CFO of Trump Org. Getting immunity after David Pecker has got to be a huge mind-fuck for Trump. 

Good points. Trump is no Julius Caesar.

[triplehorn 2664]

9 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

Plaid thread is plaid. Weisselberg has already testified, right? So the news isn't "He was just given immunity, now he will testify", it's "we just found out he was given immunity and he already testified". Right?

Just trying to keep some of the timeline straight.

Weisselberg began interviews by the feds back in April.  So investigators have had ~4-5 months to map out the rationale for offering an immunity agreement.  So first, the feds thoroughly established what they can get from him, then allowed an immunity deal to be made to benefit the larger prosecution (of Trump family).

[Pescado_Rojo 19427]

Or maybe they just gave him immunity just to fuck with Trump. (joking...kind of)

[Brisketexan 105213]

2 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

I used the same reference a few weeks ago. Will Trump bring his army across the Rubicon? How far might he go?

All.  The Fucking.  Way.

When y'all realize that the occupant of the WH isn't just a random nutbar, but an actual enemy of the Republic who will happily destroy it, then you can see this picture in clear focus.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]