Jump to content

The Robert Mueller Investigation

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17,449

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I wonder if Mueller knows the full gravity of his report.  

He gets to literally write a huge piece of American and world history here.

Talk about pressure to get it right. 

Seriously? I'm thinking maybe you should take some time off if you're at all confused on this point. 

  • Like 1
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

Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23,358

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Just now, Dahobbs said:

Seriously? I'm thinking maybe you should take some time off if you're at all confused on this point. 

Not serious.  I was more reminding myself of the enormity of what Mueller is doing. 

It's easy to lose sight of how big a deal this thing is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2,664

Posted
Posted

Ultimately this is a counterintelligence investigation into Russian operations and other Transnational Criminal Organizations that is over 20 years in the making.  Mueller specifically had it in his sights pre-9/11 chaos and upheaval.  He’s not going to muff this extraordinary opportunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18,661

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Lots of sealed indictments imo.  It freezes the statute of limitations and postpones prosecution.

Given how blatantly complicit and derelict of duty GOP is, got to have patience.

Public awareness of the legal carnage has barely begun.

Yup. The only thing protecting Donald Trump from criminal prosecution is the presidency.

Fortunately, that is going to end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2,664

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Because it’s wishful thinking and grifter shit.  It’s what the Qanon people pin their hopes on. 

When have the “multiple sealed indictments” ever paid off? 

First, Mueller has already used sealed indictments in this investigation and later unsealed them when the timing of release served its purpose (Papadopolous).

Second,  this is a mob style takedown that already involves multiple cooperating witnesses charged for things unrelated to the highest targets with whom they have direct involvement.  Setting up cooperation without discovery and keeping yours cards hidden (think joint defense agreements) helps protect investigation and prosecution of other higher priority cases simultaneously.

Third, there’s something like triple or quadruple the usual incidence of sealed indictments being filed at the DC court.  There was a burst after the Gates/Manafort indictments and another after the Stone warrants got served.

Fourth, common sense.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23,358

Posted
  • Author
Posted
37 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

First, Mueller has already used sealed indictments in this investigation and later unsealed them when the timing of release served its purpose (Papadopolous).

Second,  this is a mob style takedown that already involves multiple cooperating witnesses charged for things unrelated to the highest targets with whom they have direct involvement.  Setting up cooperation without discovery and keeping yours cards hidden (think joint defense agreements) helps protect investigation and prosecution of other higher priority cases simultaneously.

Third, there’s something like triple or quadruple the usual incidence of sealed indictments being filed at the DC court.  There was a burst after the Gates/Manafort indictments and another after the Stone warrants got served.

Fourth, common sense.

I have no doubt more indictments are coming and some of them are probably sealed right now.

I just think it’s pointless to read into sealed indictments because they could be for completely unrelated shit like a drug ring. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
suddenly shaggy

suddenly shaggy 929

Posted
Posted (edited)

Department of Justice opinion is that a sitting president cannot be indicted. While many Americans feel that it is absolutely antithetical to everything the US stands for, because no one should be above the law, that is current DOJ policy. It is not law, just policy, but there is ZERO chance Barr will let Trump be charged. 

DOJ policy is also to not name people that are not indicted, which is why Trump shows up as "Individual One". The President of the United States is currently an un-indicted co-conspirator. Until he is no longer President, that is how he will remain. 

The GOP doesn't give a shit and will not vote to convict or remove Trump, for any reason, especially if he is not indicted, which he won't be. Some of you keep waiting for Trump to cross a bridge too far, but that is fantasy. Trump owns the GOP and they will follow like the subservient toadies they are. 

Impeachment is a losing battle right now. The House could easily impeach him for a dozen things he's done so far, but the Senate will not remove him and the right wing media will rally behind him. Pelosi is playing the only card she has, the slow bleed, hoping enough Americans start paying attention to start putting pressure on the GOP. 

Edited by suddenly shaggy
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ShaggyBevo RIP

ShaggyBevo RIP 3,868

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Here’s the deal, Mueller isn’t going to come out and say Trump committed crimes. There isn’t going to be some earth shattering revelation in the Mueller report to convince republicans to remove Trump.   

The impeachment process is NOT a legal process. High crimes and misdemeanors are whatever Congress says they are.

From Pelosi’s position it depends on what her priority goal is:

1.  Is the goal to successfully remove Trump from office because he is a clear and present danger to everything?  If so, the impeachment process would have already begun.  There’s more than enough evidence to at least begin the process for obstruction, fraud, and campaign finance violations.

2.  Is the goal to maximize the democratic gains in 2020?  If that’s the case, just keep Benghazing Trump with hearing after hearing damning Trump for the corrupt lying fraud he is. 

Pelosi is going with option #2 unless republicans start publicly calling for impeachment. 

Pelosi is going to bleed the GOP to death. 

You left off don't let Pence run for President as an incumbent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
notre dame joe

notre dame joe 172

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, suddenly shaggy said:

Department of Justice opinion is that a sitting president cannot be indicted. While many Americans feel that it is absolutely antithetical to everything the US stands for, because no one should be above the law, that is current DOJ policy. It is not law, just policy, but there is ZERO chance Barr will let Trump be charged. 

 

It's also what the Constitution says it is.  The Constitution spells out specifically how the elected officials from each branch can be removed while remaining silent on lower level officials.

 

Also as chief exec POTUS can dismiss all the prosecutors so DOJ indicting the President doesn't make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2,664

Posted
Posted

seen on the twitters —> per the Hoarse Whisperer:

Senator Blumenthal on just came right out and said the thing. “There is corroborating evidence. There are documents. [...] He was willing to solicit and accept help from a hostile foreign government.” Blumenthal basically said they have the goods on collusion on @TheBeatWithAri

—> D’s showing a lot of patience waiting for this to come out at the right time and knowing Senate GOP is willing to prolong Trumps demise as long as possible in a final act of survival.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
suddenly shaggy

suddenly shaggy 929

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

It's also what the Constitution says it is.  The Constitution spells out specifically how the elected officials from each branch can be removed while remaining silent on lower level officials.

 

Also as chief exec POTUS can dismiss all the prosecutors so DOJ indicting the President doesn't make sense.

Wrong. The Constitution says nothing about whether the President can be indicted. It includes Impeachment as a remedy, but does not exclude indictment. People have argued that it is implicit, but it is not stated. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/29/us/politics/a-constitutional-puzzle-can-the-president-be-indicted.html

Quote

The Constitution does not answer every question. It includes detailed instructions, for instance, about how Congress may remove a president who has committed serious offenses. But it does not say whether the president may be criminally prosecuted in the meantime.

The Supreme Court has never answered that question, either. It heard arguments on the issue in 1974 in a case in which it ordered President Richard M. Nixon to turn over tape recordings, but it did not resolve it.

 

Edited by suddenly shaggy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
suddenly shaggy

suddenly shaggy 929

Posted
Posted (edited)

Ken Starr and Leon Jaworski both thought they could legally indict the President. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/us/politics/can-president-be-indicted-kenneth-starr-memo.html

“It is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting president for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the president’s official duties,” the Starr office memo concludes. “In this country, no one, even President Clinton, is above the law.”

...

Other prosecutors working for Mr. Starr developed a draft indictment of Mr. Clinton, which The Times has also requested be made public. The National Archives has not processed that file to determine whether it is exempt from disclosure under grand-jury secrecy rules.

...

“If public policy and the Constitution allow a private litigant to sue a sitting president for acts that are not part of the president’s official duties (and are outside the outer perimeter of those duties), and that is what Clinton v. Jones squarely held,” he wrote, “then one would think that an indictment is constitutional because the public interest in criminal cases is greater.”

 

In 1974, the Watergate special counsel, Leon Jaworski, had also received a memofrom his staff saying he could indict the president, in that instance Richard M. Nixon, while he was in office, and later made that case in a court brief. Those documents, however, explore the topic significantly less extensively than the Starr office memo.

 

 

Edited by suddenly shaggy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
notre dame joe

notre dame joe 172

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, suddenly shaggy said:

Wrong. The Constitution says nothing about whether the President can be indicted. It includes Impeachment as a remedy, but does not exclude indictment. People have argued that it is implicit, but it is not stated. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/29/us/politics/a-constitutional-puzzle-can-the-president-be-indicted.html

By the same logic the Constitution does not exclude the President firing the prosecutor or anyone else in the Executive branch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45,560

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

By the same logic the Constitution does not exclude the President firing the prosecutor or anyone else in the Executive branch.

Well no, it's not "the same logic".  The President quite literally has broad powers when it comes to employment in or dismissal from the Executive branch.

You're struggling with the fact that the Constitution lays out ways for the President to be removed from office, but in no way says these are the ONLY ways such a thing can happen.

For what it's worth, I'm not saying a sitting President can be indicted.  The differing opinions on the matter by serious Constitutional scholars pretty much make it clear to me that I'm not gonna be the one who gets to the bottom of it.  I just think it's ridiculous to say the it can't happen because the Constitution fails to say it can happen.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,283

Posted
Posted (edited)

If you want to dig into the issue of indicting the President, there is a memo prepared by Prof. Ronald Rotunda for Starr here, and the current DOJ opinion (from Clinton administration) here.

That both memoranda are 20 pages plus demonstrate that it is not a simple question answered simply (as Jimmy notes).  Prof. Rotunda has backed off his opinion in favor of indictment because a central factor in his opinion in 1998 was the Special Prosecutor/Independent Counsel statute that expired in 1999.  Because that law was passed by Congress and provided judicial supervision of the Independent Counsel, it is thought to alter the separation of powers balance that currently exists with an "inherent power to appoint" special counsel.  Also, Rotunda argued that by signing the Independent Counsel law into effect, the office of the President waived whatever immunity it had, which begs the question what if it had been enacted by veto override.

Also, do not assume that a state indictment would proceed, either.  That is something even less certain.

Assuming Barr or whoever is AG decides not to publicly disclose the Mueller report, anyone with standing could sue for disclosure.  The standard would seem to be whether the AG abuses his discretion in light of DOJ policies concerning investigation product, and maybe just some notion that the public has a huge and overweening interest in disclosure.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23,358

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 hours ago, Scooter Monzingo said:

Hugo, may I ask you two questions? The first is what do you do for a living, and the second is how old are you?

And please, if that is offensive to you in any way I vehemently apologize. I’m not being a smart ass, or do I mean to demean you. I’m simply curious of your age and occupation. 

I’m a dildo salesman 

Gemini 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89,450

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Scooter Monzingo said:

Hugo, may I ask you two questions? The first is what do you do for a living, and the second is how old are you?

And please, if that is offensive to you in any way I vehemently apologize. I’m not being a smart ass, or do I mean to demean you. I’m simply curious of your age and occupation. 

I just want to know how he gets by on so little sleep.   

As a parent, I’m used to missing sleep here and there, but it does a number on me.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc Reeves

Doc Reeves 6,434

Posted
Posted
23 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I wonder if Mueller knows the full gravity of his report.  

He gets to literally write a huge piece of American and world history here.

Talk about pressure to get it right. 

My feeling is he recognized the gravity of this from the beginning and has/had the legal team to do things carefully and correctly.

Interesting times. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12,271

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

I just want to know how he gets by on so little sleep.   

As a parent, I’m used to missing sleep here and there, but it does a number on me.  

He’s a bot. Like me. We’re all pretty much bots on here. In fact, you may be the only one who’s not. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29,260

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

By the same logic the Constitution does not exclude the President firing the prosecutor or anyone else in the Executive branch.

That's not really the same logic, but ok? Nobody is disputing whether the President has the power to fire executive branch employees. The big question is whether in certain circumstances the President can exercise a power he has in an unlawful manner. For example, if James Comey had been investigating a mob boss and the mob boss bribed Trump to fire Comey to get the FBI off of his back. Do you think that would that be illegal?

  • Like 1
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...