The Robert Mueller Investigation

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

10 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

Not exactly.

Trump's gonna have a hard time running a campaign if he's defending himself at an impeachment.  

It will look too political if impeachment is in 2020.  Republicans be like, “WTF are the Dems doing, just let the voters decide.  The election is months away.”

The only way Trump gets impeached is if there is bipartisanship agreement on it in the House. 

There’s barely a non-zero chance of that.

Edited April 1, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

You see Twice, here’s the legal expert most of the conservative movement is getting their analysis from. 

This is why the Mueller report needs to be made public as soon as possible.

[bolverk 29705]

2 hours ago, Red Five said:

Person 1: (says a bunch of lies)
Person 2: “hey those were all lies.”
Person 1: “lol!! You’re so triggered!!”

Cigarettes don't cause cancer. McDonald's won't make you fat. Sunscreen is for pussies.

2+2=5.

[XingTheRubicon 134]

29 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You see Twice, here’s the legal expert most of the conservative movement is getting their analysis from. 

This is why the Mueller report needs to be made public as soon as possible.

She's on the weekends, I believe.  I've never seen her show.

 

Judge Andrew Napolitano is the main legal expert during prime time and he's anything but a pub shill.

 

 

[XingTheRubicon 134]

2 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

Anybody with a clue new fucking A well that Trump wouldn't be indicted. 

And the jury's still out on whether he's "going down".   It's quite possible that he will be impeached.  Depends on what the report says.  

You're absolutely right; I should have said indicted/impeached.

Neither is happening.  Zero point Zero, Blutarsky.  

[notre dame joe 191]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Can’t get over how doubting Barr’s integrity = conspiracy nut 

If the tables were turned and it was Lynch or Holder pulling this sentence fragment book report spin bullshit and then walking it back a few days later regarding an international criminal conspiracy Obama may or may not have obstructed, I’m sure everyone would be cool as a cucumber about it. 

It's pretty fringey to suggest Barr is trying to cover up a report that everyone knows will be eventually published/leaked written by a band of Hilary donors whom will eventually testify/profit off tell all books.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Today is Paul Manafort’s 70th birthday!

[Gatorubet 30278]

2 hours ago, XingTheRubicon said:

  Ooooorrrr, are the most gullible people that God ever invented, letting their emotions get the best of them?  Hmmmm.  Tough choice.

Trump voters are going to think what Trump and Hannity tell them.   They can't help being gullible.   They have almost no accurate news to rely on, and they are told the the truth is fake news.  Quite the problem for folks like you.   To even guess at what the truth is via critical thinking requires at least some baseline knowledge to set up the relevant questions in our head.  When you are filled with Pizzagate and Barry's birth certificate and the invasion of raping brown people at the border, you are like the one legged gymnast at the NCAA tournament.  You may think you have all that is required to achieve your goals, but the folks in the stands can only shake their heads and say "There, there...."

[Gatorubet 30278]

8 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

D) Strongly disagree.  Barr is following a script laid out by the rules.  Nadler is not following any script at all.  He's just making a lot of noise.  You happen to like that noise, but it isn't in accordance with the "rule of law" that you love so much.

Barr has a record as a GOP administration whore, and you refuse to include that in your calculus at all.   Which is why your opinion of the propriety of  what Barr put in his four page letter - having not seen the Mueller report - is worth exactly squat.  Just like all of our opinions.  

[XingTheRubicon 134]

41 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Trump voters are going to think what Trump and Hannity tell them.   They can't help being gullible.   They have almost no accurate news to rely on, and they are told the the truth is fake news.  Quite the problem for folks like you.   To even guess at what the truth is via critical thinking requires at least some baseline knowledge to set up the relevant questions in our head.  When you are filled with Pizzagate and Barry's birth certificate and the invasion of raping brown people at the border, you are like the one legged gymnast at the NCAA tournament.  You may think you have all that is required to achieve your goals, but the folks in the stands can only shake their heads and say "There, there...."

Don't even know what pizzagate is...i'm sure it was riveting.  Never questioned Barack's birthplace...funny you would mention gullible in the gullible thread.  Trump's goin' down!!!  Any day now...!!!!!  You bought it, hook, line and sinker....and you still can't let it go. It never gets less humorous.  Our president is a Russian double agent!!! Wheeeeeeeee!!!!

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31516]

48 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Barr has a record as a GOP administration whore, and you refuse to include that in your calculus at all.   Which is why your opinion of the propriety of  what Barr put in his four page letter - having not seen the Mueller report - is worth exactly squat.  Just like all of our opinions.  

I have yet to deny that he may be ratfucking.  I've said it a half dozen times.

Everything he's doing with respect to redacting the report is facially consistent with 28 CRF 600, and is not evidence itself that he is ratfucking.

Which is all I have ever said.

 

Edited April 2, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[DDD Dad 14346]

Twice horn you must be a masochist to keep trying to respond to most of these posts.

[JimmyJames 12271]

21 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I have yet to deny that he may be ratfucking.  I've said it a half dozen times.

Everything he's doing with respect to redacting the report is facially consistent with 28 CRF 600, and is not evidence itself that he is ratfucking.

Which is all I have ever said.

 

What’s your take on this article?

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/04/01/redacted-mueller-report-226343

[TwiceHorn 31516]

2 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Twice horn you must be a masochist to keep trying to respond to most of these posts.

I guess.  I'm just trying to make people understand where I'm coming from.  I don't actually intentionally follow this thread that hard, it just comes up on new posts a lot.

Also, while I don't give Barr a lot of credibility otherwise, his "summary" thing seems quite foolish if it's not somewhat accurate.  Anything he redacts, even legitimately, is subject to being overturned, so it seems very high risk.  Moreover, I would expect Mueller to speak out if the summary were inaccurate or misrepresented the report.  He doesn't work for DOJ or Barr anymore.

[retread 2951]

Once Nadler issues the subpoena for the full report, are Barr/DOJ able to resist that request? What would a court rule?

[TwiceHorn 31516]

4 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

What’s your take on this article?

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/04/01/redacted-mueller-report-226343

Seems pretty rational.  It acknowledges that Barr is bound by certain laws and policies of DOJ, at least as far as public disclosure is concerned.

But I think that binding applies to Congress too until a court orders otherwise, except as to Intelligence Committees who are specifically cleared to review the national security type stuff, but nothing else that may be redacted.

And, as a lawyer, you should know that the way you evaluate confidentiality claims and exceptions that may apply to them is that you consider the claims or redactions individually and specifically not as some abstract notion of "Congress is entitled to anything and everything" against "no it's not."  It's like when Cohen tried to claim attorney client privilege, the court made him specify exactly what was allegedly privileged and the prosecutiojn had to counter the argument, rather than trying to rule across the board that Cohen couldn't claim privilege as to anything.

 

[TwiceHorn 31516]

45 minutes ago, retread said:

Once Nadler issues the subpoena for the full report, are Barr/DOJ able to resist that request? What would a court rule?

Apparently, but we don't know for sure, Barr would resist disclosure of the unredacted report until a court order says which things are exceptions to Rule 6, the DOJ policy about unindicted people, ongoing investigation, and national security issues, AND orders that Congress maintain it as confidential and enforceable by contempt.  This might require Congressional contempt proceeding.  I actually am not sure if a congressional contempt order could address the redactions if they aren't total bullshit.  It might just say contempt/no contempt.

It's hard for Congress to have standing to bring a lawsuit, otherwise.

As far as I can tell, there has never been such disclosure without a court order, with the understanding that under the Independent Prosecutor act, nothing was revealed without a court order, as that was how the law worked.

In Watergate, the grand jury asked Sirica directly to give certain grand jury information to the Watergate committees, which he did, via court order which required its disclosure to the committee under seal.  He also overruled an objection made by someone.  Somewhat weirdly, Nixon didn't object.  And there were almost no rules governing what the Prosecutor did or had to report, but they apparently thought they couldn't violate Rule 6, so left it to the grand jury and Sirica.

One interesting thing.  In Watergate, they submitted evidence of presidential malfeasance to the grand jury, but Jaworski asked them not to indict.  Given that Mueller was stuck with the no-indictment rule, I don't think much evidence against Trump directly was submitted to a grand jury.  Further, I don't think the innocent unindicted person policy would apply to Trump because he was basically a named target of the investigation and a lot of it suffers from "cat out of the bag," not the least as a result of Barr's "summary."  It might apply to people like Carter Page or Jerome Corsi, or Mrs. Papadopolous i.e. inconsequential dumbasses.

Edited April 2, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31516]

17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Apparently, but we don't know for sure, Barr would resist disclosure of the unredacted report until a court order says which things are exceptions to Rule 6, the DOJ policy about unindicted people, ongoing investigation, and national security issues, AND orders that Congress maintain it as confidential and enforceable by contempt.  This might require Congressional contempt proceeding.  I actually am not sure if a congressional contempt order could address the redactions if they aren't total bullshit.  It might just say contempt/no contempt.

It's hard for Congress to have standing to bring a lawsuit, otherwise.

As far as I can tell, there has never been such disclosure without a court order, with the understanding that under the Independent Prosecutor act, nothing was revealed without a court order, as that was how the law worked.

In Watergate, the grand jury asked Sirica directly to give certain grand jury information to the Watergate committees, which he did, via court order which required its disclosure to the committee under seal.  He also overruled an objection made by someone.  Somewhat weirdly, Nixon didn't object.  And there were almost no rules governing what the Prosecutor did or had to report, but they apparently thought they couldn't violate Rule 6, so left it to the grand jury and Sirica.

One interesting thing.  In Watergate, they submitted evidence of presidential malfeasance to the grand jury, but Jaworski asked them not to indict.  Given that Mueller was stuck with the no-indictment rule, I don't think much evidence against Trump directly was submitted to a grand jury.  Further, I don't think the innocent unindicted person policy would apply to Trump because he was basically a named target of the investigation and a lot of it suffers from "cat out of the bag," not the least as a result of Barr's "summary."  It might apply to people like Carter Page or Jerome Corsi, or Mrs. Papadopolous i.e. inconsequential dumbasses.

Oh and the "ongoing investigation" material is going to be a problem for Congress.  That's a type of oversight they have close to zero right to get into. In almost all of the prior cases, the special counsel didn't leave those kind of loose ends; it was over over, which makes it all a lot easier.  And apparently the Mueller grand jury is still at work for other prosecutors, making things complicated as hell.

Edited April 2, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31516]

Re-reading Rule 6, I don't think grand jury material can be released without a court order.  Period.  To do so would subject yourself to contempt from the court where the grand jury sits, at minimum.  There's probably a crime in it somewhere too.

But, it doesn't require a normal lawsuit to get that order.  It seems to provide its own procedure that might not require the ordinary standing that Congress has trouble having.

[triplehorn 2664]

Judge Beryl Howell, overseeing Mueller’s grand jury has given prior indications she supports the Road Map concept from Watergate.  Seeking a court order seems likely to succeed.

 

Edited April 2, 2019 by triplehorn

[Junior Miller 1502]

So Barr scum bagged this whole thing and tried to fudge his summary to protect the Republican fuck who appointed him specifically to protect him? So trump really is as dirty as everyone with a brain already knew he was? 

 

 

No fucking way. This is AMERICA. We are free and righteous and don't lie, cheat, steal, but we ride on eagles and speak to God and all that shit. 

[cactusflinthead 27601]

9 minutes ago, Junior Miller said:

So Barr scum bagged this whole thing and tried to fudge his summary to protect the Republican fuck who appointed him specifically to protect him? So trump really is as dirty as everyone with a brain already knew he was? 

 

 

No fucking way. This is AMERICA. We are free and righteous and don't lie, cheat, steal, but we ride on eagles and speak to God and all that shit. 

Trying to not like you. It ain't working 

[cactusflinthead 27601]

4 hours ago, XingTheRubicon said:

She's on the weekends, I believe.  I've never seen her show.

 

Judge Andrew Napolitano is the main legal expert during prime time and he's anything but a pub shill.

 

 

The shelf life of your socks is under a week. 

[RPM 26332]

2 hours ago, Junior Miller said:

So Barr scum bagged this whole thing and tried to fudge his summary to protect the Republican fuck who appointed him specifically to protect him?

But it wasn't a summary. Fake news.

 

[notre dame joe 191]

27 minutes ago, RPM said:

But it wasn't a summary. Fake news.

 

IMPEACHMENT!

[Homercles 10206]

Twice horn you must be a masochist to keep trying to respond to most of these posts.

 

I value his by-the-book law input here, and actually trust his expressed neutrality...unlike a few others who showed their true colors when the Barr ‘summary’ came out.

 

Honestly this thread, in the absence of consistent and real news, is just a circlejerk wherein the Trumpers meme-brigade and non-Trumpers are just beating their dead horses. Until legit subpoenas, actual release of the report or other updates come out, should just be locked.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

14 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Goddamn, take your conspiracy hat off for one second, read the case, and you realize Barr had nothing to do with disclosing the Iran Contra report.

Fuck.

You are going to drive yourself crazy here bro. Your logic and thoughtful posts are going to get met with but muh Russia! but muh pee tape!

[Loco 3753]

2 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

You are going to drive yourself crazy here bro. Your logic and thoughtful posts are going to get met with but muh Russia! but muh pee tape!

You forgot, but muh obstruction, but muh racism, but muh incompetence, but muh corruption, but muh lies....

[TwiceHorn 31516]

8 hours ago, triplehorn said:

Judge Beryl Howell, overseeing Mueller’s grand jury has given prior indications she supports the Road Map concept from Watergate.  Seeking a court order seems likely to succeed.

 

Note that Howell released the road map to the public just a few months ago, but 45 years later.  In so doing he approved of Sirica's earlier decision, but it wasn't squarely before him.

I think the odds are pretty good for congressional disclosure of grand jury material, public not so much.  But you can't really generalize about it.  It depends on particular facts and there are some peculiar ones here, namely that the grand jury is still operating, and there are ongoing investigations.  Ongoing investigation may impact release of grand jury information as well as providing a separate basis for redacting other information.

The other stuff is going to be evaluated under a FOIA type analysis, near as I can tell, and both national security and ongoing investigation exemptions are typically not disclosed, at least to the public.

[GW Hayduke 1953]

16 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

You are going to drive yourself crazy here bro. Your logic and thoughtful posts are going to get met with but muh Russia! but muh pee tape!

Great point. Everyone knows that the Iran contra investigation was just one big Witch Hunt. No one had ever treated a president so unfairly. Barr was just a law-and-order, follow-the-process kind of fellow, who took a stand against that witch hunt.  Anyone who would question Barr’s patriotism or be concerned that not a single person spent time in prison over Iran-contra, just doesn’t understand law-and-order like I do.

This is why no one should question Barr’s ability to redact the Mueller report based on the unduly infringement on the reputational interests of peripheral third parties. Law and order. Follow the process. All good. Nothing to see. 

[TwiceHorn 31516]

One other thing.  It appears that when some people think "redacted," they are thinking of how the Cohen search warrants were redacted, with huge swaths of black obliterating entire paragraphs.

That's possible with the Mueller Report, too, but I suspect he wrote it in a way that it would be mostly names  blacked out, maybe a sentence or phrase here and there. A search warrant is a different thing in which the government is essentially trying to prove a crime to the warrant judge, so you have a lower level FBI agent throwing everything at the wall to see if anything sticks: wiretaps, surveillance, other investigation products, confidential informants,  and so on and so forth.

But again, the ground for redaction that is probably going to pose the most trouble here, even when it gets into court, is "ongoing investigations."  If there are as many as we suspect, there may be some fairly wholesale redactions made to protect those.  And it may be tough to get at those, even in court.

I think grand jury information is probably going to be somewhat minimal as pertains to Trump, as I dont think much was sent to the grand jury since he can't be indicted.

[triplehorn 2664]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

One other thing.  It appears that when some people think "redacted," they are thinking of how the Cohen search warrants were redacted, with huge swaths of black obliterating entire paragraphs.

That's possible with the Mueller Report, too, but I suspect he wrote it in a way that it would be mostly names  blacked out, maybe a sentence or phrase here and there. A search warrant is a different thing in which the government is essentially trying to prove a crime to the warrant judge, so you have a lower level FBI agent throwing everything at the wall to see if anything sticks: wiretaps, surveillance, other investigation products, confidential informants,  and so on and so forth.

But again, the ground for redaction that is probably going to pose the most trouble here, even when it gets into court, is "ongoing investigations."  If there are as many as we suspect, there may be some fairly wholesale redactions made to protect those.  And it may be tough to get at those, even in court.

I think grand jury information is probably going to be somewhat minimal as pertains to Trump, as I dont think much was sent to the grand jury since he can't be indicted.

There also appears to be a difference in what information may be available to Congress for purposes of an impeachment process versus exerting oversight, which might force the House's hand on some matters.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

15 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

 

Mueller is a Republican.

@Bash Riprock wasn’t aware of that. Now that he is, he’s going to completely ignore that fact and continue to parrot the same line. 

That is the essence of the Trump base. 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

27 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Great point.

Thanks.

[TwiceHorn 31516]

1 minute ago, triplehorn said:

There also appears to be a difference in what information may be available to Congress for purposes of an impeachment process versus exerting oversight, which might force the House's hand on some matters.

Yes.  The courts have cited the "other judicial proceeding" section of Rule 6 as a justification for releasing to a committee considering impeachment and there is some thought that the House forming such a committee might make it easier to justify that.

Also, as a general proposition, "congressional oversight" is not some magic phrase that justifies anything congress wants to do to the executive or judicial branches. It isn't expressly provided in the constitution, so its limits and contours are subject to endless debate.  Congress loves to cite their "oversight power" much the same way the executive loves to mention how there are very few express restrictions on executive power.  There's a balance in there somewhere, most often determined by the judicial branch.

[TwiceHorn 31516]

6 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

@Bash Riprock wasn’t aware of that. Now that he is, he’s going to completely ignore that fact and continue to parrot the same line. 

That is the essence of the Trump base. 

Correction, Mueller is a RINO!  /rollingmyeyes

That shit right there was the beginning of the end of the GOP for me.

[bolverk 29705]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Correction, Mueller is a RINO!  /rollingmyeyes

That shit right there was the beginning of the end of the GOP for me.

The beginning of the end for me was when Pat Robertson beat GHW Bush in the Iowa caucuses and I started to see what the Republican Party was becoming. Then came Rush Limbaugh, Jesse Helms, Phil Gramm, Newt Gingrich, and Pat Buchanan. By 1996, I was done with them forever.

[TwiceHorn 31516]

4 minutes ago, bolverk said:

The beginning of the end for me was when Pat Robertson beat GHW Bush in the Iowa caucuses and I started to see what the Republican Party was becoming. Then came Rush Limbaugh, Jesse Helms, Phil Gramm, Newt Gingrich, and Pat Buchanan. By 1996, I was done with them forever.

I continued to delude myself that there was a fiscal rather than social aspect to GOP conservatism for a while.

[bolverk 29705]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I continued to delude myself that there was a fiscal rather than social aspect to GOP conservatism for a while.

I can totally get that. It was a good ruse for a while.

[Anastasis 23481]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I continued to delude myself that there was a fiscal rather than social aspect to GOP conservatism for a while.

Bush II out front should have been the nail in that coffin. 

[triplehorn 2664]

In looking into the Russia probe during the past 2 years, Jason Leopold and Anthony Cormier have focused on following the money.  Check out Leopold's twitter thread tying together several of their articles about this.  First, much of what they discovered and wrote about by following the money ended up in the indictments of Manafort and Cohen to date.

What's a lot more significant, I believe, are two subsequent observations.  First, they underline how much white collar financial crime has been going on unchecked for years, even with ongoing awareness.  Second, this soft underbelly appears to be Mueller's targeted path to the heart, both domestic and foreign.  My guess is that this probably represents the bulk of Mueller's ongoing and farmed out investigations :

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

Edited April 2, 2019 by triplehorn

[Anastasis 23481]

Mueller investigation spins off a bunch of financial crimes  and not a campaign conspiracy and coordinated attack on democracy with a foreign power?  Who could have ever foreseen such a thing?

[bolverk 29705]

7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Mueller investigation spins off a bunch of financial crimes  and not a campaign conspiracy and coordinated attack on democracy with a foreign power?  Who could have ever foreseen such a thing?

Even castles made of sand fall into the sea, eventually.

[DDD Dad 14346]

12 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Mueller investigation spins off a bunch of financial crimes  and not a campaign conspiracy and coordinated attack on democracy with a foreign power?  Who could have ever foreseen such a thing?

Proving a campaign conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt is pretty difficult.  Establishing a financial crime (which very likely is evidence of the former) not so much.

[TwiceHorn 31516]

Quote

First, they underline how much white collar financial crime has been going on unchecked for years, even with ongoing awareness. 

Lawd, yes, preach.  This is a principal reason I have minimal respect for Preet Bharara among many other US Attorneys.

Want to get down to brass tacks, he and his predecessors could have made Trump a felon years ago, in all likelihood, and avoided this mess entirely. Instead they focused their efforts on street crime, which is a state issue to begin with.  And yes, I'm aware he made a few high-profile financial prosecutions.  Not nearly enough.

[GW Hayduke 1953]

7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Mueller investigation spins off a bunch of financial crimes  and not a campaign conspiracy and coordinated attack on democracy with a foreign power?  Who could have ever foreseen such a thing?

Why not both?  It is all about foreign influence over our political system.

We are all aware the existing indictments of the Russian troll farm and DNC hacking operation. Why ignore those? Those operations were conducted to influence the US election and therefore influence US policy.

Meetings about Russian sanctions during the campaign, shifting GOP stance in Ukraine during the campaign would be consistent with those operations.

Financial crimes leading to foreign influence over political actors (Manafort, NRA, Kushner?, etc) would also be consistent with those operations.

[Degenerate Gardner 4085]

12 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Mueller investigation spins off a bunch of financial crimes  and not a campaign conspiracy and coordinated attack on democracy with a foreign power?  Who could have ever foreseen such a thing?

Why not both? 

[Anastasis 23481]

So y'all still think that Mueller establishing in his report that the Trump campaign coordinated and conspired with the Russian government is still in play? Unless Barr completely misrepresented Mueller's findings, that ship has sailed.

  

 

[Anastasis 23481]

37 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Proving a campaign conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt is pretty difficult.  Establishing a financial crime (which very likely is evidence of the former) not so much.

Is "reasonable doubt" the standard for an  indictment by a grand jury?

Edited April 2, 2019 by Anastasis

[DDD Dad 14346]

Just now, Anastasis said:

So y'all still think that Mueller establishing in his report that the Trump campaign coordinated and conspired with the Russian government is still in play? Unless Barr completely misrepresented Mueller's findings, that ship has sailed.

  

 

I don't.