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

Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23356

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Oh Trump is getting a subpoena.  I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s already been informed he’s getting it soon.

It would be investigation malpractice not to try to get Trump’s side of the story.

My prediction, Trump fights the subpoena tooth and nail in the courts. Court compelles Trump to testify.  Trump takes the fifth across the board.

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

yaqdum 182

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Oh Trump is getting a subpoena.  I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s already been informed he’s getting it soon.

It would be investigation malpractice not to get Trump’s side of the story.

My prediction, Trump fights the subpoena tooth and nail in the courts. Court compelles Trump to testify.  Trump takes the fifth across the board.

i bet that's his intent all right, but all they have to do is touch a hot button and he's off like a roman candle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23356

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

i bet that's his intent all right, but all they have to do is touch a hot button and he's off like a roman candle.

Can Trump mail it in that he’s taking the 5th across the board?

Or does he physically have to be before the GJ?

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

yaqdum 182

Posted
Posted
Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Can Trump mail it in that he’s taking the 5th across the board.

i think that might be their only hope.  no way that man can sit across from someone with greater than room temp and keep to the plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31169

Posted
Posted (edited)

If he agrees to an "interview," would that agreement include something that Mueller can't subpoena him?  And would that be enforceable?

 

And to that end, Mueller's only remedy, if Trump refuses to answer a question in an interview, would be the grand jury subpoena.

 

Somewhat surprisingly, it only took three months for the Supreme Court to take up and rule on the subpoena in US v. Nixon.  I would have expected a year or more at least.  But the appeal in Nixon was directly from the district court to the Supreme Court, again raising the issue that this isn't the subject of an active criminal case.  That is, some type of contempt proceeding would have to be initiated, then appeal taken, but still could get resolution in six months.

 

Also, the final paragraph of Vladeck's article:

 

Quote

The President, of course, could refuse to comply with a subpoena even after it has been upheld by the Supreme Court. As the story goes, President Nixon seriously contemplated such a course after the Supreme Court ruled against him in July 1974. In such a circumstance, the ultimate question would not be up to the courts, but rather to Congress. Nixon eventually concluded that defying the Supreme Court would only hasten his impeachment. Whatever else may be said about the law and politics of such a confrontation, we hope we never have to find out whether the current President would see things the same way.

That would be something else and would call for immediate impeachment and conviction, imo.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31169

Posted
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Can Trump mail it in that he’s taking the 5th across the board?

Or does he physically have to be before the GJ?

An ordinary person cannot.  The 5th generally must be invoked on a question by question basis, and there is such thing as an improper assertion of the 5th.  What is weird is that there is a judge connected to or presiding over a grand jury.  But the judge is typically not present during the hearing/taking of testimony, so I could envision the whole thing being an epic clusterfuck taking days of testimony, go see the judge, more testimony, go see a judge.  Then again, a grand jury witness is not entitled to counsel during testimony.  Sometimes it is permitted by agreement, most of the time not.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

If he agrees to an "interview," would that agreement include something that Mueller can't subpoena him?  And would that be enforceable?

 

And to that end, Mueller's only remedy, if Trump refuses to answer a question in an interview, would be the grand jury subpoena.

 

Somewhat surprisingly, it only took three months for the Supreme Court to take up and rule on the subpoena in US v. Nixon.  I would have expected a year or more at least.  But the appeal in Nixon was directly from the district court to the Supreme Court, again raising the issue that this isn't the subject of an active criminal case.  That is, some type of contempt proceeding would have to be initiated, then appeal taken, but still could get resolution in six months.

 

Also, the final paragraph of Vladeck's article:

 

That would be something else and would call for immediate impeachment and conviction, imo.

Re: final paragraph.  That’s the Harriet Miers solution.  Claim you don’t want to cheapen the presidency by answering the subpoena so you’ll resign instead.  A not altogether unlikely final option for the Don.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31169

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Re: final paragraph.  That’s the Harriet Miers solution.  Claim you don’t want to cheapen the presidency by answering the subpoena so you’ll resign instead.  A not altogether unlikely final option for the Don.  

That would be a fantastic resolution to all this.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29183

Posted
Posted
58 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That would be something else and would call for immediate impeachment and conviction, imo.

Paul Ryan in that scenario: "Look, let's change the subject, I'm focused right now on tax reform."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Paul Ryan in that scenario: "Look, let's change the subject, I'm focused right now on tax reform."

Paul Ryan says "I do my job, not the job of the Department of Justice".  The Berkeley City Council says "I pass resolutions on the War in Iraq and child labor in MYanmar but I don't worry about the homeless problem in Berkeley."

 

I'm more of the Ryan philosophy.  But you knew that.  I don't think dogcatchers need to have a position on abortion, gun control and gay marriage.  I think they need positions on catching dogs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29183

Posted
Posted
Just now, TahoeHorn said:

Paul Ryan says "I do my job, not the job of the Department of Justice".  The Berkeley City Council says "I pass resolutions on the War in Iraq and child labor in MYanmar but I don't worry about the homeless problem in Berkeley."

 

I'm more of the Ryan philosophy.  But you knew that.  I don't think dogcatchers need to have a position on abortion, gun control and gay marriage.  I think they need positions on catching dogs.

The Speaker of the House should goddamn well have a position on the executive branch refusing to comply with a court order.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18561

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Paul Ryan says "I do my job, not the job of the Department of Justice".  The Berkeley City Council says "I pass resolutions on the War in Iraq and child labor in MYanmar but I don't worry about the homeless problem in Berkeley."

 

I'm more of the Ryan philosophy.  But you knew that.  I don't think dogcatchers need to have a position on abortion, gun control and gay marriage.  I think they need positions on catching dogs.

The tiny difference being Paul Ryan is the Speaker of the House of Representatives, third in line to the presidency.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kevwun

kevwun 15589

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Paul Ryan says "I do my job, not the job of the Department of Justice".  The Berkeley City Council says "I pass resolutions on the War in Iraq and child labor in MYanmar but I don't worry about the homeless problem in Berkeley."

 

I'm more of the Ryan philosophy.  But you knew that.  I don't think dogcatchers need to have a position on abortion, gun control and gay marriage.  I think they need positions on catching dogs.

If he did his job, he wouldn't have let Nunes openly and ultimately successfully sabotage the HIC investigation over the last year.

Edited by kevwun
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The Speaker of the House should goddamn well have a position on the executive branch refusing to comply with a court order.

No kidding.  The lengths Good Germans will go to keep willfully blind gives real insight into the dark side of human nature. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18561

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

Yup. You'll stick your head in the sand instead of taking a stand just like Mr. Ryan. Probably why he is not running  for re-election though. Cowards tend to turn people  off.

When he hands the gavel back to Nancy Pelosi, my dream is that she puts her mouth close to his ear and whispers, "Pussy."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The Speaker of the House should goddamn well have a position on the executive branch refusing to comply with a court order.

I'm sure he believes that court orders should be obeyed.  I'm sure he believes he shouldn't express a public opinion on an issue which isn't in his court.  It would come to him in the case of impeachment.  I can't think of how else it would.  Basic checks and balances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29183

Posted
Posted

It's Tahoe so we shouldn't be remotely surprised, but his utter indifference to any moral or ethical standards of behavior is still somehow a little shocking. He doesn't give a single dusty fuck that Paul Ryan has duties and obligations to the American people that he's ignoring every single day so long as he's good on taxes and deregulation. Trump could be using the Army to round up Muslims and send them off to extermination camps and Tahoe would be perfectly fine with it. And he's got the gall to compare Paul Ryan's abandonment of duty to a dogcatcher not having a position on abortion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29183

Posted
Posted
Just now, TahoeHorn said:

I'm sure he believes that court orders should be obeyed.  I'm sure he believes he shouldn't express a public opinion on an issue which isn't in his court.  It would come to him in the case of impeachment.  I can't think of how else it would.  Basic checks and balances.

You just said that Paul Ryan ignoring Trump's refusal to comply with a court order would be akin to a dogcatcher not having a position on abortion you disingenuous hack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104425

Posted
Posted
Just now, Mojo Hand said:

No kidding.  The lengths Good Germans will go to keep willfully blind gives real insight into the dark side of human nature. 

This.

It only takes a handful of bad actors, so long as you have tens of millions of sycophants and enablers.  

We read the history books about various horrors, and ask over and over "how could that happen?"  Now, we don't have to read the books.  All we have to do is look around us.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mdhorn

Mdhorn 5908

Posted
Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Paul Ryan in that scenario: "Look, let's change the subject, I'm focused right now on tax reform."

Remember when Fox had a segment regarding the deficit clock during the Obama years?  I guess they retired it under the DOTARDs term.

Edited by Mdhorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, kevwun said:

If he did his job, he wouldn't have let Nunes openly and ultimately successfully sabotage the HIC investigation over the last year.

This may or may not be correct.  I'm sure he didn't approve.  I'm also sure that he needs to be very careful about acting on issues that he can't properly control.

The Speaker is not a king or a first line supervisor who can have his way about everything in his domain.  He doesn't have the authority to tell Nunes what to do and his caucus wouldn't appreciate it if he tried.  His options (e.g. getting a new chair) require consensus and have consequences (e.g. other chairs say "that could be me; I like chair power not Speaker power.")  If he picks the fight he has to win decisively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kevwun

kevwun 15589

Posted
Posted (edited)

Recuses self from investigation, but somehow remains involved.  Gives Trump inside info from said investigation.  Releases info that is inaccurate in order to help Trump.  Prematurely ends investigation that he was recused from. That's not a maybe Tahoe, especially when the work done by Richard Burr sets such a good example of how a Republican Committee Chair should have handled it.  Every crooked thing that Nunes did, Paul Ryan is ultimately responsible for because he let him do it.

Edited by kevwun
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18561

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

This may or may not be correct.  I'm sure he didn't approve.  I'm also sure that he needs to be very careful about acting on issues that he can't properly control.

The Speaker is not a king or a first line supervisor who can have his way about everything in his domain.  He doesn't have the authority to tell Nunes what to do and his caucus wouldn't appreciate it if he tried.  His options (e.g. getting a new chair) require consensus and have consequences (e.g. other chairs say "that could be me; I like chair power not Speaker power.")  If he picks the fight he has to win decisively.

 That's exactly what his job as Speaker is. He's just weak. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
deech

deech 2251

Posted
Posted (edited)

We are surprised that Ryan won't take a position on the executive ignoring a subpoena from the judiciary?

Ryan in a private meeting with other fellow leaders of his party laughed at a joke by his #2 that Rohrbacher and Trump were both being paid directly by Putin.  Then said "This is an off the record -- No Leaks -- alright?  That is how we knew we're family here.  What's said in the family stays in the family." 

That "leader" who participates in that conversation and doesn't - A.  Generally share that information with the voting public.  B.  Is more worried about publicity of that comment than the actual content of the comment.  C.  Let's Nunes muck up everything every chance he gets with no oversight or instructions otherwise...

 

Edited by deech
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It's Tahoe so ...

You have a naive, simple-minded idea about how power works.  There is a time and place to fight battles.  People with significant authority can't and won't fight every battle.  They also don't fight the bog battles prematurely.

Regarding the German analogy the US waited 1.8 to 4.75 years (depending on how you want to count) before we invaded Europe and took on Hitler.  We didn't go till we were ready.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SquishMitten

SquishMitten 10393

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Re: final paragraph.  That’s the Harriet Miers solution.  Claim you don’t want to cheapen the presidency by answering the subpoena so you’ll resign instead.  A not altogether unlikely final option for the Don.  

Wait, you think he is opposed to cheapening the office of the presidency?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18561

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TahoeHorn said:

You have a naive, simple-minded idea about how power works.  There is a time and place to fight battles.  People with significant authority can't and won't fight every battle.  They also don't fight the bog battles prematurely.

Regarding the German analogy the US waited 1.8 to 4.75 years (depending on how you want to count) before we invaded Europe and took on Hitler.  We didn't go till we were ready.

And then you have people like Paul Ryan who are afraid of power and just give up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

You have a naive, simple-minded idea about how power works.  There is a time and place to fight battles.  People with significant authority can't and won't fight every battle.  They also don't fight the bog battles prematurely.

Regarding the German analogy the US waited 1.8 to 4.75 years (depending on how you want to count) before we invaded Europe and took on Hitler.  We didn't go till we were ready.

The German analogy wasn't about Americans.  It was about German citizens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 27364

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Oh Trump is getting a subpoena.  I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s already been informed he’s getting it soon.

It would be investigation malpractice not to try to get Trump’s side of the story.

My prediction, Trump fights the subpoena tooth and nail in the courts. Court compelles Trump to testify.  Trump takes the fifth across the board.

Trump has the right to remain silent 

 

but not the ability

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
Posted

ZERO Democratic leaders of note have called for Trump's impeachment.  You can bet the House that isn't because they don't think impeachment is appropriate.  It's because they understand power.  They understand when to pick a fight and when to wait for a better opportunity.  Every stinking one of them.  They get it.  Some of you guys don't.  The dynamic is no different with top GOP people.

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...