The Robert Mueller Investigation

[retread 2951]

^ yep. Same as for every other serious issue in the USA. Kick the can down the road.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

21 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Pretty sure both parties want to run out the clock on the Mueller probe.  Because they’re both terrified of having to act like responsible adults when the truth is revealed.  

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

1 hour ago, Thetexashammer said:

You are right to mock implausible claims of widespread criminal acts.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

16 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

You are right to mock implausible claims of widespread criminal acts.

The moment someone engages on the substance of that argument, I promise to email you. What did you think of the election that was disregarded because of cheating? 

[Brisketexan 106629]

The moment someone engages on the substance of that argument, I promise to email you. What did you think of the election that was disregarded because of cheating? 

A federal Judge engaged the substance of the argument.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

A federal Judge engaged the substance of the argument.

That's weird. I thought they adjudicated legal cases. I didn't know they engaged in political argumentation. 

[TwiceHorn 31991]

2 hours ago, triplehorn said:

 

DoJ funds Special Counsel Investigation through next September ?

Looking at this through the lens of funding seems to add another dimension to Pelosi's remarks today about slow walking impeachment.  

That seems like a stretch.  According to the article, the Special Counsel has to submit a budget request before 10/1 of a given year for the following year.  Whatever that budget is "funds the special counsel through September," that is, until the end of the fiscal year.  It's not like they do quarterly budgeting or something.

Also wow at Preet Bharara, he's quite the media boy.  Someone needs to shit on his head for giving Wall Street a pass.  https://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2017/03/taking-of-critical-perspective-on-the-work-of-former-us-attorney-for-sdny-preet-bharara.html

Edited March 12, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[triplehorn 2664]

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That seems like a stretch.  According to the article, the Special Counsel has to submit a budget request before 10/1 of a given year for the following year.  Whatever that budget is "funds the special counsel through September," that is, until the end of the fiscal year.  It's not like they do quarterly budgeting or something.

Also wow at Preet Bharara, he's quite the media boy.  Someone needs to shit on his head for giving Wall Street a pass.  https://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2017/03/taking-of-critical-perspective-on-the-work-of-former-us-attorney-for-sdny-preet-bharara.html

Given the deadline for current funding through next Sept was 10/1/18, I agree with you.  But, for all the chatter last week suggesting Mueller is ready to wrap it up, it again feels like this could keep going on awhile.

A thought I keep returning to re the timing of Mueller’s work is that this is an ongoing counterintelligence investigation into continuous active conduct by perps to redouble and deepen their efforts in the face of what occurred in 2016.  So I imagine there must be real time countermeasures being created based on new information from subjects, further IC observations, and more analysis to navigate going forward.  

There is something potentially invaluable to our nat sec interests in allowing certain individuals and relationships to proceed under scrutiny for some period of time.

[notre dame joe 202]

On ‎3‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 7:27 AM, Horn Dog said:

unse==What you libtards don’t seem to understand is that conservative judges are just calling balls and strikes.  They strictly inforce the constitution and follow guidlines.  They do not let their personal views influence their decisions.

Just like special counsels.  We're lucky to have proto-AI robots dispensing justice.

[shnsajax 3605]

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/deutsche-bank-investors-bank-subpoenaed-trump-organization-records-045815341.html

[TwiceHorn 31991]

12 hours ago, triplehorn said:

Given the deadline for current funding through next Sept was 10/1/18, I agree with you.  But, for all the chatter last week suggesting Mueller is ready to wrap it up, it again feels like this could keep going on awhile.

A thought I keep returning to re the timing of Mueller’s work is that this is an ongoing counterintelligence investigation into continuous active conduct by perps to redouble and deepen their efforts in the face of what occurred in 2016.  So I imagine there must be real time countermeasures being created based on new information from subjects, further IC observations, and more analysis to navigate going forward.  

There is something potentially invaluable to our nat sec interests in allowing certain individuals and relationships to proceed under scrutiny for some period of time.

It seems to me, though, that a CI investigation is not as subject to conflict-of-interest as investigation of executive branch employees and family/employees of Trump, and therefore can proceed without as much fear of executive interference as the matters Mueller was engaged to investigate.  In other words, I'm not sure it's necessary to prolong the Mueller investigation to pursue that investigation.

[RomaVicta 30502]

16 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Pretty sure both parties want to run out the clock on the Mueller probe.  Because they’re both terrified of having to act like responsible adults when the truth is revealed.  

I'm surprised that no Democrat has been implicated as far as we know. I'm guessing GOP apologists are scouring the evidence to find at least one Dem that they can use to support their both sides defense.

I don't know if Putin is the master puppeteer some claim or he just threw some rotten meat into the kennel to see what would happen. If he is a planner, doesn't it make sense that he'd find a way to compromise Dems as well?

Think of the destruction of the people's waning faith in our system if, after the GOPs are handcuffed, the NYT has a front page story that Russian money passed through a union PAC to help Dem candidates. Even if the Dems were unknowing, they'd be tarred with the same brush. 

I figure some GOPs will go down who were ignorant of the Russia corruption but received funds from legit seeming sources.  That's where even innocent Dems could be sucked into the vortex.

If no Dems are caught up in this, they can run under a new slogan.

We're the Democratic Party. We only feed at the American trough!

Edited March 12, 2019 by RomaVicta
Active Measures corrupted my grammar. Damn Putin!

[Foosters 18228]

14 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

That's weird. I thought they adjudicated legal cases. I didn't know they engaged in political argumentation. 

[Chad Fuck 18092]

14 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

That's weird. I thought they adjudicated legal cases. I didn't know they engaged in political argumentation. 

[wildcat09 29559]

14 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

That's weird. I thought they adjudicated legal cases. I didn't know they engaged in political argumentation. 

What is it like going through life thinking shit like this makes you clever?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

32 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I don't know if Putin is the master puppeteer some claim or he just threw some rotten meat into the kennel to see what would happen. If he is a planner, doesn't it make sense that he'd find a way to compromise Dems as well?

Putin is going to try to compromise as many powerfully people in the United States as possible.  I think most people lack imagination on how Putin can compromise Americans.  It’s not always straight up bribery and blackmail and it’s not always full blown witting asset versus patriot. 

Edited March 12, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[triplehorn 2664]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

It seems to me, though, that a CI investigation is not as subject to conflict-of-interest as investigation of executive branch employees and family/employees of Trump, and therefore can proceed without as much fear of executive interference as the matters Mueller was engaged to investigate.  In other words, I'm not sure it's necessary to prolong the Mueller investigation to pursue that investigation.

I'm not sure I fully grasp your conflict of interest angle, but Mueller wasn't tasked to or limited to specifically investigate Exec branch employees or Trump/family for events in 2016.  While it is inclusive of the Trumps, any evidentiary co-mingling they face would be incidental. 

Setting aside TrumpCo involvement, Mueller's investigation is not about examining a static event in the past for potential crimes.  It's an active dynamic interface with multiple entities involved in an ongoing pattern of corruption, criminality, and emerging national security threats.  Bringing indictments, sealing them or not, timing the release of indictments, and pressuring for cooperation from witnesses to deepen other tranches of Mueller's work all become interwoven as tactical measures for combating active and emerging counterintelligence threats.  Conceivably, Trump and family could represent a "middle phase" of Mueller's investigation into Russia's role, international bank money laundering, transnational criminal organizations, and their impact on efforts to undermine our democracy and Western alliances.

Mueller may get fired in the "middle phase" and I'd expect contingencies are in place, but for Mueller to be protected and allowed to captain a very large ship could be the current optimal arrangement post-Trump/family indictments.

[Mdhorn 6153]

2 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

I'm surprised that no Democrat has been implicated as far as we know. I'm guessing GOP apologists are scouring the evidence to find at least one Dem that they can use to support their both sides defense.

I don't know if Putin is the master puppeteer some claim or he just threw some rotten meat into the kennel to see what would happen. If he is a planner, doesn't it make sense that he'd find a way to compromise Dems as well?

Think of the destruction of the people's waning faith in our system if, after the GOPs are handcuffed, the NYT has a front page story that Russian money passed through a union PAC to help Dem candidates. Even if the Dems were unknowing, they'd be tarred with the same brush. 

I figure some GOPs will go down who were ignorant of the Russia corruption but received funds from legit seeming sources.  That's where even innocent Dems could be sucked into the vortex.

If no Dems are caught up in this, they can run under a new slogan.

We're the Democratic Party. We only feed at the American trough!

I hate Nancy's reaction because it undermines the threat Trump poses to our election system and national security.  She also pulls off the best card the Dems have in that it's not about likelihood of impeachment.  It's about holding the Republicans accountable for not impeaching and getting it on record.  Mueller needs support too.  Do your damn jobs for the country you serve instead of the party you serve on.    If they don't, they are accessories and they need to hear it and fully understand the concept.

Edited March 12, 2019 by Mdhorn

[jimmyjazz 46979]

I realize the clock is ticking, but if it becomes clear that the Trump administration is in place because of election interference, then hell yes I want Trump & Pence and them rest of the impeached or indicted.  The biggest threat I see is at the Supreme Court -- who knows how long RBG or some of the other olds will stay on, but the last thing I want is Trump or Pence nominating a 3rd justice when the Senate Republicans hold a 53-47 lead.

Edited March 12, 2019 by jimmyjazz

[atomheartbevo 90549]

12 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

I hate Nancy's reaction because it undermines the threat Trump poses to our election system and national security.  She also pulls off the best card the Dems have in that it's not about likelihood of impeachment.  It's about holding the Republicans accountable for not impeaching and getting it on record.  Mueller needs support too.  Do your damn jobs for the country you serve instead of the party you serve on.    If they don't, they are accessories and they need to hear it and fully understand the concept.

The best thing Nancy and the Dems can do is stay away from (or out of the way of) Mueller and Co.   

Trump is already doing everything he can to convince his base that a group of lifelong Republicans investigating him are suddenly Dems, and that they are running interference for Hillary’s wrongdoing. 

[Mdhorn 6153]

3 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

The best thing Nancy and the Dems can do is stay away from (or out of the way of) Mueller and Co.   

Trump is already doing everything he can to convince his base that a group of lifelong Republicans investigating him are suddenly Dems, and that they are running interference for Hillary’s wrongdoing. 

Then she shouldn't say anything. Silence can be golden if used correctly.  But saying they're not looking to impeach because Trump isn't worth it is the wrong damn message. 

[notre dame joe 202]

3 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

I'm surprised that no Democrat has been implicated as far as we know. I'm guessing GOP apologists are scouring the evidence to find at least one Dem that they can use to support their both sides defense.

 

I don't know if they were all technically Democrats but the Deep Staters involved with the Dossier humiliated themselves worse than Putin could have dreamt.

[triplehorn 2664]

Pelosi's full statement this week on impeachment:

“I’m not for impeachment. This is news. I’m going to give you some news right now because I haven’t said this to any press person before,” the House Speaker said. “But since you asked, and I’ve been thinking about this: Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country.”

That's a glaring qualifier.  That 'something' that is 'so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan' could drop tomorrow or two months from now.  If and when it does, it will be obvious to all non-complicit R's.  Until it does drop, shaking that tree is a distraction from the actual real work of oversight that is going well beyond attention to a disposable worthless Trump.  

[atomheartbevo 90549]

27 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

Then she shouldn't say anything. Silence can be golden if used correctly.  But saying they're not looking to impeach because Trump isn't worth it is the wrong damn message. 

She did say something though.  

Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country.

Edit: what triplehorn said above

Edited March 12, 2019 by atomheartbevo

[TwiceHorn 31991]

1 hour ago, triplehorn said:

I'm not sure I fully grasp your conflict of interest angle, but Mueller wasn't tasked to or limited to specifically investigate Exec branch employees or Trump/family for events in 2016.  While it is inclusive of the Trumps, any evidentiary co-mingling they face would be incidental. 

Setting aside TrumpCo involvement, Mueller's investigation is not about examining a static event in the past for potential crimes.  It's an active dynamic interface with multiple entities involved in an ongoing pattern of corruption, criminality, and emerging national security threats.  Bringing indictments, sealing them or not, timing the release of indictments, and pressuring for cooperation from witnesses to deepen other tranches of Mueller's work all become interwoven as tactical measures for combating active and emerging counterintelligence threats.  Conceivably, Trump and family could represent a "middle phase" of Mueller's investigation into Russia's role, international bank money laundering, transnational criminal organizations, and their impact on efforts to undermine our democracy and Western alliances.

Mueller may get fired in the "middle phase" and I'd expect contingencies are in place, but for Mueller to be protected and allowed to captain a very large ship could be the current optimal arrangement post-Trump/family indictments.

Because without a presidential/executive conflict of interest there is no justification for a special counsel.

[triplehorn 2664]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Because without a presidential/executive conflict of interest there is no justification for a special counsel.

Got it.  Well it certainly is both. Given the complexity and sensitivity of the investigation and Mueller's leadership expertise, I will defer to Mueller to make that call.  Also, there are parallel threads that are the subject of fairly intense matters like the Mystery Appellant that will likely extend beyond Trump/family considerations.  If we're talking now until Sept., it seems reasonable for Mueller to keep things in place and reassess at that time.  

[JimmyJames 12271]

Pelosi is just being smart. Right now the polling on impeachment is 41 percent against with 40 percent for. Notably independents are against it 41-34. Even a lot of dems and republicans are undecided.

To start it now would be foolhardy. While all the undecided dems would come to support it, all the undecided Republicans and independents would oppose it. The numbers in favor overall would go down and it would then of course never happen. 

That means impeachment right now is a non starter, same as trumps idiotic shutdown was a nonstarter. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

18 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

That's weird. I thought they adjudicated legal cases. I didn't know they engaged in political argumentation. 

Can I somehow neg this dumbass post again? 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

I think it is more of a permanent shelving than y'all are acting.  That qualifier only saves it to people that parse language.  Politicians speak in headlines, and the headline there is "Pelosi does not support impeachment."

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

The Roger Stone trial should be great theater. 

[Mdhorn 6153]

46 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

She did say something though.  

Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country.

Edit: what triplehorn said above

they need to edit our news better--they seem to have conveniently left that out of the soundbite.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Tuco 5093]

I'm surprised that no Democrat has been implicated as far as we know. I'm guessing GOP apologists are scouring the evidence to find at least one Dem that they can use to support their both sides defense.
I don't know if Putin is the master puppeteer some claim or he just threw some rotten meat into the kennel to see what would happen. If he is a planner, doesn't it make sense that he'd find a way to compromise Dems as well?

There was Tony Podesta, who closed shop and may still get slapped a little. (His firm was working under Manafort under an obvious false assurance that foreign money wasn’t paying the bill.)

There is also a former Dem Congressman who is a lobbyist and was working in Rohrabacher’s orbit on some Russian shit.

But, in general, mainstream Dems were lined up behind Hillary and Putin hates Hillary.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Manafort is currently in court about to be sentenced again.

[BrickHorn 18426]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Manafort is currently in court about to be sentenced again.

Yeah, but aside from that set of crimes, and the other ones he just got sentenced for, and all the blood on his hands in Ukraine, and pimping his handicapped wife for his own perverse gratification, the guy has lived an otherwise blameless life.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

Fed sentencing guidelines make it impossible to guess how much time he gets.  Whatever it is though, I hope it is consecutive.  

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

An enhancement. 

 

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

Edited March 13, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Well this is laughable 

 

[BrickHorn 18426]

Fucking lawyers.  “If it weren’t for a short period during which my client was committing horrible crimes against our country, he’d be innocent!”

[Degenerate Gardner 4133]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Well this is laughable 

 

In lieu of genuine contrition, Manafort is going with the 'poor me!' approach.  Bold strategy Cotton.

[shnsajax 3605]

Well this is laughable 
 

If I wasn’t a greedy grifter looking for an extra paycheck I would have never got caught.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

Judge doesn't seem too amused with it either.

[TwiceHorn 31991]

1 minute ago, Degenerate Gardner said:

In lieu of genuine contrition, Manafort is going with the 'poor me!' approach.  Bold strategy Cotton.

I think "genuine" is where the rubber hits the road.  His lawyers know he can't pull that off, so they have to go with something else.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

Does she announce the sentence from the bench?  Surely she already knows what she is going to say and these arguments don't move the needle at all.

[TwiceHorn 31991]

5 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Does she announce the sentence from the bench?  Surely she already knows what she is going to say and these arguments don't move the needle at all.

Most likely.  This is actually an evidentiary hearing on the application of those guidelines that include some sort of fact question.  The standard is preponderance.  Sometimes if there is a sharp legal or factual dispute as to application of a guideline, they take it under advisement, but these are five-year max crimes, so I am not sure there is that much of that.

[Pig Bellmont 8867]

29 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Fucking lawyers.  “If it weren’t for a short period during which my client was committing horrible crimes against our country, he’d be innocent!”

Rather I think it’s “if my client didn’t take such a prominent job, he could have committed crimes and no one would have cared (you know, like before)”

[TwiceHorn 31991]

9 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Rather I think it’s “if my client didn’t take such a prominent job, he could have committed crimes and no one would have cared (you know, like before)”

It kind of reeks of "everyone on K Street does this shit," which may not be far from the truth.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Any bets?

I'm guessing 5 years concurrent. 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

 

 

Any bets on whether we get a tweet from DOTUS saying "Thank you Judge Jackson for pointing out that there is NO COLLUSION!"  

 

/touches earpiece

 

I'm told Vegas has already taken that one off the board.