The Robert Mueller Investigation

[David Dennison 19521]

4 hours ago, Stros said:

Rod Rosenstein Jumps the Shark

http://buzzjour.com/2018/05/03/rod-rosenstein-jumps-the-shark/

The leaked questions that special counsel Robert Mueller wants to ask Trump in a prospective deposition are, if accurate, a sign that Mueller has spun out of control on Rosenstein’s watch.

Well, that's certainly one opinion.

[Pods 7637]

5 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

I agree.  Now tell me what you know.  No guessing.  You have to prepare the exhibit to be used at a trial.  You know zip.

 

Look whenever the Feds indict somebody I'm pretty sure they're guilty.  They have an awesome hit rate.  If my neighbor were indicted I'd treat him like he were guilty.  But if I'm on the jury I'm waiting for the facts.  Right now I have almost no facts.

I know they had enough on him to convince a judge to let them intercept Vekelsberg at the airport and seize/image all of his electronics. I know he's connected to all sorts of nefarious shit I don't feel like rehashing for the umpteenth time on this thread only so you can ignore it further.

You know zip. You have almost no facts. That's because you have willfully ignored and misinterpreted every step of this process and will continue to do so, but the next time a Dem is in office, you'll be howling for blood at the first hint of impropriety. You are a hypocrite who ignores the real facts so you don't have to question yourself for the amoral, anti-Christian monstrosity you support. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

As I’ve speculated before, Manafort will never flip if he’s actually a Russian agent. That’s a true death sentence.

Edited May 5, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[TahoeHorn 107]

2 minutes ago, Pods said:

I know they had enough on him to convince a judge to let them intercept Vekelsberg at the airport and seize/image all of his electronics. I know he's connected to all sorts of nefarious shit I don't feel like rehashing for the umpteenth time on this thread only so you can ignore it further.

You know zip. You have almost no facts. That's because you have willfully ignored and misinterpreted every step of this process and will continue to do so, but the next time a Dem is in office, you'll be howling for blood at the first hint of impropriety. You are a hypocrite who ignores the real facts so you don't have to question yourself for the amoral, anti-Christian monstrosity you support. 

This is not a unique circumstance in our legal system.  Almost every trial works this way.  We read in the papers of an indictment of, say, John Gotti, head of the Gambino crime family.  Now I've got a damn good idea that he's guilty but at the time of the indictment I have no real facts.  A massive amount of smoke, but no fire.   And if I'm on the jury I'll await the facts.

[triplehorn 2664]

2 hours ago, Pods said:

We now know which Russian oligarch was stopped at JFK and had his electronic devices imaged. 

 

The CNN April 4 article with an embed link in the above NYT story is worth re-visiting.  3 oligarchs reportedly have been singled out and questioned by Mueller:

Quote

The situations have one thing in common: Investigators are asking whether wealthy Russians illegally funneled cash donations directly or indirectly into Donald Trump's presidential campaign and inauguration.

 

Investigators' interest in Russian oligarchs has not been previously reported. It reveals that Mueller's team has intensified its focus into the potential flow of money from Russia into the US election as part of its wide-ranging investigation into whether the Trump team colluded with Russia's interference in the 2016 

The CNN article goes into more detail about the characteristics of the paths of campaign money flow where Mueller is honing in.  It sheds light on on who those three oligarchs may be garnering Mueller's close personal scrutiny.

Blavatnik, Deripaska, and Vekselberg are three names that together make a tidy trio.

 

Quote

One area under scrutiny, sources say, is investments Russians made in companies or think tanks that have political action committees that donated to the campaign.

 

Another theory Mueller's office is pursuing, sources said, is whether wealthy Russians used straw donors -- Americans with citizenship -- as a vessel through which they could pump money into the campaign and inauguration fund.

 

The encounters with Russian oligarchs at American airports are another sign of the aggressive tactics Mueller's investigators are using to approach witnesses or people they are interested in speaking with.

The first description fits Blavatnik perfectly, and Deripaska in the second.

Bank of Cyprus --->  Deripaska paid Manafort millions through it.  Blavatnik is co-owner of RUSAL, Deripaska's second world's largest aluminum co.  Vekselberg is a major shareholder in Bank of Cyprus.  Who else is/was linked at the highest levels within Bank of Cyprus?  Wilbur Ross, Trump's Sec of Commerce.  Ross was sent a list of questions during his confirmation hearings in February 2017 about his relationship with Vekselberg.  Evidently Ross has has never answered them.

[Pods 7637]

9 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

This is not a unique circumstance in our legal system.  Almost every trial works this way.  We read in the papers of an indictment of, say, John Gotti, head of the Gambino crime family.  Now I've got a damn good idea that he's guilty but at the time of the indictment I have no real facts.  A massive amount of smoke, but no fire.   And if I'm on the jury I'll await the facts.

As will I. I will interpret them from the standpoint of a moderate. You will interpret them solely based on how they impact the GOP. If it's absolutely overwhelming evidence, you'll take a courageous stand along with the rest. Anything less and you'll excuse it. You've already said repeatedly you're giving him a pass for money laundering and just about anything else as long as it's pre-election. I'm sure you had the same standards for the Clintons. You are a good dude at heart, but you are a hypocrite. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Whatever Tahoe. No matter how many indictments drop or damning revelations are laid out in your face, your position isn’t going to change.

You’ll just say, “We still don’t know everything! there’s so much smoke but no smoking gun! Trump hasn’t been indicted yet!”

You are a true patriot.

[seven 1368]

1 minute ago, Pods said:

As will I. I will interpret them from the standpoint of a moderate. You will interpret them solely based on how they impact the GOP. If it's absolutely overwhelming evidence, you'll take a courageous stand along with the rest. Anything less and you'll excuse it. You've already said repeatedly you're giving him a pass for money laundering and just about anything else as long as it's pre-election. I'm sure you had the same standards for the Clintons. You are a good dude at heart, but you are a hypocrite. 

Yeah, but he'd totally feel icky about it afterwards 

[TahoeHorn 107]

If you gave me the power to go back in time and imprison or remove from office based on "high crimes and misdemeanors", there is no one in the Clinton or Obama Administration that I would use my power on.  I don't have the real facts.  There are many cases where I feel a crime was committed (e.g. the IRS stuff, Clinton's emails) but I don't have the actual facts.

[ShaggyBevo RIP 3873]

4 hours ago, babysdaddy said:

what about constant reporting of facts that get corrected?

Remind of anytime in Trump's life where Trump corrected any of the wrong 'facts' he presented.

Edited May 5, 2018 by ShaggyBevo RIP

[Pods 7637]

2 minutes ago, seven said:

Yeah, but he'd totally feel icky about it afterwards 

No, he'd feel sticky about it afterwards. Sticky from bringing the donuts faithfully no matter what the GOP does or says.

[TahoeHorn 107]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Whatever Tahoe. No matter how many indictments drop or damning revelations are laid out in your face, your position isn’t going to change.

You’ll just say, “We still don’t know everything! there’s so much smoke but no smoking gun! Trump hasn’t been indicted yet!”

You are a true patriot.

What would you do right now if you were given the power to act as a judge of Trump.  What action would you take and what would you base it on?  What evidence do you think you KNOW that warrants your decision?

[Pods 7637]

2 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

If you gave me the power to go back in time and imprison or remove from office based on "high crimes and misdemeanors", there is no one in the Clinton or Obama Administration that I would use my power on.  I don't have the real facts.  There are many cases where I feel a crime was committed (e.g. the IRS stuff, Clinton's emails) but I don't have the actual facts.

I would still use it on Clinton. I do not feel he should have been put in the spot of asking about Monica, but he lied and he should have been out. 

I hope a whole bunch of people go to prison for this to serve as a warning for others and I wouldn't mind if some of Hillary's folks were their cell mates. Dig them all out if there's anything there. 

[Pods 7637]

2 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

What would you do right now if you were given the power to act as a judge of Trump.  What action would you take and what would you base it on?  What evidence do you think you KNOW that warrants your decision?

None of us is the judge Tahoe, your question doesn't matter. The question is what you are going to do and what each of us is going to do in our own lives.

What side of history are you going to find yourself on?

[hobbes2702 13442]

If I was a member of Congress I would impeach him for violations of the emoluments clause. Seems straightforward to me.

[TwiceHorn 32073]

9 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

If I was a member of Congress I would impeach him for violations of the emoluments clause. Seems straightforward to me.

And it isn't just emoluments, it's flat-out self-dealing.  It really pisses me off.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

17 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

What would you do right now if you were given the power to act as a judge of Trump.  What action would you take and what would you base it on?  What evidence do you think you KNOW that warrants your decision?

I would remove Trump from office and let the law settle up later.  I base his removal on his betrayal of his oath of office and his failure to protect the United States from enemies foreign and domestic.  

He knew Russia was behind the emails hacks, he was told via the IC and major media outlets, yet he protected Russia the entire time and openly asked for their help to undermine the democratic process.  Afterwards he tried to reward Russia for helping him via lifting sanctions immediately. He also appointed a Russian asset as the NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR of the United States after being warned not to and didn’t care about that at all.  

He bitched and moaned when Congress passed the sanctions bill which he still has yet to fully enforce, another failure of his oath.  He’s even walked back the most recent sanctions because he’s probably being blackmailed.  He actually floated the idea of handing the keys of our entire democracy to Putin with cyber task force tweet.  He leaked code name Israeli intelligence to Russian spies in the Oval Office the day after he fired the FBI director for investigating Russia.  

These are observations anyone can make if they pay attention but you go ahead and keep giving the obvious traitor the benifit of the doubt.

 

Edited May 5, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[hobbes2702 13442]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

And it isn't just emoluments, it's flat-out self-dealing.  It really pisses me off.

And it’s a violation of the constitution and and an impeachable offense. I’m sure Tahoe disagrees somehow.

[Pods 7637]

5 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

If I was a member of Congress I would impeach him for violations of the emoluments clause. Seems straightforward to me.

That should get bipartisan support. The precedent this is setting is going to be brutal when it's wielded by a pissed off left. The only lucky thing about this is that Trump is utterly incompetent. He's a hammer and looks at the whole world as his nail. You get someone that's using this same pattern, but they've got a true tool kit and this could be really ugly. If that person happens to be a Democrat, the GOP is going to kick themselves for being fools and allowing this precedent. 

[TwiceHorn 32073]

I suppose there isn't that much talk about emoluments because so many in Congress (both sides!) don't really want their personal finances examined.

[Pods 7637]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

I suppose there isn't that much talk about emoluments because so many in Congress (both sides!) don't really want their personal finances examined.

That would be my guess. Many, not all, but many of them are like the SEC. No one wants to talk too loudly about Alabama for fear of inviting inquiries into their own misdeeds. 

[hobbes2702 13442]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

I suppose there isn't that much talk about emoluments because so many in Congress (both sides!) don't really want their personal finances examined.

Of course that’s why. 

My main point is that American citizens shouldn’t act like there is nothing impeachable or worthy of removing him from office. There is and it’s not up for debate. He has violated the terms of the office via emoluments. Period

[Jim Tom Pinch 120]

8 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

what was basically a digital Pearl Harbor?

 

Jesus Christ, the stupidity here is breathtaking 

[Jim Tom Pinch 120]

3 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I would remove Trump from office and let the law settle up later.  I base his removal on his betrayal of his oath of office and his failure to protect the United States from enemies foreign and domestic.  

He knew Russia was behind the emails hacks, he was told via the IC and major media outlets, yet he protected Russia the entire time and openly asked for their help to undermine the democratic process.  Afterwards he tried to reward Russia for helping him via lifting sanctions immediately. He also appointed a Russian asset as the NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR of the United States after being warned not to and didn’t care about that at all.  

He bitched and moaned when Congress passed the sanctions bill which he still has yet to fully enforce, another failure of his oath.  He’s even walked back the most recent sanctions because he’s probably being blackmailed.  He actually floated the idea of handing the keys of our entire democracy to Putin with cyber task force tweet.  He leaked code name Israeli intelligence to Russian spies in the Oval Office the day after he fired the FBI director for investigating Russia.  

These are observations anyone can make if they pay attention but you go ahead and keep giving the obvious traitor the benifit of the doubt.

 

Ummm... Why didn’t the IC warn the guy who was, you know, President when the tampering was going on?

[wildcat09 29578]

2 minutes ago, Jim Tom Pinch said:

Ummm... Why didn’t the IC warn the guy who was, you know, President when the tampering was going on?

They did you twit.

[Jim Tom Pinch 120]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

They did you twit.

And he did fuck-all about it.

[wildcat09 29578]

2 minutes ago, Jim Tom Pinch said:

And he did fuck-all about it.

...so the guy who actively collaborated with the Russian espionage campaign against our election is preferable?

[Chewy's Hairy Horn 868]

8 hours ago, kevwun said:

Anything people don't want to hear these days is fake news or liberal media bias.  Whether it's true or not doesn't matter and is never considered.

Reminds me of a popular Russian saying from the days of the USSR: 

There's no truth in the news and there's no news in the truth. 

 

[Mdhorn 6166]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

...so the guy who actively collaborated with the Russian espionage campaign against our election is preferable?

Only if it's a Republican. Otherwise, it's about flag pins, kneeling for the American Anthem, god, guns and glory and a bunch of other hypocritical bullshit.  

[Ted Lange 16407]

9 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

I believe most of the facts I see or read reported.  I don't think the NYT lies and rarely gets their facts wrong.  But facts are presented selectively.  They present the facts they like.  I have to find the facts they don't like somewhere else.

And I lot of what I see or read is opinion.  I can tell the difference between facts and opinion.

We have relatively few conclusive facts in the Trump Russia thing.  We know that Russia messed with us.  We know a bunch of people have been indicted by people with the reputation of being highly professional.  We know Trump has repeatedly lied and engaged in extremely suspicious and inappropriate behavior.  And we have some selected minor details like the Trump Tower meeting.

But, big picture, we don't know shit.  An awful lot of smoke emanating from a spot across town, and maybe something that looks like a flame every now and then but we haven't seen enough to say the building on 123 Main is on fire.  The Trump building is over there underneath the smoke.  The smoke probably comes from a fire.  But we can't say the Trump building is on fire.  I'm going to wait on film at eleven.  We'll know.

In the meantime I'll speculate, but no decisions till I see film at eleven.  If I don't get my film, though, I'll be pissed.

I realize Tahoe bashing is fun, but this seems like a pretty reasonable take on where we are at. I can’t find much to disagree with this.

 

[NameAlreadyInUse 5169]

7 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

This is not a unique circumstance in our legal system.  Almost every trial works this way.  We read in the papers of an indictment of, say, John Gotti, head of the Gambino crime family.  Now I've got a damn good idea that he's guilty but at the time of the indictment I have no real facts.  A massive amount of smoke, but no fire.   And if I'm on the jury I'll await the facts.

But we do have a unique circumstance in that we have a president who has decided that the emoluments clause of the Constitution doesn’t apply to him. This isn’t a supposition. It’s not speculation. It’s a fact. I’m not hearing any Republicans even giving the side eye over that.  I’m seeing a lot of Republicans saying they are waiting for “proof” as if it hasn’t already been presented as it relates to at least one impeachable offense. 

In short, I don’t believe you. 

Edited May 5, 2018 by NameAlreadyInUse

[hobbes2702 13442]

Tahoe is full of shit and at this point is basically just a troll. 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11860]

5 hours ago, Jim Tom Pinch said:

And he did fuck-all about it.

How about those sanctions and stuff oh, around the end of 2016, that got rolled back after he left office?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

President Trump December 8, 1941

“We don’t know who attacked Pearl Harbor, it could have been China, it could have been India. Wouldn’t it be great if we could get along with Imperial Japan? Wouldn’t that be nice?”

 

[Anastasis 23717]

This thread sorely need mueller to release a few indictments that are relevant to active collusion and coordination with Russia. It’s starting to get fairly scattered in the interim. I think maybe Stone is the best shot in the near term. 

Edited May 5, 2018 by Anastasis

[Sawbonz 28209]

5 hours ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

But we do have a unique circumstance in that we have a president who has decided that the emoluments clause of the Constitution doesn’t apply to him. This isn’t a supposition. It’s not speculation. It’s a fact. I’m not hearing any Republicans even giving the side eye over that.  I’m seeing a lot of Republicans saying they are waiting for “proof” as if it hasn’t already been presented as it relates to at least one impeachable offense. 

In short, I don’t believe you. 

The emoluments lawsuits will be interesting. NPR had an expert talking about this shortly after the election when it was apparent trump was not going to give up control of his investments, which is a modern tradition for presidents but not required by law. I wish I could remember who it was, but he said it would be fairly hard to win a court case based on violating the emoluments clause. He pointed to the fact that a separate, more specific law aimed at preventing illegal inducements was enacted that specifically omits the president as an indication they have more leeway than any other govt official. Here’s a pretty good summary of how the two arguments may play out. 

https://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/USA/Politics/2018/0323/In-Trump-emoluments-case-questions-of-ethics-and-constitutional-intent

[zork 629]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

This thread sorely need mueller to release a few indictments that are relevant to active collusion and coordination with Russia. It’s starting to get fairly scattered in the interim. I think maybe Stone is the best shot in the near term. 

Maybe in the next two weeks, as laid out by the judge in the Manafort case, some will be put out by necessity in that case?(or risk having the charges thrown out)

[Judge Roybeanbag 11860]

The problems the country is facing are more complicated than that.  I get tired of Briskets gloom and doom but the fact is, we could put ALL of them under indictment and because of the lies and bullshit he (trump)has spewed, and because of Fox News, a shit ton of people would just scream WITCH HUNT FAKENEWS and not believe he did anything wrong.  It’s disgusting.  It’s also a bit frightening. 

[TwiceHorn 32073]

25 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

The emoluments lawsuits will be interesting. NPR had an expert talking about this shortly after the election when it was apparent trump was not going to give up control of his investments, which is a modern tradition for presidents but not required by law. I wish I could remember who it was, but he said it would be fairly hard to win a court case based on violating the emoluments clause. He pointed to the fact that a separate, more specific law aimed at preventing illegal inducements was enacted that specifically omits the president as an indication they have more leeway than any other govt official. Here’s a pretty good summary of how the two arguments may play out. 

https://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/USA/Politics/2018/0323/In-Trump-emoluments-case-questions-of-ethics-and-constitutional-intent

I heard that, I believe, and it was Shrub's ethics counsel and Obama's ethics counsel IIRC. It was interesting.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11860]

14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I heard that, I believe, and it was Shrub's ethics counsel and Obama's ethics counsel IIRC. It was interesting.

So are you and bonz just rustling each other’s jimmies, or are you going to admit this pathological liar and traitor needs to be removed from office ASAP?

[Judge Roybeanbag 11860]

DO SOMETHING!

[burntorangebongos 10826]

wait, nevermind. It is the bitching from his lawyer about the search and seizures.

Edited May 5, 2018 by burntorangebongos

[jimmyjazz 47131]

9 hours ago, Jim Tom Pinch said:

And he did fuck-all about it.

Well, that's not true, but don't let the truth get in the way of a good rant, pops.

[jimmyjazz 47131]

I have to admit I don't understand the point of the emoluments clause if the President is immune from prosecution for violations thereof.  And that's what Trump is claiming.

[Brisketexan 106876]

The problems the country is facing are more complicated than that.  I get tired of Briskets gloom and doom but the fact is, we could put ALL of them under indictment and because of the lies and bullshit he (trump)has spewed, and because of Fox News, a shit ton of people would just scream WITCH HUNT FAKENEWS and not believe he did anything wrong.  It’s disgusting.  It’s also a bit frightening. 

It’s ok, hombre. I have a scotch glass for you, too.

[David Dennison 19521]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I have to admit I don't understand the point of the emoluments clause if the President is immune from prosecution for violations thereof.  And that's what Trump is claiming.

They included impeachment and removal for just that reason.

[Loco 3754]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It’s ok, hombre. I have a scotch glass for you, too.

Can I get a bigly glass of scotch too?   At this point, I am really just expecting to walk into costo and hear "...I love you"

[David Dennison 19521]

Just now, Loco said:

Can I get a bigly glass of scotch too?   At this point, I am really just expecting to walk into costo and hear "...I love you"

Murica.

It's incredible, isn't it?

[jimmyjazz 47131]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

They included impeachment and removal for just that reason.

Sure, that's the political solution (that is obviously fraught with loopholes).  It just seems like running afoul of the Constitution should come with criminal penalties.

[David Dennison 19521]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Sure, that's the political solution (that is obviously fraught with loopholes).  It just seems like running afoul of the Constitution should come with criminal penalties.

It might not for the president. Donald Trump is doing his best to help us find out.