The Robert Mueller Investigation

[jimmyjazz 45546]

25 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I would expect that when our government deploys the surveillance apparatus in a political context, that yes, it is done by the book.  I have a problem with politically motivated, unvetted information from foreign spooks packaging up Russian disinformation through a screen of political operatives being used uncritically by the FBI at the intersection of politics and civil liberties.  The "book" exists in this case for a reason, and that is to protect your right as an American citizen under the Constitution. 

Crazy shit I know. 

 

LMAO.  You don't care about my rights, or the rights of anyone who doesn't look, act, and think like you.

[sheeeit 129]

28 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

No, most pleas occur some time after the case is fully charged, indicted.  Usually months, sometimes years, see, e.g., Lori Laughlin.  In that interim, the government is subject to its Brady obligations and the obligation is not discharged or mooted by the guilty plea.  But it is ended by the guilty plea:  you have no right to further discovery once you plead.

But when you plead before you are even charged, you pretty effectively waive any right to receive any discovery at all.

Thanks.  Sounds like he had inept lawyers.  Is there a distinction between what he had a right to receive and what the DOJ told him?  Not sure how to phrase the question, but in reading about the case, it says that on at least 3 occasions the prosecutor, Van Grack, signed sworn affidavits to the judge that he had turned over everything he was required to turn over.  Obviously that was a lie as we now know.  It just seems strange that the government can get into court, in front of a judge on multiple occasions, and swear they had turned everything over, and then make a deal that says you can't have any more info after the deal.  

Seems it would be nearly impossible to counsel your client that way.  If counsel tells their client, we have seen all of the evidence and based, on that, you need to plead because they will gut us if we go to court, so you plead.  But then later find out the prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence, you have no recourse?  I know the law is funny sometimes but that just doesn't make sense.  

Is the distinction "pleading before being charged"?  Obviously there was a ton of back and forth between the parties as they hammered out a deal.  So is it just a technicality that he shouldn't get discovery after a plea?

[David Dennison 18652]

18 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

And why full transparency and adherence to the procedures in filings presented to these judges is important. 

No one is disputing that.

[sheeeit 129]

45 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

No, most pleas occur some time after the case is fully charged, indicted.  Usually months, sometimes years, see, e.g., Lori Laughlin.  In that interim, the government is subject to its Brady obligations and the obligation is not discharged or mooted by the guilty plea.  But it is ended by the guilty plea:  you have no right to further discovery once you plead.

But when you plead before you are even charged, you pretty effectively waive any right to receive any discovery at all.

As an aside, I am curious about your take on the withholding of the transcript of the call between Flynn and Kislyak from Flynn and his lawyers.  Did you know that was legal?  That kind of shocks me.  If I read it correctly, you can be questioned by the FBI about a phone call and then later the FBI can come back to you and accuse you of lying about the phone call and when you say that you did not lie and ask them to show you the transcript of the call where you are accused of lying they can basically say no.  Then they can start grinding on you and costing you tons of money and you do not even know how to respond because there is no record for you to see and, of course, you likely have no memory of the actual call specifics.  How would you personally counsel someone in that situation?  

[David Dennison 18652]

1 minute ago, sheeeit said:

As an aside, I am curious about your take on the withholding of the transcript of the call between Flynn and Kislyak from Flynn and his lawyers.  Did you know that was legal?  That kind of shocks me.  If I read it correctly, you can be questioned by the FBI about a phone call and then later the FBI can come back to you and accuse you of lying about the phone call and when you say that you did not lie and ask them to show you the transcript of the call where you are accused of lying they can basically say no.  Then they can start grinding on you and costing you tons of money and you do not even know how to respond because there is no record for you to see and, of course, you likely have no memory of the actual call specifics.  How would you personally counsel someone in that situation?  

You don't have to tell the FBI anything.

[notre dame joe 172]

34 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You don't have to tell the FBI anything.

You don't see how the National Security Adviser will have to work with the FBI?

[notre dame joe 172]

1 hour ago, sheeeit said:

Thanks.  Sounds like he had inept lawyers.  Is there a distinction between what he had a right to receive and what the DOJ told him?  Not sure how to phrase the question, but in reading about the case, it says that on at least 3 occasions the prosecutor, Van Grack, signed sworn affidavits to the judge that he had turned over everything he was required to turn over.  Obviously that was a lie as we now know.  It just seems strange that the government can get into court, in front of a judge on multiple occasions, and swear they had turned everything over, and then make a deal that says you can't have any more info after the deal.  

Seems it would be nearly impossible to counsel your client that way.  If counsel tells their client, we have seen all of the evidence and based, on that, you need to plead because they will gut us if we go to court, so you plead.  But then later find out the prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence, you have no recourse?  I know the law is funny sometimes but that just doesn't make sense.  

Is the distinction "pleading before being charged"?  Obviously there was a ton of back and forth between the parties as they hammered out a deal.  So is it just a technicality that he shouldn't get discovery after a plea?

Like many things it was probably legal because you cannot prove the intensions of the parties.  Flynn's first lawyers were bending over to get on the right side of the special counsel and were willing to make a deal on the condition that evidence would not have to be revealed. 

[Anastasis 23393]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

LMAO.  You don't care about my rights, or the rights of anyone who doesn't look, act, and think like you.

Even lazier than the board has become accustomed to from you. 

[Captainant 27442]

27 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

You don't see how the National Security Adviser will have to work with the FBI?

no, like in the instance where Flynn lied, he literally didn't have to tell the FBI anything. It was a voluntary interview in his own office.

[jimmyjazz 45546]

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Even lazier than the board has become accustomed to from you. 

<zing>

[sheeeit 129]

45 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

Like many things it was probably legal because you cannot prove the intensions of the parties.  Flynn's first lawyers were bending over to get on the right side of the special counsel and were willing to make a deal on the condition that evidence would not have to be revealed. 

Not sure I follow.  Are you suggesting Flynn's original lawyers were just trying to appease the special counsel so they could cut a good deal for Flynn?  That when they cut the deal, they knew there was more evidence out there but agreed to bury it in order to cut a deal?  That sounds like malpractice.

[notre dame joe 172]

6 hours ago, sheeeit said:

Not sure I follow.  Are you suggesting Flynn's original lawyers were just trying to appease the special counsel so they could cut a good deal for Flynn?  That when they cut the deal, they knew there was more evidence out there but agreed to bury it in order to cut a deal?  That sounds like malpractice.

 

That's certainly the story that his current lawyer tells.  I don't think it can be legal malpractice if the bottom line is a plea deal for no jail time.  

 

7 hours ago, Captainant said:

he literally didn't have to tell the FBI anything. It was a voluntary interview in his own office.

with people he would be working with on important matters of national security.  And that should show you just how horrible a person we have in James Comey.  He was willing to back stab a fellow officer, ensuring mass distrust within the executive branch, just so he could pursue his vendetta.

[Poolflood 845]

19 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

That's certainly the story that his current lawyer tells.  I don't think it can be legal malpractice if the bottom line is a plea deal for no jail time.  

 

with people he would be working with on important matters of national security.  And that should show you just how horrible a person we have in James Comey.  He was willing to back stab a fellow officer, ensuring mass distrust within the executive branch, just so he could pursue his vendetta.

There are quite a few partners at Flynn's ex lawfirm.

https://www.cov.com/en/professionals/h/eric-holder

This is one of them.

 

Edited May 22, 2020 by Poolflood

[zork 629]

for those who are interested in the inside baseball of Mueller's testimony, here is a release of some documents:

Pages of note in my skimming of the pages this morning:

25-30 official subpoena of Mueller to attend

bottom of page 50-51, this discusses, If I read it right, the limitations Mueller was expected to follow

57-58 concerning leak to press about what they are discussing re: Mueller testimony

88-90  Schiff last minute plea to Mueller concerning his scope of responses, etc

 

government pdf of the FOIA release:

https://www.justice.gov/oip/foia-library/general_topics/robert_mueller_testimony_05_19_20/download

[David Dennison 18652]

On 5/21/2020 at 4:10 PM, notre dame joe said:

You don't see how the National Security Adviser will have to work with the FBI?

You don't see how that's completely irrelevant?

[Poolflood 845]

2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

You don't see how that's completely irrelevant?

So do you see that a "lie" to the FBI must be materially relevant to a properly predicted investigation?  If in the course of an interview with the FBI I state that last night I made a batch of kolache when in actuality I made a batch of klobasnek, can they throw me in jail?

 

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26277]

That is an extremely Texas-specific analogy. 

[Brisketexan 104561]

That is an extremely Texas-specific analogy. 

Well, he’s a Texas man. He’s not from the north.

[Anastasis 23393]

You think that it's lost on Mizzou?

[Poolflood 845]

8 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

That is an extremely Texas-specific analogy. 

Made Granny's klobasnek recipe last night.  Modified slightly.  Spectacular!  Kolache factory is a travesty

[Bozo_Casanova 26277]

29 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, he’s a Texas man. He’s not from the north.

It ain't gonna work. 

[notre dame joe 172]

14 hours ago, David Dennison said:

You don't see how that's completely irrelevant?

no

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Human disappointment in American jurisprudence, Rod Rosenstein, is currently testifying live on CSPAN.

[Underdog 28446]

Nice set of gams sitting behind Durbin. 

[Message Board User 12389]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Are we still looking for a smoking gun in the middle of a massacre?   Because there’s too many smoking guns to keep up with.

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

Irrelevant. Have you even heard about Carter Page and FBI malfeasance? 

[TwiceHorn 31265]

1 hour ago, Message Board User said:

 

To be fair, I'm not sure any Justice Department is going to go around "unredacting" all the various previously redacted items (FOIA responses mostly) every time a criminal investigation concludes.

The onus is generally going to be on interested or requesting parties  to seek that information.

[TwiceHorn 31265]

Didn't see it mentioned, but some "Russian businessman" is suing Mueller et al. for a footnote in the Report that mentions him in connection with the pee tapes. https://lawandcrime.com/lawsuit/robert-mueller-sued-for-defamation-over-footnote-hinting-at-infamous-golden-shower-footage/

[Eskimohorn 5613]

Didn't see it mentioned, but some "Russian businessman" is suing Mueller et al. for a footnote in the Report that mentions him in connection with the pee tapes. https://lawandcrime.com/lawsuit/robert-mueller-sued-for-defamation-over-footnote-hinting-at-infamous-golden-shower-footage/

What do you think an actual trial of this would look like, with discovery and testimony?

[Dnaguy 11770]

24 minutes ago, Eskimohorn said:

What do you think an actual trial of this would look like, with discovery and testimony?

 

Well, I'm sure there would be leaks and a slow drip, drip, drip of information for us to parse.

Urine for a long start-stop affair , and you'll most likely see multiple witnesses have stage fright (much like Bolten) when they don't have the cover of a closed door session to testify in.

I imagine that Trump's lawyers will stall and, all the while, we'll be showered with the same 'deep state' and 'fake news' dribble.

In the end, only removing Trump from office will give you the relief you crave. This should be the #1 priority.

After the 2020 election is over and the warm sensation of victory subsides, we'll most likely shutter, shake our fist, and close the lid on this chapter in history.

Only then can we flush away Trumpsim and what it stands for.

[TwiceHorn 31265]

59 minutes ago, Eskimohorn said:

What do you think an actual trial of this would look like, with discovery and testimony?

I don't think it will make trial.  Pretty sure Mueller has prosecutorial immunity.  It will be dismissed with quickness.

But, if it did, I would guess that the Russian businessman would be a "limited purpose public figure" for purposes of this footnote, and the footnote would then have to be proven to be false and made with malice or reckless disregard for its truth, neither of which do I think the Russian businessman can prove.  About the worst part of it is that he was called a "Russian businessman," when he is in fact a US citizen of Georgian descent.

Not sure there would be a whole ton of discovery.  The footnote says what it says.  The conversations say what they say.  The comparison would be between the conversation transcripts and the footnote.  There's not much need to go deep into the pee tapes, etc.  After the comparison, it would be determined whether the differences rise to the level of falsity and then whether they were made with malice.

This kind of illustrates why responsible prosecutors don't want investigatory material and grand jury stuff to be made public.  It can be devastating to innocent parties.  Hence redaction of these types of materials.

Edited June 22, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Given everything we’ve seen, it’s hard to believe Barr did not shut the Mueller investigation down via Rosenstein.  

[conVINCEd 21468]

12 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Given everything we’ve seen, it’s hard to believe Barr did not shut the Mueller investigation down via Rosenstein.  

That was like a pre-season game for Barr’s corruption.  Had to shake off the rust, learn the playbook, and get on the same page with his new teammates.

[TwiceHorn 31265]

6 minutes ago, conVINCEd said:

That was like a pre-season game for Barr’s corruption.  Had to shake off the rust, learn the playbook, and get on the same page with his new teammates.

Yep, he wanted to slide it in slow, not go diving straight for the clitoris.

Also, while the whole Russian collusion thing provides lots of opportunities for him to expand executive power through defying oversight. I'm not sure he was really that interested in the merits of it.

Trump's "I am president I can do what I want" in many respects provides the perfect platform for Barr's agenda, but I do think Barr gets a bit tired of how ham-handed (small hams) and childish Trump is about it.

Edited June 25, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Anastasis 23393]

On 6/19/2020 at 9:52 PM, SmokeyTheBear said:

Irrelevant. Have you even heard about Carter Page and FBI malfeasance? 

Imagine how many heads would explode if Roger Stone, working on behalf of the RNC, hired a foreign intelligence agent to procure, collect, and package up Russian disinformation for dissemination to the media, State, and the FBI in effort to stoke a fantastical conspiracy narrative. That would be something wouldn't it.  

 

 

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Imagine how many heads would explode if Roger Stone, working on behalf of the RNC, hired a foreign intelligence agent to procure, collect, and package up Russian disinformation for dissemination to the media, State, and the FBI in effort to stoke a fantastical conspiracy narrative. That would be something wouldn't it.  

 

 

And if the government decided to run with that info without investigating the validity of said info, then yes, that would be problematic. You are making some assumptions that the dossier wasn't fully vetted by the proper authorities to find whether they warrant using against anyone, and then viewed against other vetted evidence to make a case. Are you saying the FBI blindly viewed the dossier as truth and ran with it? Or are you conflating the social media conspiracies with government actions in an effort to bring about some point? 

Regardless, what Roger Stone did is not that far off from your hypothetical so, again, grasping to find your point. 

[Anastasis 23393]

1 minute ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

And if the government decided to run with that info without investigating the validity of said info, then yes, that would be problematic.

Sorry that you forgot to pay attention. 

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

Just now, Anastasis said:

Sorry that you forgot to pay attention. 

What jail is Carter Page serving his time? And does anything that happened to Carter Page free Stone up from his wrong doings? 

[Anastasis 23393]

Just now, SmokeyTheBear said:

What jail is Carter Page serving his time? And does anything that happened to Carter Page free Stone up from his wrong doings? 

I am not talking about Carter Page.  

I am just asking you to consider how you would react to a revelation that Roger Stone did the thing that the DNC/HRC campaign did. 

Head half explode or fully explode?

We both know the answer. 

 

[wildcat09 29226]

On 3/24/2019 at 2:54 PM, wildcat09 said:

Re: the IRA disinformation campaign:

"...the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts..."

Re: the DNC hack:

"...the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts..."

I'd very much like to know why these are worded differently.

 

On 3/24/2019 at 3:03 PM, wildcat09 said:

I think the use of "knowingly" as a qualifier re: the IRA campaign is important, as is the omission of "any U.S. person" re: the hacking.

 

On 3/24/2019 at 3:10 PM, wildcat09 said:

I don't think this says the report clears him. It's meant to be subject to that interpretation (probably to make Trump happy), but Barr is very specific with his language and nowhere does he say that Mueller found no evidence of collusion. What he says is that Mueller "did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA..." and that Mueller "did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government" in the efforts to conduct computer hacking operations.

That leaves open a lot of possibilities.

I'm not always right, but goddamn I hit this one on the head.

[Anastasis 23393]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I'm not always right, but goddamn I hit this one on the head.

You need to put it to a sound track, imo. 

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I am not talking about Carter Page.  

I am just asking you to consider how you would react to a revelation that Roger Stone did the thing that the DNC/HRC campaign did. 

Head half explode or fully explode?

We both know the answer. 

 

If Steele is found to knowingly provide misinformation to influence an election, try and fry him. Put him through the legal system like Stone and Page were. I don't care. If you are breaking the law, you are breaking the law; regardless of what team you are on. The RNC hired Steele's group to dig up dirt, which then got transferred to the DNC and ultimately Clinton. Are you now saying this was some grand scheme by Clinton and that she and her campaign should be in jail? That political dirt used by a campaign during an election is the same as evidence to try someone in a legal system? 

[Anastasis 23393]

1 minute ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

The RNC hired Steele's group to dig up dirt, which then got transferred to the DNC and ultimately Clinton.

You have said this multiple times on this thread, but it doesn't get any more true despite the repetition.  Steele was not brought on until the DNC took over funding and they decided to go full hog with the Russia Russia Russia disinformation angle. Try to pay attention. 

I think that Stone should prosecuted if he lied to Congress.  I also think that Glenn Simpson should be prosecuted if he lied to congress. And we should go up the chain from there, on #bothsides.  

[David Dennison 18652]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

You have said this multiple times on this thread, but it doesn't get any more true despite the repetition.  Steele was not brought on until the DNC took over funding and they decided to go full hog with the Russia Russia Russia disinformation angle. Try to pay attention. 

I think that Stone should prosecuted if he lied to Congress.  I also think that Glenn Simpson should be prosecuted if he lied to congress. And we should go up the chain from there, on #bothsides.  

Well no shit.

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

You have said this multiple times on this thread, but it doesn't get any more true despite the repetition.  Steele was not brought on until the DNC took over funding and they decided to go full hog with the Russia Russia Russia disinformation angle. Try to pay attention. 

I think that Stone should prosecuted if he lied to Congress.  I also think that Glenn Simpson should be prosecuted if he lied to congress. And we should go up the chain from there, on #bothsides.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_GPS#:~:text=In September 2015%2C Fusion GPS,stopped funding investigation into Trump.

Steele was hired by Fusion GPS after the hand off, correct. Which was originally paid for by a conservative group to dig up dirt on Trump. Is your assumption that the Clinton campaign requested Steele, and for Steele to create a conspiracy theory, fed by Russia, to boost her chances? 

[Anastasis 23393]

1 minute ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_GPS#:~:text=In September 2015%2C Fusion GPS,stopped funding investigation into Trump.

Steele was hired by Fusion GPS after the hand off, correct. Which was originally paid for by a conservative group to dig up dirt on Trump. Is your assumption that the Clinton campaign requested Steele, and for Steele to create a conspiracy theory, fed by Russia, to boost her chances? 

The Russia Russia Russia deep dive only started after the DNC took over. We have had this exchange like 3 or 4 times.  Why do you struggle so hard with just acknowledging that you would lose your fucking mind if Roger Stone did one quarter the shit that is traced right back to the DNC and HRC campaign through Perkins Coie?

[wildcat09 29226]

To engage with Anastasis' little hypothetical for a moment, Roger Stone never in a trillion years would have remained quiet about something like the Steele dossier until after the election. 

[Anastasis 23393]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

To engage with Anastasis' little hypothetical for a moment, Roger Stone never in a trillion years would have remained quiet about something like the Steele dossier until after the election. 

Because the democratic operatives were not total fucking buffoons like the republican ones.  They were running their angle through the fucking FBI and State primarily.  They didn't have to angle it broadly for public consumption until they lost the election. Although they were certainly pushing it publicly before the election.  Remember Hillary pushing the server brain damaged nonsense?

 

Come on guys. 

 

 

[David Dennison 18652]

5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The Russia Russia Russia deep dive only started after the DNC took over. We have had this exchange like 3 or 4 times.  Why do you struggle so hard with just acknowledging that you would lose your fucking mind if Roger Stone did one quarter the shit that is traced right back to the DNC and HRC campaign through Perkins Coie?

And Russia, Russia, Russia meddled in the election to help Donald Trump get elected.

Not only did the Mueller Report come to that conclusion, but so did the Senate Intelligence Committee.

It seems the intelligence community was right to be concerned, regardless of Christopher Steele.