Jump to content

The Robert Mueller Investigation

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14167

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

I've gotta disagree with Schiff on this.  Election fraud has a five year statute of limitations.  If Dotard wins re-election, the statute would expire before he left office.  Being president cannot possibly provide a blanket immunity from crimes, even if that immunity would expire in 2 years.  If Congress does nothing about criminal activity, then dotus should be indicted.  Otherwise the entire precept of no one being above the law is utter bullshit.

Wouldn't limitations be tolled during any period of immunity?  That just seems like it makes no sense.

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

lemonlime

lemonlime 5503

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Wouldn't limitations be tolled during any period of immunity?  That just seems like it makes no sense.

Why would the statute of limitations be tolled?  There would need to be a specific law tolling the statute of limitations, and Congress as far as I'm aware hasn't enacted a law stating that the statutes of limitations for crimes committed by presidents are tolled until the president leaves office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dertyberd

Dertyberd 394

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Chooky said:

 

Because the deep state has some very bad democrats working in it and lots of people were saying things at that time.  Could have been anyone.  

 

The amount of evidence that Justice, FBI, etc. is going to have to bring to convince the rubes will be ridiculous.  

Edited by Dertyberd
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Yuk

Yuk 1505

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Dertyberd said:

Because the deep state has some very bad democrats working in it and lots of people were saying things at that time.  Could have been anyone.  

 

The amount of evidence that Justice, FBI, etc. is going to have to bring to convince the rubes will be ridiculous.  

We're talking about people who get ASMR when the man speaks.  There is literally no amount of evidence that would convince them.  See R support after Watergate "smoking gun" tape.  Nixon still had 30+% approval.  To the Trumpers, this is not about criminality or reason or policy or religious beliefs or logic.  It's about cultural identity.  Even if you prove Trump betrayed America beyond a point that any rationale person could deny it, they are not coming from a place of rationality and the cognitive dissonance will be too uncomfortable for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted

 

2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I wasn't around for this.  Did those people eventually just accept it and move on?  My biggest fear is that these people will not go away.

I think Ford was right in thinking the pardon would help the nation heal.  He did a good job of letting people get on with their lives.  (Also not around then).

 

A good read on a President's ability to self-pardon.  It argues that he cannot.

https://digitalcommons.law.msu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1233&context=facpubs

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted
57 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Wouldn't limitations be tolled during any period of immunity?  That just seems like it makes no sense.

Certainly sealing indictments handed down from a grand jury is one way to circumvent statute of limitations.  But if you can indict and seal for a sitting POTUS, it seems to follow you can indict and serve a sitting POTUS in real time. 

My limited understanding of the DoJ policy around not indicting a sitting POTUS has to do with avoiding the national disruption to daily affairs and duties needed from a POTUS, not that a POTUS is above the law.  Sealed indictments would not interfere. 

Either way, I think we're going to find out about that DoJ policy holding water.  I think we'll also discover that Mueller knows everything and can prove it cold with signals intelligence, financial paper trails, and cooperating witnesses.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AUinHsv

AUinHsv 574

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

 

I think Ford was right in thinking the pardon would help the nation heal.  He did a good job of letting people get on with their lives.  (Also not around then).

 

A good read on a President's ability to self-pardon.  It argues that he cannot.

https://digitalcommons.law.msu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1233&context=facpubs

 

 

A lot of people felt the parson should have been done after a conviction.... As it was Nixon started claiming "elder statesman" status

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dertyberd

Dertyberd 394

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I wasn't around for this.  Did those people eventually just accept it and move on?  My biggest fear is that these people will not go away.

Roger Stone comes to mind immediately so they must exist. 

Yuk- You're right, it is an identity and nearly impossible for these folks to ever admit being wrong about something.  I just can't fathom not having that moment of self awareness when the whole fucking thing is falling down around you.  Then I drive through the rural areas of the state and realize they live in a different reality where their "leaders" are in on the con and will not be made fools of by the big city educated types. Fuck. 

FoxNews bringing out Napoletano to start easing them into the seriousness of this matter will lead some to possibly have that brief moment of clarity.  Most will chalk it up to the WAP they never much liked anyhow.  Going to be a fun ride.  Nice thing is I had resided myself to the Brisket train to hell, but that has changed now D's have the house and the indictments are starting to roll in.  Anything that isn't an all out civil war will be a win.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lemonlime

lemonlime 5503

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I wasn't around for this.  Did those people eventually just accept it and move on?  My biggest fear is that these people will not go away.

Yes.  Because those people weren't part of a brain addled cult getting all their news from GOP/state run propaganda, while completely ignoring all legitimate news outlets.  Also, the Republican leadership turned on Nixon and there wasn't a large part of the government/people's representatives justifying Watergate after Nixon resigned.  The GOP didn't pander to them while reveling in being uneducated, at least not yet.  But the GOP wasn't the party of the uneducated and ignorant.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14167

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

Why would the statute of limitations be tolled?  There would need to be a specific law tolling the statute of limitations, and Congress as far as I'm aware hasn't enacted a law stating that the statutes of limitations for crimes committed by presidents are tolled until the president leaves office.

I'm not a criminal defense lawyer but I know that there are tolling provisions for civil actions that address things like being outside of the court's jurisdiction, and a quick Google search to the DoJ's website indicates that federal criminal limitations are tolled while a defendant is a fugitive, and an order of tolling can be obtained in certain circumstances (not specifically addressing any official immunity).  

I think you're right, however, at least just based on my quick search that there doesn't seem to be anything directly on point.  Just wondering if this might be something that could be subject to creation by some type of judicial review (but that itself might constitute an ex post facto creation of law--just spitballing here).

9 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Certainly sealing indictments handed down from a grand jury is one way to circumvent statute of limitations.  But if you can indict and seal for a sitting POTUS, it seems to follow you can indict and serve a sitting POTUS in real time. 

My limited understanding of the DoJ policy around not indicting a sitting POTUS has to do with avoiding the national disruption to daily affairs and duties needed from a POTUS, not that a POTUS is above the law.  Sealed indictments would not interfere. 

Either way, I think we're going to find out about that DoJ policy holding water.  I think we'll also discover that Mueller knows everything and can prove it cold with signals intelligence, financial paper trails, and cooperating witnesses.

I tend to agree with this.  If it's simply a matter of DoJ policy, then Mueller will seek (or he's already sought) an indictment and either keep it sealed or release it and serve the President.

Interesting times, to be sure.

Edited by DDD Dad
Link to comment
Share on other sites
yaqdum

yaqdum 182

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Bevo VIII said:

So at what point does the “you can’t indict a sitting president” talk go out the window?

also, at what point does the "president can pardon a wounded duck" talk go out the window?  i believe we can function as a nation without that annual rite of stupidity.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
yaqdum

yaqdum 182

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

It is the first one, or at least based on the Russian spelling that is how I would say it, although it could also be #3. 

 

3 hours ago, Woland said:

Correct. #1 with the stress on the first syllable.

thanks.  i've not known how to undress . . . i mean . . . address her should she happen by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 17503

Posted
Posted

Man, I remember when the whole "Can a sitting President be indicted?" issue seemed like so much legal navel gazing.  I mean, Nixon?  Sure, but that was aaaages ago.  Much less the intricacies of whether the statute of limitations may be tolled by his being in office.  

Yet, here we are.  It's a legitimate question of immediate concern. 

'Murica 2018.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104465

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
9 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

 

Quote

And during an FBI raid of Erickson’s South Dakota home, investigators discovered a handwritten note suggesting Erickson may have been aware of a possible job offer from Russian intelligence services: “How to respond to FSB offer of employment?” Erickson scratched, an apparent reference to the Russian equivalent of the CIA.

Jesus.  Tapdancing.  Christ.  How fucking stupid ARE these people?  He actually wrote down "how to respond to FSB offer of employment" -- seriously. That's like a murderer having a to-do list of "1) kill her with my hunting knife.  2) hide hunting knife under my car seat (passenger side).  3) bury body in forest behind my house (mark site with an empty coke can)."  These are the stupidest band of stupids to ever stupid.

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites
horncyclist

horncyclist 1384

Posted
Posted

This seems significant:

 

But now, according to the agreement, Butina has acknowledged that with U.S. Person 1’s assistance, she drafted a proposal called “Description of the Diplomacy Project” in March of 2015 which was later sent to the Russian Official, in which she said that she had already “laid the groundwork for an unofficial channel of communication with the next U.S. administration” and requested $125,000 from a Russian billionaire to attend conferences and meetings to further develop those ties. The Russian Official, the agreement said, confirmed that her proposal would be at least partially supported.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt

DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Jesus.  Tapdancing.  Christ.  How fucking stupid ARE these people?  He actually wrote down "how to respond to FSB offer of employment" -- seriously. That's like a murderer having a to-do list of "1) kill her with my hunting knife.  2) hide hunting knife under my car seat (passenger side).  3) bury body in forest behind my house (mark site with an empty coke can)."  These are the stupidest band of stupids to ever stupid.

maybe if he didn't write it down he would completely forget Russia's offer to become a traitor to the US? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lagunamadre

Lagunamadre 1975

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

maybe if he didn't write it down he would completely forget Russia's offer to become a traitor to the US? 

"I do not recall that offer sir" 

/Prosecutor shows note to grand jury/ 

"OHH, the Russian FSB offer?!?!, I thought you meant the Frisbee Society of Boston's job offer, I did not recall getting an offer from the Boston frisbee guys, sorry for the confusion" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5076

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Jesus.  Tapdancing.  Christ.  How fucking stupid ARE these people?  He actually wrote down "how to respond to FSB offer of employment" -- seriously. That's like a murderer having a to-do list of "1) kill her with my hunting knife.  2) hide hunting knife under my car seat (passenger side).  3) bury body in forest behind my house (mark site with an empty coke can)."  These are the stupidest band of stupids to ever stupid.

He didn't even keep it to himself:

 

Quote

“Unrelated to specific presidential campaigns,” Erickson wrote in an October 2016 email to an acquaintance that was later obtained by the FBI, “I’ve been involved in securing a VERY private line of communication between the Kremlin and key [unnamed political party] leaders through, of all conduits, the [unnamed gun-rights organization].”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29360

Posted
Posted

Thanks from the above link in the section on the NRA (bottom of page 22 and top of 23), this paragraph really says it all:

Quote

 

Despite numerous questions raised by Committee testimony and document production regarding
Russia’s potential use of the NRA as part of its larger influence operations, the Majority report
focuses exclusively on the attendance of Trump Jr. at the annual convention in Kentucky in May
2016. The Majority’s finding on this topic affirms that Trump Jr. met with a Russian government 
official, Alexander Torshin, at the event, but conveniently concludes that “the Committee found
no evidence that the two discussed the presidential election.”48 As with many findings in the
report, this relies solely on the voluntary and self-interested testimony of the individual in
question, in this case Trump Jr. The Majority refused multiple requests by the Minority to
interview witnesses central to this line of inquiry, including Torshin, Butina, Erickson, and
others.

 

1

The Republican investigation was an obvious sham used as a cover for the Trump family and campaign team. I'm hoping it also proves to have been one for Konservative Kongress Kritters who'll then get skinned alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted

Welp, there’s my buddy Rick Dearborn again.

His wife was constantly posting “Look at us, all up in the White House all the time” pictures on Facebook - up until Trump started using Jeff Sessions as a punching bag.

Then she openly endorsed Doug Jones and she got blackballed out of the Republican Alabama State Executive Committee.

Fincher and three other Republicans, including Gina Dearborn, Cole Manders and Lee Garrison sought seats on the Alabama State Executive Committee, but were disqualified because they recently supported Democratic candidates.

All of them have been active in Republican circles for years. Dearborn's husband served in the Trump White House and she runs a lobbying company in Montgomery.

All four violated a party bylaw that prohibits Republican officials from openly supporting Democratic candidates. Dearborn, Manders and Fincher said they would support Doug Jones in his race against Roy Moore. Garrison said he would back Walt Maddox in the campaign for governor.


And since he resigned from his position at the White House, she’s gone absolutely radio silent about politics. And only posts about Alabama football.

Makes me wonder if they’ve been advised by an attorney to lay low.
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...