The Robert Mueller Investigation

[TwiceHorn 31169]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Trump-allied House conservatives draft articles of impeachment against Rosenstein as ‘last resort’

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-allied-house-conservatives-draft-articles-of-impeachment-against-rosenstein-as-last-resort/2018/04/30/d78af412-4c97-11e8-b725-92c89fe3ca4c_story.html?utm_term=.af13c7dc5f65

 

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4449879-House-Freedom-Caucus-drafts-articles-of.html

 

Conservative House allies of President Trump have drafted articles of impeachment against Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who oversees the ongoing special counsel probe, setting up a possible GOP showdown over the federal investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The document, which was obtained by The Washington Post, underscores the growing chasm between congressional Republican leaders, who have maintained for months that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III should be allowed to proceed, and rank-and-file GOP lawmakers who have repeatedly battled the Justice Department during the past year.

The draft articles, which one of its authors called a “last resort,” would be unlikely to garner significant support in Congress. But it could serve as a provocative political weapon for conservatives in their standoff with Mueller and the Justice Department.

Members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus — led by Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), a Trump confidant — finalized the draft in recent days. It came after weeks of disputes with Rosenstein over the Justice Department’s response to congressional requests for documents about the decisions and behavior of federal law-enforcement officials working on the Russia investigation and other federal probes, including the investigation into 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s email server.

Meadows acknowledged the draft in an interview Monday, calling the one-page document “a last resort option, if the Department of Justice fails to respond” for his requests for more information.

 

“My frustrations about their inability to respond to simple requests could warrant further action,” Meadows said, adding that many of his colleagues are nearing a breaking point with Rosenstein.

The Freedom Caucus, which counts a few dozen House Republicans as members, is one of the more influential blocs in Congress because of its ability to drive debates to the right inside the House and Meadows’s close relationship with the president.

Still, the group’s impeachment draft would face many challenges if it were referred to the House Judiciary Committee for consideration. Republicans leaders have kept their distance from calls to remove Rosenstein from office, and Democrats have argued that the GOP’s clashes with the deputy attorney general are little more than a pretext to weaken Mueller’s efforts.

In recent weeks, the Judiciary Committee reached an agreement with the Justice Department over documents it wanted turned over — possibly curbing the appetite of its leaders for a fight.

Impeaching a federal official is an exceedingly difficult endeavor. While House members can refer impeachment articles to the House Judiciary Committee, it is usually up to the committee to debate or draft impeachment legislation that could be brought before the House for a vote. A simple majority is then needed for an article of impeachment to pass and be sent to the U.S. Senate for a trial. Two-thirds of the Senate are necessary to convict and remove the accused from office.

Should the Judiciary Committee decline to take up a proposal, Meadows and his colleagues are considering offering articles of impeachment under what is called a “privileged” resolution, which is when a floor vote is quickly called if the House speaker approves.

 

The last federal official impeached by the House was federal judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr., who was convicted by the Senate in 2010 on bribery allegations.

A spokesperson for the House Judiciary Committee declined to comment on the draft or the prospect of impeachment proceedings. A Justice Department spokesman also declined to comment on the draft.

Democrats have said that conservative criticisms of Rosenstein are aimed at protecting Trump. But Meadows and others involved in the impeachment discussions say their concerns are serious and should be heard.

The draft criticizes Rosenstein’s disclosure of materials related to a classified surveillance warrant application and subsequent renewals targeting former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. Conservatives have alleged the Justice Department acted inappropriately because the department relied on information in its warrant applications that was funded by Clinton’s presidential campaign. The warrants were approved by multiple judges. 

The conversatives’ outline, which is divided into eight parts, focuses on Rosenstein and surveillance matters in the first three articles. The document asserts that the veteran Justice Department official “engaged in a pattern of conduct incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him” in his dealings with Congress and “failed to enforce multiple laws” in the warrant process.

The draft also states that Rosenstein “knowingly provided misleading statements” during congressional testimony about steps the federal government took to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz announced in March that he will examine the series of applications to surveil Page, along with the department’s relationship with former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, whose research was cited in those requests.

The impeachment draft come at a charged moment within the Republican Party and inside the White House. Trump warned in recent days that he could make sweeping changes at the Justice Department and has repeatedly railed against the special counsel investigation as a “witch hunt” that is baseless and politically motivated.

And it follows months of pressure on Rosenstein, going back to January when Rep. Paul A. Gosar (R-Ariz.) called him a “traitor” who should be criminally prosecuted.

“They have a witch hunt against the president of the United States going on, I’ve taken the position — and I don’t have to take this position, maybe I’ll change — that I will not be involved with the Justice Department,” Trump told Fox News in an interview last week. “I will wait till this is over.”

The impeachment draft comes even as other House Republicans have cooled their tensions with Rosenstein, who has largely capitulated to lawmakers’ demands.

In early April, for example, the Justice Department gave House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) access to a redacted document detailing the origin of the investigation into whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the 2016 election, just a day after Nunes had threatened impeachment proceedings. At the time, Nunes publicly thanked Rosenstein for his cooperation, although he said his subpoenas would remain in effect.

Similarly, the Justice Department came to an agreement in recent weeks with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), who had been seeking documents on the investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server and the firing of Andrew McCabe as deputy FBI director, among other things. 

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), when asked in April at a news conference about Mueller and Rosenstein, said “they should be allowed to do their jobs.” 

But Meadows and others in his wing of the House GOP, such as Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), have continued to question Rosenstein and met with him at the Justice Department in mid-April to discuss document production. Meadows and Jordan left the session disappointed and have been talking through what the articles of impeachment could be ever since.

“The Department of Justice’s willingness to comply with legitimate requests are more lip service than actual actions,” Meadows said Monday.

If this doesn't show what a bunch of jackleg "conservatives" (emphasis on the quotes), the fucking House Freedom Caucus is, I don't know what will.  I wish I could vote against one of those fucksticks.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Some Mueller Questions:

 

• What did you know about communication between Roger Stone, his associates, Julian Assange or WikiLeaks?

Mr. Stone, a longtime adviser, claimed to have inside information from WikiLeaks, which published hacked Democratic emails. He appeared to predict future releases, and was in touch with a Twitter account used by Russian intelligence. This question, along with the next two, show that Mr. Mueller is still investigating possible campaign cooperation with Russia.

• What did you know during the transition about an attempt to establish back-channel communication to Russia, and Jared Kushner’s efforts?

Mr. Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, has testified that the Russian ambassador proposed getting Mr. Flynn in contact with Russian officials to discuss Syria. In response, Mr. Kushner said, he proposed using secure phones inside the Russian Embassy — a highly unusual suggestion that was not accepted. 

• What do you know about a 2017 meeting in Seychelles involving Erik Prince?

The meeting was convened by Mohammed bin Zayed Al-Nahyan of the United Arab Emirates. It brought Mr. Prince, an informal adviser to Mr. Trump’s team, together with a Russian investor close to Mr. Putin.

• What do you know about a Ukrainian peace proposal provided to Mr. Cohen in 2017?

Mr. Cohen, the lawyer, hand-delivered to the White House a peace proposal for Ukraine and Russia. This unusual bit of backdoor diplomacy is of interest because it involved a Ukrainian lawmaker who said he was being encouraged by Mr. Putin’s aides. Mr. Cohen has said he did not discuss the proposal with Mr. Trump.

• What knowledge did you have of any outreach by your campaign, including by Paul Manafort, to Russia about potential assistance to the campaign?

This is one of the most intriguing questions on the list. It is not clear whether Mr. Mueller knows something new, but there is no publicly available information linking Mr. Manafort, the former campaign chairman, to such outreach. So his inclusion here is significant. Mr. Manafort’s longtime colleague, Rick Gates, is cooperating with Mr. Mueller.

• What discussions did you have during the campaign regarding any meeting with Mr. Putin? Did you discuss it with others?

Journalists and lawmakers have uncovered several examples of Russian officials trying, through intermediaries, to arrange a meeting between Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin. Senior campaign officials rejected some overtures, but Mr. Trump’s involvement has been a mystery.

• What discussions did you have during the campaign regarding Russian sanctions?

Even as the Obama administration stepped up sanctions on Russia, Mr. Trump struck a laudatory tone toward Mr. Putin.

• What involvement did you have concerning platform changes regarding arming Ukraine?

A portion of the Republican platform was changed in a way more favorable to Russia.

• During the campaign, what did you know about Russian hacking, use of social media or other acts aimed at the campaign?

This is a key question. Mr. Trump praised the release of hacked Democratic emails and called on Russia to find others. Mr. Mueller’s investigation has unearthed evidence that at least one member of Mr. Trump’s campaign — George Papadopoulos — was told that Russia had obtained compromising emails about Mrs. Clinton. But Mr. Trump has repeatedly said there was “no collusion” with the Russian government

• When did you become aware of the Trump Tower meeting?

This and other questions relate to a June 9, 2016, meeting at Trump Tower with a Russian lawyer who offered political dirt about Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., arranged the meeting. He said he did not tell his father about it when it happened.

• What involvement did you have in the communication strategy, including the release of Donald Trump Jr.’s emails?

When The Times found out about the meeting, Mr. Trump helped draft a misleading statement in his son’s name, omitting the true purpose of the meeting. After The Times obtained the younger Mr. Trump’s emails, he published them on Twitter.

• During a 2013 trip to Russia, what communication and relationships did you have with the Agalarovs and Russian government officials?

The Trump Tower meeting was arranged through the Russian singer Emin Agalarov, his billionaire father, Aras Agalarov, and a music promoter. Mr. Mueller is scrutinizing the nature of connections between the Agalarovs, Mr. Trump and Russian officials.

• What communication did you have with Michael D. Cohen, Felix Sater and others, including foreign nationals, about Russian real estate developments during the campaign?

Mr. Mueller is referring to a failed effort to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. Mr. Sater, a business associate, proposed the idea to Mr. Cohen, the longtime personal lawyer to Mr. Trump. Emails show that Mr. Sater believed that the project would showcase Mr. Trump’s deal-making acumen and propel him into the presidency.

 

• What was the purpose of your July 2017 criticism of Mr. Sessions?

Mr. Trump unleashed a series of attacks on Mr. Sessions in July.

• What did you think and what did you do in reaction to the news of the appointment of the special counsel?

In a twist, Mr. Mueller’s very appointment has become part of his investigation. Mr. Trump has repeatedly denounced the inquiry as a “witch hunt.” Mr. Trump blames the appointment on Mr. Sessions’s recusal.

• Why did you hold Mr. Sessions’s resignation until May 31, 2017, and with whom did you discuss it?

Mr. Trump rejected Mr. Sessions’s resignation after aides argued that it would only create more problems. The details of those discussions remain unclear, but Mr. Trump’s advisers have already given Mr. Mueller their accounts of the conversations.

• What discussions did you have with Reince Priebus in July 2017 about obtaining the Sessions resignation? With whom did you discuss it?

Mr. Priebus, who was Mr. Trump’s chief of staff, has said he raced out of the White House after Mr. Sessions and implored him not to resign. Mr. Mueller has interviewed Mr. Priebus and would be able to compare his answers with those of Mr. Trump.

• What discussions did you have regarding terminating the special counsel, and what did you do when that consideration was reported in January 2018?

Again, Mr. Mueller’s investigation intersects with its own existence. The Times reported that, in June 2017, Mr. Trump ordered Mr. McGahn to fire Mr. Mueller. Mr. McGahn refused. Though Mr. Trump’s own advisers informed Mr. Mueller about that effort, Mr. Trump denied it: “Fake news,” he said. “A typical New York Times fake story.”

• What did you think and do regarding the recusal of Mr. Sessions?

Mr. Trump has criticized Mr. Sessions’s recusal from the Russia investigation. The Times reported that Mr. Trump humiliated him in an Oval Office meeting and accused him of being disloyal. Mr. Sessions ultimately submitted his resignation, though Mr. Trump did not accept it. Along with the next two questions, this inquiry looks at whether Mr. Trump views law enforcement officials as protectors.

• What efforts did you make to try to get him to change his mind?

The Times has reported that Mr. Trump told his White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, to stop Mr. Sessions from recusing himself. Mr. McGahn was unsuccessful, and Mr. Trump erupted, saying he needed an attorney general who would protect him.

• Did you discuss whether Mr. Sessions would protect you, and reference past attorneys general?

Mr. Trump has spoken affectionately about past attorneys general who he said were loyal to their presidents. He cited Robert F. Kennedy and Eric H. Holder Jr. as examples. “Holder protected the president,” he said in a Times interview in December. “And I have great respect for that.”

• What is the reason for your continued criticism of Mr. Comey and his former deputy, Andrew G. McCabe?

Mr. Comey and Mr. McCabe are among Mr. Trump’s favorite targets. Mr. McCabe is a lifelong Republican, but Mr. Trump has criticized him as a Clinton loyalist because Mr. McCabe’s wife, a Democrat, ran unsuccessfully for office in Virginia and received donations from a Clinton ally. This question suggests that Mr. Mueller wants to know whether Mr. Trump’s criticism is an effort to damage the F.B.I. while it investigates the president’s associates.

• What did you think about Mr. Comey’s June 8, 2017, testimony regarding Mr. Flynn, and what did you do about it?

After he was fired, Mr. Comey testified about his conversations with Mr. Trump and described him as preoccupied with the F.B.I.’s investigation into Russia. After the testimony, Mr. Trump called him a liar.

• What was the purpose of the September and October 2017 statements, including tweets, regarding an investigation of Mr. Comey?

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, said that Mr. Comey had testified falsely to Congress and suggested that the Justice Department might investigate. Mr. Trump followed up with tweets suggesting that he should be investigated for rigging an inquiry into Mrs. Clinton. Such comments reinforced criticism that Mr. Trump views the Justice Department as a sword to use against his political rivals.

[Pods 7521]

2 hours ago, sheeeit said:

Why so scared?  You are convinced you know what is going on.  I offered a simple wager.  Dont be a pussy.  Lets wager.

Grow the fuck up dude. The last time you repeatedly tried to offer one of your bizarre internet bet obsessions, I finally relented because you were actively lying in the thread you tried to make a bet over lying on. cue Xhibit joke here. 

When I showed you were lying actively at the exact same time about something else in the exact same thread, you tried to punt it back to a bet you'd made about a month before that you were also lying on. You reneged and tried to move the goal posts again at that point. 

I have zero interest in taking some bizarre internet bet with you that you will welch on the terms of anyway. You are an intellectually dishonest and accomplished liar and I will continue to call you so whenever I feel like it.

Continue to whine and bitch about it as much as you want and draw up some fantasy bets in your head, I don't really give a shit. I'll let our respective posting histories speak for themselves on who other posters think is telling the truth. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

These Mueller questions seem to indicate collusion is on the table.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[LongestHorn 759]

Now that he has all the questions, POTUS and his counsel will craft suitable answers.  I don't know.  I can't remember that meeting.  I don't recall how I reacted.  Cheat sheet ALL that shit.  Shitlibcucks will implode into a snowflake supernova.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

I feel a Grand Jury subpoena coming.

[TwiceHorn 31169]

I would have a lot of qualms about Teh Donald's ability to "stick to the script" or confine himself to concise, responsive answers.  Even with all the questions.

 

An extremely interesting question to me is how hard does Mueller "push" his questions.  It would seem that the gravity of questioning the POTUS, even if he is a jackwagon, demands a certain amount of decorum and deference not present in an ordinary civil deposition.

Edited May 1, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

My understanding is there would be plenty of follow up questions.

Also important to note there are no questions relating to money laundering.

[Poolflood 845]

So why did Mueller leak this now?  And this shit doesn't get out without his approval.  

[hobbes2702 12771]

1 minute ago, Poolflood said:

So why did Mueller leak this now?  And this shit doesn't get out without his approval.  

He didn’t. Read the article 

[Francisco 2.0 32290]

2 minutes ago, Poolflood said:

So why did Mueller leak this now?  And this shit doesn't get out without his approval.  

I don't believe Mueller or his squad leaked it.

 

But I can see Rudy G. doing the dirty work.  

[Poolflood 845]

10 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

He didn’t. Read the article 

Oh I missed the declaration Trump's team leaked the questions..... Which makes less sense.

[burntorangebongos 10681]

Maybe it was Dowd?

[WhatTheBuck 28700]

Jesus Fucking Christ the constant cries that the Steele dossier can't be trusted because it was funded by the Clinton campaign. That's such a red herring. The purpose of opposition research is to obtain factual dirt on your opponent. Nobody hires a third party to manufacture lies under the guise of opposition research. Their own political shop can handle that. 

[TwiceHorn 31169]

52 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

My understanding is there would be plenty of follow up questions.

Also important to note there are no questions relating to money laundering.

I don't really mean follow up questions.  One possibly valid strategy is to just ask open-ended questions, as those reproduced here, and let the dumbass spew.  The more conventional strategy is to ask very pointed questions with only one credible answer and to keep pushing those questions in the face of evasion to either get to pure perjury or an honest answer.  The latter strategy is sometimes characterized as "badgering" by opposing counsel, usually to no real end, but things can get pretty heated. In that instance, you are trying to get a transcript that the dumbest juror can understand, that is, a "question pair" or Q: and A: that either establishes the point you are making or utterly destroys the witness' credibility.  That probably doesn't apply here.

 

And, I'm not sure you can read anything into the "money laundering" questions.  First, it's usually established by the documentary record, not by witness testimony, certainly not by the alleged perp.  Second, despite all the armchair lawyering about how broad is Mueller's mandate, unless it's very closely tied to the campaign, I don't think money laundering is considered by him to be within his mandate, see, e.g. the Cohen handoff.  Which is not to say that I don't think Teh Donald has laundered money, I'm quite certain that his "organization" has been a party to it, but I am not sure the level of culpability and I imagine that it long precedes the campaign.  I just don't think Mueller is going to use his "ancillary and pendent" jurisdiction to try to hang up the President on non-campaign related crimes.

Edited May 1, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

An extremely interesting question to me is how hard does Mueller "push" his questions.  It would seem that the gravity of questioning the POTUS, even if he is a jackwagon, demands a certain amount of decorum and deference not present in an ordinary civil deposition.

I think this is true. I read the Reagan depot and you could tell some respect was being paid, wfuch made the questions pretty gentle.  

[David Dennison 18561]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

An extremely interesting question to me is how hard does Mueller "push" his questions.  It would seem that the gravity of questioning the POTUS, even if he is a jackwagon, demands a certain amount of decorum and deference not present in an ordinary civil deposition.

This is the man of the Access Hollywood tape, Trump University, bad steaks, both sides, etc. He is a fucktarded asshat of monumental proportions. Questioning Donald Trump would have less gravity than the moon.

[Paul Wesley 3276]

House Republicans preparing in advance to go after Rosenstein (Republican-appointed Republican) on imaginary charges is beyond treasonous, and it tells me that there's a pretty high chance that we're about to learn that their party and/or party officials were complicit in collusion in real time.  I don't think it's remotely possible that they're acting under a good-faith belief that pathological liar Trump is innocent and the entire DOJ is corrupt.

[burntorangebongos 10681]

6 minutes ago, Paul Wesley said:

House Republicans preparing in advance to go after Rosenstein (Republican-appointed Republican) on imaginary charges is beyond treasonous, and it tells me that there's a pretty high chance that we're about to learn that their party and/or party officials were complicit in collusion in real time.  I don't think it's remotely possible that they're acting under a good-faith belief that pathological liar Trump is innocent and the entire DOJ is corrupt.

I don't know, it sounds like the back-benchers are doing this. would these Freedom Caucus fuckers be anything in their party without Trump? Aside from disruptors, they can't expect leading roles. These are the guys that are committed to Trump and some are in his inner circle. I don't know why the rest of the Republicans don't pound them into submission but it may be too late.

[Gatorubet 30050]

• What knowledge did you have of any outreach by your campaign, including by Paul Manafort, to Russia about potential assistance to the campaign?

 

They already know the answers to this one, if I was a betting man.   And I am.   Bwahaha

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

[RayDog 682]

6 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

• What knowledge did you have of any outreach by your campaign, including by Paul Manafort, to Russia about potential assistance to the campaign?

 

They already know the answers to this one, if I was a betting man.   And I am.   Bwahaha

Mueller already knows the answers to many of those questions. This is a perjury trap for Trump.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

51 minutes ago, RayDog said:

Mueller already knows the answers to many of those questions. This is a perjury trap for Trump.

 That’s the strategy for every deposition. Don’t let the dude know what you know, so he doesn’t know when he can stretch the truth, when he has to walk the straight and narrow, and when he can straight up lie. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

1 minute ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

 That’s the strategy for every deposition. Don’t let the dude know what you know, so he doesn’t know when he can stretch the truth, when he has to walk the straight and narrow, and when he can straight up lie. 

Trump and team have no idea what gates and Flynn have told mueller so trump can never answer any of these questions except by saying, I don’t recall.   

[burntorangebongos 10681]

This is starting to make sense as to who leaked this. "Someone who is not on Trump's legal team" leaked this which  is likely Dowd. And he leaked it to help the Trump legal team to change Trump's mind to not sit down and answer questions. They've put stuff into the news before to change his mind. Because he'll listen to Fox and Friends conservative pundits before he'll listen to them. Now Mueller will have to use a subpoena and that is harder to do for a sitting president.

I guess the thing to do is to see what those guys are saying to see what Trump decides to do.

[Tuco 5076]

The questions on Sessions are a little strange to me, particularly those about talking him out of resigning. 

Something to keep in mind on Mueller's questions: they weren't going to list any questions that would scare him away.  They weren't going to list all of the questions they would like to ask. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

4 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

This is starting to make sense as to who leaked this. "Someone who is not on Trump's legal team" leaked this which  is likely Dowd. And he leaked it to help the Trump legal team to change Trump's mind to not sit down and answer questions. They've put stuff into the news before to change his mind. Because he'll listen to Fox and Friends conservative pundits before he'll listen to them. Now Mueller will have to use a subpoena and that is harder to do for a sitting president.

I guess the thing to do is to see what those guys are saying to see what Trump decides to do.

This has Giuliani written all over it.

Giuliani gave it to a third party which then gave it to the NYT

It isn't a leak. 

Dowd quit.

[Tuco 5076]

4 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

This is starting to make sense as to who leaked this. "Someone who is not on Trump's legal team" leaked this which  is likely Dowd. And he leaked it to help the Trump legal team to change Trump's mind to not sit down and answer questions. They've put stuff into the news before to change his mind. Because he'll listen to Fox and Friends conservative pundits before he'll listen to them. Now Mueller will have to use a subpoena and that is harder to do for a sitting president.

I guess the thing to do is to see what those guys are saying to see what Trump decides to do.

If Dowd leaked this he should lose his license. He's not going to risk his license to protect a former client and current dipshit. 

The explanation makes sense, but replace Dowd with non-lawyer staffer. 

[TwiceHorn 31169]

8 hours ago, David Dennison said:

This is the man of the Access Hollywood tape, Trump University, bad steaks, both sides, etc. He is a fucktarded asshat of monumental proportions. Questioning Donald Trump would have less gravity than the moon.

Nonetheless, I think the Special Counsel has to show some degree of deference to the office.

[WhatTheBuck 28700]

It would be nice if the president showed some degree of deference to the office. 

[Biff Tannen 45470]

48 minutes ago, Tuco said:

If Dowd leaked this he should lose his license. He's not going to risk his license to protect a former client and current dipshit. 

The explanation makes sense, but replace Dowd with non-lawyer staffer. 

Or a batshit crazy one like Giuliani.

[Pig Bellmont 8678]

Giving these questions to the press isn’t helpful to Trump. It shows me they have a lot of evidence and they are attempting to get answers regarding intent - which is a key element in the obstruction of justice charges. Trump can’t credibly claim he doesn’t recall everything, and if he’s too evasive, his lack of cooperation could be evidence of intent. The walls are going to be closing in really soon 

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

16 hours ago, Pods said:

It seems I accidentally typed seems twice as well. If that's your point, it's equally stupid. 

If we're offering suggestions, maybe you could think more next time before making a cliched and tired post thinking you are posting some sort of witty shaggy/surly meme retort. Maybe work in a your mom joke for extra originality points next time. 

It seems that my comment hit pretty close to home for you to get so butt hurt.  Maybe seek counseling?  

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

16 hours ago, Pods said:

It seems I accidentally typed seems twice as well. If that's your point, it's equally stupid. 

If we're offering suggestions, maybe you could think more next time before making a cliched and tired post thinking you are posting some sort of witty shaggy/surly meme retort. Maybe work in a your mom joke for extra originality points next time. 

Edit: Super Surly double post.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Longhornfan1024

[TwiceHorn 31169]

Does anyone know whether this questioning, should it occur, will be transcribed or recorded?

[TahoeHorn 107]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Does anyone know whether this questioning, should it occur, will be transcribed or recorded?

Everything, including that, is still in negotiation.

[Tuco 5076]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Nonetheless, I think the Special Counsel has to show some degree of deference to the office.

They're are all people.  How much deference they will default to depends a lot on emotion and opinion.  Having the President of the United States continually and inaccurately criticize you through Twitter for the better part of the year may modify how much deference you believe that office deserves. But that's just the what they are going to lean to.  Much of it will be driven by what they think they will be effective.  I can see where kissing his ass will be effective, at times, and I can see where calling him a fat stupid pig may be effective at times.  He's not a king.  "Of the people."  He is not entitled to any deference in a legal investigation beyond what anyone else is.  (Confidentiality and immunity from prosecution, sure.  Deference, no.)  And he has spent the last year and a half pissing away any traditional respect the title would normally carry, rightly or wrongly.   

[FUBAR 4]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Nonetheless, I think the Special Counsel has to show some degree of deference to the office.

You would think he would. The same way Ken Starr told Clinton, I have the blue dress with your DNA on it.  A couple of days before his deposition. Otherwise, Brother Bill would have denied himself to full impeachment.   

[Longhorn94 2427]

Do not ever compare Trump to Reagan again. 

Edited May 1, 2018 by Longhorn94

[triplehorn 2664]

1 hour ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Giving these questions to the press isn’t helpful to Trump. It shows me they have a lot of evidence and they are attempting to get answers regarding intent - which is a key element in the obstruction of justice charges. Trump can’t credibly claim he doesn’t recall everything, and if he’s too evasive, his lack of cooperation could be evidence of intent. The walls are going to be closing in really soon 

So yeah, perhaps some lawyers here could corroborate this lawyer's observations VVV

 

 

[jimmyjazz 45494]

Can somebody translate that into English?

[shnsajax 3589]

1 hour ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Giving these questions to the press isn’t helpful to Trump. It shows me they have a lot of evidence and they are attempting to get answers regarding intent - which is a key element in the obstruction of justice charges. Trump can’t credibly claim he doesn’t recall everything, and if he’s too evasive, his lack of cooperation could be evidence of intent. The walls are going to be closing in really soon 

The questions seem like they are open ended to get Trump talking as they know he can’t stop himself. 

I would really love to see a recording of it as his body language would be hilarious. 

[Chad Fuck 17501]

16 minutes ago, Longhorn94 said:

Do not ever compare Trump to Reagan ever again. 

They may both have served while suffering the beginning stages of Alzheimers.

Sorry, had to be done.

[jimmyjazz 45494]

Just now, shnsajax said:

I would really love to see a recording of it as his body language would be hilarious. 

[TahoeHorn 107]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2644?q={"search"%3A["Judiciary"]}&r=6

 

Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act

This bill sets forth requirements and limitations with respect to the removal from office of a special counsel appointed by the Attorney General, or of another official appointed by the Attorney General who exercises a similar degree of independence from the Department of Justice (DOJ) chain of command.

Specifically, a special counsel or other appointed official:

• may only be removed by the Attorney General or the most senior Senate-confirmed DOJ official, in certain circumstances;
• may only be removed for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or other good cause;
• must be provided written notice that specifies the reason for removal; and
• may file an action to challenge the removal not later than 10 days after notice was provided.

[kevwun 15589]

Wake me up when they actually vote on that.

[TwiceHorn 31169]

38 minutes ago, Tuco said:

They're are all people.  How much deference they will default to depends a lot on emotion and opinion.  Having the President of the United States continually and inaccurately criticize you through Twitter for the better part of the year may modify how much deference you believe that office deserves. But that's just the what they are going to lean to.  Much of it will be driven by what they think they will be effective.  I can see where kissing his ass will be effective, at times, and I can see where calling him a fat stupid pig may be effective at times.  He's not a king.  "Of the people."  He is not entitled to any deference in a legal investigation beyond what anyone else is.  (Confidentiality and immunity from prosecution, sure.  Deference, no.)  And he has spent the last year and a half pissing away any traditional respect the title would normally carry, rightly or wrongly.   

Someone in the room has to be a professional and dignified.  My money is on Mueller.

 

The immunity from prosecution stems almost solely from deference to the office of the President.  And although investigation and civil suits are permissible, they are right on the edge of separation of powers, so one might think that a professional government lawyer like Mueller would be respectful of those notions.  And, if it is recorded or transcribed, taking the high road is almost always to one's benefit.  As Professor Jack Ratliff counseled, "Never get in the mud and wrestle with a pig.  You'll both get dirty and the pig will like it."

 

Also, will Mueller do the questioning?  Heretofore, it seems to be others doing the questioning of the more "minor" witnesses.

Edited May 1, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

[F250 28646]

11 hours ago, burntorangebongos said:

I don't know, it sounds like the back-benchers are doing this. would these Freedom Caucus fuckers be anything in their party without Trump? Aside from disruptors, they can't expect leading roles. These are the guys that are committed to Trump and some are in his inner circle. I don't know why the rest of the Republicans don't pound them into submission but it may be too late.

The Freedom Caucus has been the only part of the Republican party that has actively disrupted the Trump agenda in Congress.

 

[deech 2251]

46 minutes ago, kevwun said:

Wake me up when they actually vote on that.

McConnell already said it's never going to make it to the floor.