The Robert Mueller Investigation

[Hugo Stiglitz 23359]

I burn twice as bright but will only last half as long.

[suddenly shaggy 929]

Based on the amount of bitching about Hugo by far right posters, trolls and sock accounts, I'd say he's doing a good job derailing the Right Wing Bullshit Machine. Based on Hugo's 5,601 rep points, I'd say those bitching represent a very loud, but tiny part of the Politics board readers. 

I do find it ironic that y'all complain so much about Hugo posting content and post so little non-bullshit content of your own. Quit attacking the messenger and contribute something worthwhile. 

[jimmyjazz 45560]

49 minutes ago, suddenly shaggy said:

Based on the amount of bitching about Hugo by far right posters, trolls and sock accounts, I'd say he's doing a good job derailing the Right Wing Bullshit Machine. Based on Hugo's 5,601 rep points, I'd say those bitching represent a very loud, but tiny part of the Politics board readers. 

I do find it ironic that y'all complain so much about Hugo posting content and post so little non-bullshit content of your own. Quit attacking the messenger and contribute something worthwhile. 

Good point, Hugo.

[suddenly shaggy 929]

29 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Good point, Hugo.

Thanks hitby. Lulz at the idea that Hugo has time for socks. 

[retread 2951]

I thought we were all hitby socks.

[jimmyjazz 45560]

28 minutes ago, suddenly shaggy said:

Thanks hitby. 

Damn, that stings.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23359]

 

[notre dame joe 172]

6 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

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?

Yes it is the same logic arguing that a federal office can do anything not explicitly forbidden by the Constitution (btw that is the opposite of federalism which grants the feds only their specific enumerated powers).  It was also true of when the framers wrote it, they all believed the chief executive had power to hire and fire the lesser executive branch offices. 

So if you argue the USCons doesn't forbid Mueller from indicting Trump I'll reply it doesn't stop Trump from firing him. 

 

But it does spell out a process for prosecuting Trump. Seems pretty weird to argue when we framed the process of removing the President we chose not to mention there was this other way of removing the President.  The other way is much easier and can be carried out by an unconfirmed lower executive.

 

[TwiceHorn 31285]

9 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

Yes it is the same logic arguing that a federal office can do anything not explicitly forbidden by the Constitution (btw that is the opposite of federalism which grants the feds only their specific enumerated powers).  It was also true of when the framers wrote it, they all believed the chief executive had power to hire and fire the lesser executive branch offices. 

So if you argue the USCons doesn't forbid Mueller from indicting Trump I'll reply it doesn't stop Trump from firing him. 

 

But it does spell out a process for prosecuting Trump. Seems pretty weird to argue when we framed the process of removing the President we chose not to mention there was this other way of removing the President.  The other way is much easier and can be carried out by an unconfirmed lower executive.

 

One flaw in this reasoning is that indicting and even convicting the President does not call for his removal from office, as does impeachment.

Two of the three authorities that have considered the question carefully concluded no indictment, and the third has qualified his opinion.

Edited March 3, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[jimmyjazz 45560]

31 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

Yes it is the same logic arguing that a federal office can do anything not explicitly forbidden by the Constitution

Venn diagrams, how do they work?  Nobody has argued that the Constitution lays out the only actions which are forbidden, and that everything else is fair game.

Are you seriously going to continue to argue this?

[wildcat09 29260]

1 hour ago, notre dame joe said:

Yes it is the same logic arguing that a federal office can do anything not explicitly forbidden by the Constitution (btw that is the opposite of federalism which grants the feds only their specific enumerated powers).  It was also true of when the framers wrote it, they all believed the chief executive had power to hire and fire the lesser executive branch offices. 

 So if you argue the USCons doesn't forbid Mueller from indicting Trump I'll reply it doesn't stop Trump from firing him. 

  

 But it does spell out a process for prosecuting Trump. Seems pretty weird to argue when we framed the process of removing the President we chose not to mention there was this other way of removing the President.  The other way is much easier and can be carried out by an unconfirmed lower executive.

 

I notice you didn't answer my question.

[suddenly shaggy 929]

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

One flaw in this reasoning is that indicting and even convicting the President does not call for his removal from office, as does impeachment.

Two of the three authorities that have considered the question carefully concluded no indictment, and the third has qualified his opinion.

Jaworski and Starr both concluded they had the authority to indict the President, but chose not to. Starr even had his staff draw up a draft indictment. I just posted this on the last page. 

For the record, I am not arguing someone is going to indict Trump, but nothing, except a DOJ policy precludes indicting the President and there is nothing preventing a state from doing so.

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

Quote

“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 March 3, 2019 by suddenly shaggy

[notre dame joe 172]

4 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

I notice you didn't answer my question.

The answer is yes bribery is a crime.  And presidential corruption is properly assigned to Congress, regardless of whatever power DOJ thinks they have for themselves.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23359]

 

[triplehorn 2664]

Micheal Cohen’s Road Map

“...Cohen said earlier this week that he believed it possible that Trump was compromised during the election because of the Trump Tower Moscow negotiations. On Tuesday, Cohen named Calamari as someone familiar with Trump's alleged illicit business dealings, including potential tax and insurance fraud.

The focus on Trump’s business dealings isn’t arbitrary, veteran investigators have explained. Rather, it’s “essential” to any real understanding of an individual’s network, Andrew McCabe, the former deputy director of the FBI, told me in a recent interview. “I think people think of following the money simply as a way of uncovering whether somebody's been involved in money-laundering, or a financial crime, which is of course important,” McCabe said. “But on a much more fundamental level, it's a way of understanding relationships and networks, to understand who the person that I'm interested in is connected to, who they’re communicating with, and who they’re receiving money from or giving money to.”

“That is all association evidence,” McCabe continued. “And it goes to proving the existence of an organization—or, as RICO [the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act] would say, an enterprise.”

 

————>>>  RICO  <<<————

[Biff Tannen 45499]

Jim Jordan on Meet the Press just now was pushing the deep state narrative and refusing to answer actual questions.  These people are traitors.

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

7 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Jim Jordan on Meet the Press just now was pushing the deep state narrative and refusing to answer actual questions.  These people are traitors.

Are you getting some kind of advance feed? The show started a few minutes ago here in the eastern time zone and he hasn't been interviewed yet. Mark Warner is on right now. 

[retread 2951]

15 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Jim Jordan on Meet the Press just now was pushing the deep state narrative and refusing to answer actual questions.  These people are traitors.

Tearing down vital American institutions to prop up a carnival barker. Worse yet, the 40% will believe what Jordan says.

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

I'm just now seeing the start of the Jim Jordan interview. 

[horncyclist 1386]

Looks like MTP maybe tweets as they're recording it? Saw some clips on MTP twitter. Jordan also denies Trump has lied about Russia apparently. And why can't he wear a fucking jacket?

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

Chuck Todd is telling Jordan his claims aren't true. 

[cactusflinthead 27594]

1 minute ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Chuck Todd is telling Jordan his claims aren't true. 

Whoa hey. You mean to tell me that Chuck Todd is actually calling them out on lies? Has he finally come around to the idea that it IS his job to fact check?

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

Why does Jordan seem like he's in such a panic? He's ranting a mile a minute. 

Hey Jim, if Trump wasn't colluding with the Russians, Steele wouldn't have had anything Russia-related to report on, you stooge. He didn't create the Russian interaction in the Trump campaign that Trump and everyone associated with him lied and lied about it for months.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23359]

Also, if the Dossier is phoney, why are they so freaked out by it? 

[retread 2951]

It's going to be fascinating to see all of the different entanglements b/w Trump, Russian, and DC pols.

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

9 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

Whoa hey. You mean to tell me that Chuck Todd is actually calling them out on lies? Has he finally come around to the idea that it IS his job to fact check?

I just like to point out whenever the popular narrative is inaccurate. It's not like it's going to displace the meme from the memeplex. 

[cactusflinthead 27594]

Just now, WhatTheBuck said:

I just like to point out whenever the popular narrative is inaccurate. It's not like it's going to displace the meme from the memeplex. 

I'm just glad he's doing his job. The fact checking part that he told us was not his job. Memes be damned. It was a direct quote from him.

[TwiceHorn 31285]

11 hours ago, suddenly shaggy said:

Jaworski and Starr both concluded they had the authority to indict the President, but chose not to. Starr even had his staff draw up a draft indictment. I just posted this on the last page. 

For the record, I am not arguing someone is going to indict Trump, but nothing, except a DOJ policy precludes indicting the President and there is nothing preventing a state from doing so.

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

Jaworski didn't consider it thoroughly, later the OLC concluded no indictment.  I have explained the Starr situation, above, and Rotundas opinion. 

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

10 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

I'm just glad he's doing his job. The fact checking part that he told us was not his job. Memes be damned. It was a direct quote from him.

Is that the reason for all the over-the-top Chuck Todd hate? That one comment on one issue six years ago? 

I'm not saying I'm a fan but the hysterics about him seem to be a little misplaced. Margaret Brennan on Face the Nation isn't any better from what I've seen. Who is the gold standard of Sunday morning news/talk show interviewers? George Stephenopoulos?

[BrickHorn 18194]

Todd said something about Cohen trying to buy the pee pee tape and, based on that process, determining the tape did not exist.  Which indicates that, whether or not a tape exists, the pee pee event happened.  Why would Trump’s fixer spend time trying to destroy evidence of something Trump did if Trump never actually did it?

Edited March 3, 2019 by BrickHorn

[horncyclist 1386]

14 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Todd said something about Cohen trying to buy the pee pee tape and, based on that process, determining the tape did not exist.  Which indicates that, whether or not a tape exists, the pee pee event happened.  Why would Trump’s fixer spend time trying to destroy evidence of something Trump did if Trump never actually did it?

Was it the pee tape or the hitting Melania elevator video that the Cohen house testimony focused on? I had the same thought as Cohen was saying he didn't believe the President would do something like that. If that's the case, then why do you spend all this effort trying to catch and kill the tape that cannot exist?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23359]

28 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Is that the reason for all the over-the-top Chuck Todd hate? That one comment on one issue six years ago? 

My beef with Chuck Todd is he comes off not giving a fuck most of the time.  He often trivializes serious stuff and doesn’t bring the gravitas needed for a person in his position.  He’s no Walter Conkrite or Tim Russert.  He also likes to flirt with the right wing narratives.

For example, leading up to the midterms, he made sure to ask every single democrat running for the house if they would support Nancy Pelosi for speaker.  He likes to focus on the dumb shit instead of the issues that really matter.

SNL did a good job of calling his bullshit out a while back with this skit:

 

[jimmyjazz 45560]

41 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Is that the reason for all the over-the-top Chuck Todd hate? That one comment on one issue six years ago? 

Well, yeah.  That and his back-to-front combover.

[David Dennison 18661]

Chuck Todd is the embodiment of both siderism. He does this even though he knows one party is clearly more reprehensible than the other.

[RomaVicta 29795]

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

Jim Jordan on Meet the Press just now was pushing the deep state narrative and refusing to answer actual questions.  These people are traitors.

Yep. The hideous and desperate performance during the Cohen testimony strongly suggested to me the concerted effort of trapped men. Imagine someone being throttled and unable to get leverage to escape. You send the hands looking to scratch an eye or tear off an ear. 

When you feel the weakness coming, you start to beg. They'll want white collar treatment from the courts. They wouldn't get it from me.

They should support legislation to greatly reduce the rate of rape in prison. Although it would be selfish legislation, at least some good would come out of the demise of the GOP. 

[cactusflinthead 27594]

@WhatTheBuck

I actually used to like Chuck Todd. The seemingly endless parade of R leaders that got no response to their alternative facts every single Sunday eroded the veneer of competence. Then he declared that fact checking their demonstrably false statements was not his job. That ended any patience with him. Do your job. Ask hard questions and don't let them avoid it. Be willing to forego access if necessary to confront a lie. I don't give a damn if Jim Jordan ever is on MTP again. His whoppers will find the air. I had rather him tear off the mic and storm out than to allow his string of lies to go unquestioned. 

George is not better. None of them are willing to do it. They all crave access more than confronting lies. 

Edited March 3, 2019 by cactusflinthead

[Hugo Stiglitz 23359]

If done correctly, the public revelations in the Felix Sater hearing could be more dramatic than Cohen’s testimony.    As someone who has seen a lot of evidence on the Trump Tower Moscow negotiations (emails/texts between Sater and Cohen) the Democrats can paint a very sinister picture with Sater if they want.

[suddenly shaggy 929]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Jaworski didn't consider it thoroughly, later the OLC concluded no indictment.  I have explained the Starr situation, above, and Rotundas opinion. 

Quote

In 1974, the Watergate special counsel, Leon Jaworski, had also received a memo from 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.

Jaworski believed he had the authority. Starr and Rotunda also believed they had the authority to indict the president. They all chose not to indict the president, which is exactly what will happen now. They all thought they had the authority to indict the president though. Rotunda and presumably Starr have changed their mind, because it is a Republican in office. 

Edited March 3, 2019 by suddenly shaggy

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Chuck Todd is the embodiment of both siderism. He does this even though he knows one party is clearly more reprehensible than the other.

How does that compare to the other Sunday morning talk show hosts? Who's doing the job that Chuck isn't?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23359]

Tapper is pretty good. 

Also love me some Fareed Zakaria GPS because I’m a foreign policy junkie. 

Edited March 3, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Tuco 5076]

My problem with CNN (and Todd/Tapper by extension) is the persistent effort to be part of the story rather than report on it. Their website generally has a headline that “(reporter) is left speechless by (politician)” or vice versa. It’s hack reporting 101. And while Trump’s attacks on the press is a story in and of itself, this desire to always be a participant in every drama normalizes that the reporters are part of the politics, and therefore fair game.

 

[Prepuce of Doom 20988]

34 minutes ago, suddenly shaggy said:

Jaworski believed he had the authority. Starr and Rotunda also believed they had the authority to indict the president. They all chose not to indict the president, which is exactly what will happen now. They all thought they had the authority to indict the president though. Rotunda and presumably Starr have changed their mind, because it is a Republican in office. 

Ron Rotunda died in March of last year. 

Edited March 3, 2019 by Prepuce of Doom

[suddenly shaggy 929]

8 minutes ago, Prepuce of Doom said:

Ron Rotunda died in March of last year. 

RIP, but it doesn't change what I said.

When did Rotunda change his mind? When did Jaworski? TwiceHorn didn't actually post any evidence for either claim. So far, we've seen evidence both Rotunda/Starr and Jaworski thought they had the authority to indict, but chose not to.  We have seen no evidence that Rotunda/Starr or Jaworski ever changed their mind.

 

[Chooky 13302]

2 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

Todd said something about Cohen trying to buy the pee pee tape and, based on that process, determining the tape did not exist.  Which indicates that, whether or not a tape exists, the pee pee event happened.  Why would Trump’s fixer spend time trying to destroy evidence of something Trump did if Trump never actually did it?

It'd be redeeming for Chuck Todd if someone found a video of him doing good journalism. 

[suddenly shaggy 929]

On 3/2/2019 at 7:08 AM, TwiceHorn said:

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.

 

I didn't mean for what I typed above to come off hostile. I was editing the post, got called away in the middle and it's an incomplete thought. I'd be interested to see more on his thoughts above, because I can see some of the logic. However, is this not still true?

On 3/1/2019 at 11:10 PM, suddenly shaggy said:

“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.”

[Prepuce of Doom 20988]

28 minutes ago, suddenly shaggy said:

RIP, but it doesn't change what I said.

When did Rotunda change his mind? When did Jaworski? TwiceHorn didn't actually post any evidence for either claim. So far, we've seen evidence both Rotunda/Starr and Jaworski thought they had the authority to indict, but chose not to.  We have seen no evidence that Rotunda/Starr or Jaworski ever changed their mind.

 

I haven't followed their analysis closely enough to harbor an opinion on their opinions - was simply pointing out the fact since your verb tenses indicated that you weren't aware. 

[suddenly shaggy 929]

Just now, Prepuce of Doom said:

I haven't followed their analysis closely enough to harbor an opinion on their opinions - was simply pointing out the fact since your verb tenses indicated that you weren't aware. 

Gotcha, I wasn't. To be honest, I know almost nothing about him and was making a disparaging assumption based on his close association with Ken Starr, who is an absolutely loathsome toad. I apologize to him if that is in fact a false assumption. 

[Seger78 258]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

How does that compare to the other Sunday morning talk show hosts? Who's doing the job that Chuck isn't?

I don't dislike Chuck, but Chris Wallace is normally very knowledgeable and not reluctant to call people out on their bullshit.

[pyrohornIII 4809]

Stone can't keep his mouth shut. 

 

[Scooter Monzingo 820]

On 3/2/2019 at 8:49 AM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’m a dildo salesman 

Gemini 

So you’re a twin bipolar German fake Penis salesman? I would have never guessed that.