Jump to content

The Robert Mueller Investigation

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 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

Yuk

Yuk 1612

Posted
Posted (edited)

I really hope ABJ doesn't toss him in PMITA prison.  Stone's obviously trying to tee this up for a pardon from Trump before any evidence is ever entered into the public record.

Edited by Yuk
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Trump isn’t going to pardon any of the Mueller indictments because the moment he does he will get impeached for obstruction of justice. 

I know he wouldn’t get removed by the Senate because nothing matters but it will be an open and shut case for house democrats to impeach.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 46064

Posted
Posted
Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Trump isn’t going to pardon anyone of the Mueller indictments because the moment he does he will get impeached for obstruction of justice. 

I know he wouldn’t get removed by the Senate because nothing matters but it will be an open and shut case for house democrats to impeach.

Well let's just get it overwith then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46988

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Trump isn’t going to pardon any of the Mueller indictments because the moment he does he will get impeached for obstruction of justice. 

I would think by now you'd know better than to presume what Donald Trump might do in any given situation.  It's not like he listens to anyone, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I would think by now you'd know better than to presume what Donald Trump might do in any given situation.  It's not like he listens to anyone, either.

Oh I’m well aware I could be wrong but Trump is all about optics and a trial in the Senate after becoming the third president in US history to be impeached is something he does not want, even if he would ultimately prevail.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Yuk

Yuk 1612

Posted
Posted

Manafort wants the Kilimnik info unsealed for the same reason.  He wants a pardon between Virginia sentencing and more meaty DC sentencing.  It was reported Trump offered pardons to both Cohen and Manafort.  I think he only offers pardons to those that can directly implicate him.  Stone would be another.  And big dick toilet salesman said he's seen "pardon documents" which I doubt related to Marcus Garvey. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46988

Posted
Posted

This is a very poorly worded statute:

Quote

18 U.S. Code § 2383.Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

 

And the counterargument is . . . the US Constitution impeachment clause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31996

Posted
Posted
On 3/3/2019 at 1:10 PM, 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'm not sure, other than the quote above, what Jaworksi relied upon.  In 1973, probably exploring the issue more thoroughly, the Office of Legal Counsel rendered an opinion that "the  indictment  or criminal  prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch  to  perform  its  constitutionally  assigned  functions."  The 2000 OLC opinion builds on the 1973 opinion. 

Rotunda didn't change his mind, a key to his opinion was the existence of an Independent Counsel statute, and the fact that the 2000 OLC opinion binds Mueller, whose only authority comes from the DOJ.  https://verdict.justia.com/2017/08/14/indicting-president-president-clintons-justice-department-says-no 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Like those examples, and many others, the Hillary Clinton case was one where the public interest required that we speak. Angry voices in July 2016 said we should have said nothing. But we were ending a criminal investigation of a candidate for president, one overseen by Justice Department political appointees from the candidate’s political party. The decision to decline prosecution would have been far less credible without those details, causing lasting damage to the department’s reservoir of trust with the American people. Democrats were wrong about transparency then.

But Republicans are wrong now, when they claim Justice Department rules forbid transparency about the completed work of the special counsel. It is hard to imagine a case of greater public interest than one focused on the efforts of a foreign adversary to damage our democracy, and in which the president of the United States is a subject. I don’t know all the considerations that will go into deciding precisely what to say about the completion of the special counsel’s work and when to say it. It’s always important to consider guidelines and routines. But don’t listen to those who tell you transparency is impossible. Every American should want a Justice Department guided first and always by the public interest. Sometimes transparency is not a hard call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 30247

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Degenerate Gardner said:

Though he foretold of a dismal future, even Orwell didn't imagine Diamond and Silk.

 

The most accurate crystal ball gazers from our past appear to have been Matt Groening, Mike Judge, and the Dead Milkmen.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horn Dog

Horn Dog 10156

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Like those examples, and many others, the Hillary Clinton case was one where the public interest required that we speak. Angry voices in July 2016 said we should have said nothing. But we were ending a criminal investigation of a candidate for president, one overseen by Justice Department political appointees from the candidate’s political party. The decision to decline prosecution would have been far less credible without those details, causing lasting damage to the department’s reservoir of trust with the American people. Democrats were wrong about transparency then.

But Republicans are wrong now, when they claim Justice Department rules forbid transparency about the completed work of the special counsel. It is hard to imagine a case of greater public interest than one focused on the efforts of a foreign adversary to damage our democracy, and in which the president of the United States is a subject. I don’t know all the considerations that will go into deciding precisely what to say about the completion of the special counsel’s work and when to say it. It’s always important to consider guidelines and routines. But don’t listen to those who tell you transparency is impossible. Every American should want a Justice Department guided first and always by the public interest. Sometimes transparency is not a hard call.

Fuck you James Comey.  You ain't my homie!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 30508

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Lolz

Does this mean Hillary didn't shoot Seth? Maybe instead of the leaks, he was running away with Hillary's money earned from trafficking children and giving our uranium to the Russians. Or maybe Seth had the tape of Hillary ordering the terrorists to kill our people in Benghazi. 

She's the devil, ya know. We've been hearing that for decades now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Yuk said:
I really hope ABJ doesn't toss him in PMITA prison.  Stone's obviously trying to tee this up for a pardon from Trump before any evidence is ever entered into the public record.

I don't know about the calculus of pardons, but this is a particularly sensitive situation for the judge to show any signs of inconsistency. 

After Stone got his ABJ grilling about it 'not being baseball and no third strikes' after his meme with her face next to crosshairs with accompanying text attacking her record, an imminent book publication with likely proscribed content was planned about which no mention was made to the Judge, followed in short order by the Who Framed Roger Stone internet bit over the weekend.  It was a double whammy fuck you to the judge.  He's ignoring the work of his own legal counsel by blatantly and aggressively calling her bluff.  I don't think she has much choice.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grandioso

Grandioso 2592

Posted
Posted

These fucking guys and their honorifics. "Dr. Jerome Corsi." I wonder if he's friends with "Carter Page, Ph.D" or if he knew the late "Dr. Jerry Falwell."

New rule: if you propagate birther conspiracy theories, you don't get to be "doctor" anything. 

 

  • 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...