Mueller's investigation

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 17807
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7526

Post by Kendra »

Dan1100 wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2018 10:49 am
Jim wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2018 10:47 am
Kendra wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2018 10:28 amI do :idea: :confused: about Nunes voting for this.
Didn't he lose his election? Is he even in Washington? The unanimous vote may be for only the members present if I had to guess.
Nunes won his election. You are probably thinking of Rohrabacher (R - Moscow).
Correct.
User avatar
jtmunkus
Posts: 5692
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:33 pm
Location: Cone of Silence

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7527

Post by jtmunkus »

Anybody else get the impression that SC Mueller and/or DAG Rosenstein gave the young Mr. Whittaker a lesson (warning?) about obstruction of justice?

For an 'acting' AG, he sure seems impotent and irrelevant.
User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 6613
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7528

Post by Maybenaut »

jtmunkus wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:24 am Anybody else get the impression that SC Mueller and/or DAG Rosenstein gave the young Mr. Whittaker a lesson (warning?) about obstruction of justice?

For an 'acting' AG, he sure seems impotent and irrelevant.
Perhaps. Or maybe, when push comes to shove, he doesn't want to put his bar card at risk.

ETA: I hated Jeff Sessions with a white hot passion. But he did the right thing by recusing himself. And while I don't think that lawyers must necessarily have integrity just because they're lawyers, I do think most lawyers take their ethical obligations seriously. There are exceptions, of course.
"Hey! You know, we left this England place because it was bogus. So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too." - Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
jtmunkus
Posts: 5692
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:33 pm
Location: Cone of Silence

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7529

Post by jtmunkus »

Maybenaut wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:30 am
jtmunkus wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:24 am Anybody else get the impression that SC Mueller and/or DAG Rosenstein gave the young Mr. Whittaker a lesson (warning?) about obstruction of justice?

For an 'acting' AG, he sure seems impotent and irrelevant.
Perhaps. Or maybe, when push comes to shove, he doesn't want to put his bar card at risk.
I spoke five minutes too soon. Evidently, DOJ Ethics officials just cleared him to move forward running the probe. :-
User avatar
SLQ
Posts: 4275
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7530

Post by SLQ »

I read an article about Whitaker this morning:

Exclusive: Whitaker told he does not need to recuse himself from overseeing Mueller investigation
Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker has consulted with ethics officials at the Justice Department and they have advised him he does not need to recuse himself from overseeing special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation, a source familiar with the process told CNN Thursday.

The source added Whitaker has been in ongoing discussions with ethics officials since taking the job in early November following the ouster of Jeff Sessions, who had stepped aside from overseeing the investigation due to his role as a Trump campaign surrogate during the 2016 election.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein oversaw the investigation following Sessions' recusal and his office is still managing the investigation on a day-to-day basis, as CNN has previously reported.

When, exactly, ethics officials signed off on Whitaker's role was not immediately clear, but as of last month, he had not stepped aside from participating in significant developments in the Russia investigation. He was informed ahead of time that Trump's former attorney and fixer Michael Cohen would plead guilty to lying to Congress about the proposed Trump Tower project in Moscow.
Edit: I'd swear when I read it that it said Whitaker thinks Mueller is close to crossing a red line. But it's not there now. :?:
"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try."
-- Yoda
User avatar
neonzx
Posts: 10142
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7531

Post by neonzx »

SLQ wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:41 am I read an article about Whitaker this morning:
Edit: I'd swear when I read it that it said Whitaker thinks Mueller is close to crossing a red line. But it's not there now. :?:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/07/politics ... index.html
In a CNN op-ed written last year, , Whitaker argued that Mueller is "dangerously close to crossing" a red line following reports that Mueller was looking into Trump's finances.

He argued that Mueller does not have "broad, far-reaching powers in this investigation," but that the investigation's limits are clearly defined by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's May 2017 letter appointing Mueller.

"It is time for Rosenstein, who is the acting attorney general for the purposes of this investigation, to order Mueller to limit the scope of his investigation to the four corners of the order appointing him special counsel," he wrote then. "If he doesn't, then Mueller's investigation will eventually start to look like a political fishing expedition."
User avatar
BrianH
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 9:00 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7532

Post by BrianH »

jtmunkus wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:24 am Anybody else get the impression that SC Mueller and/or DAG Rosenstein gave the young Mr. Whittaker a lesson (warning?) about obstruction of justice?

For an 'acting' AG, he sure seems impotent and irrelevant.
That's been one of my theories. (The other being Whittaker would take care to protect his license, though perhaps he now has his jail-free card on that.) He knows if he tries to squelch Mueller's finding the Dem-controlled House will subpoena him (and Mueller) and the obstruction will be apparent. Plus, all that redacted material in what is now public record may make it too late for Whittaker to effectively stop things.
User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 32368
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texoma and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer
Contact:

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7533

Post by Volkonski »

Darren Samuelsohn

Verified account

@dsamuelsohn
Follow Follow @dsamuelsohn
More
NEW - The company owned by "Country A" just filed a 3,931-word sealed motion with the US Court of Appeals in the mystery Mueller subpoena case we're tracking @politico http://ow.ly/jIRJ30n3YYT

1:28 PM - 20 Dec 2018
Image
Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace
User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 32368
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texoma and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer
Contact:

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7534

Post by Volkonski »


Matthew Miller

Verified account

@matthewamiller
1h1 hour ago

This is turning into an enormous scandal. Ethics officials told Whitaker they would recommend recusal, so he set up a different group of officials (probably political appointees, but unclear) to make a different recommendation. What in the hell is going on at DOJ?
Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace
User avatar
Dan1100
Posts: 3995
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:41 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7535

Post by Dan1100 »

Volkonski wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:19 pm

Matthew Miller

Verified account

@matthewamiller
1h1 hour ago

This is turning into an enormous scandal. Ethics officials told Whitaker they would recommend recusal, so he set up a different group of officials (probably political appointees, but unclear) to make a different recommendation. What in the hell is going on at DOJ?
They can't even obstruct justice right. :cantlook:
Matthew Miller
‏Verified account @matthewamiller
14m14 minutes ago

Matthew Miller Retweeted Andrew deGrandpre

It gets better. DOJ won't even disclose the identify of the team they assembled to countermand the ethics recommendation that Whitaker recuse: "The senior official who described the Whitaker discussions refused to identify the particular Justice Department employees involved."
User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 32368
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texoma and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer
Contact:

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7536

Post by Volkonski »

Ken Dilanian

Verified account

@KenDilanianNBC
56s57 seconds ago
More
Exclusive: Mueller may submit report to attorney general as soon as mid-February https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justic ... ay-n949961 … via @nbcnews
Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace
User avatar
NotaPerson
Posts: 3622
Joined: Mon May 18, 2015 9:33 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7537

Post by NotaPerson »

Ethics official said Whitaker should recuse from the Mueller probe, but his advisers told him not to, officials say
A senior Justice Department ethics official concluded acting attorney general Matthew G. Whitaker should recuse from overseeing special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe examining President Trump, but advisers to Whitaker recommended the opposite and he has no plans to step aside, people familiar with the matter said.

Earlier Thursday, a different official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said ethics officials had advised Whitaker need not step aside, only to retract that description of events hours later.
:snippity:
Whitaker never asked Justice Department ethics officials for a formal recommendation, nor did he receive one, this official said.

However, after Whitaker met repeatedly with Justice Department ethics officials to discuss the facts and the issues under consideration, a senior ethics official told the group of advisers on Tuesday that it was a “close call” but that Whitaker should recuse himself to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, the official said. Whitaker was not present at that meeting, they said.

Those four advisers, however, disagreed with the ethics determination and recommended to Whitaker the next day not to recuse, saying there was no precedent for that, and doing so now could create a bad precedent for future attorneys general.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... 97b87f22d0
Am I being detained?
Addie
Posts: 44454
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7538

Post by Addie »

Associated Press: AP-NORC Poll: Nearly 6 in 10 say Trump impeded Russia probe
New York Mag - Jonathan Chait: Trump Is Building a Team of Lackeys to Go to War With Mueller
Addie
Posts: 44454
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7539

Post by Addie »

Bloomberg
Mystery Filing Appears to Ask High Court to Act in Mueller Probe

A new legal filing appears to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene for the first time in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into the 2016 election.

The document, which is under seal, stems from a Dec. 18 federal appeals court ruling that required an unidentified company, owned by an unidentified foreign country, to turn over information to a grand jury. ...

The grand jury dispute has been shrouded in mystery, in part because officials closed an entire floor of a federal courthouse in Washington during arguments on Dec. 7. Politico linked the case to Mueller in October, citing a conversation overheard by a reporter in the court clerk’s office.

The appeals court order described the company only as a “corporation” owned by “Country A.” The three-judge panel rejected contentions that a federal sovereign-immunity law shielded the company from having to comply.

The new filing asks Chief Justice John Roberts to temporarily block that ruling. The Supreme Court’s online docket includes the number of the appeals court case but doesn’t say who submitted the application.
User avatar
tek
Posts: 4942
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:02 pm
Location: Lake Humidity, FL
Occupation: Damned if I know

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7540

Post by tek »

scotusblog: http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/12/justi ... ry-dispute
Tonight’s filing was under seal, so there is no way to know exactly what arguments are being made. However, the D.C. Circuit also rejected the corporation’s contention that the district court lacked power to hear criminal cases, such as this one, against foreign countries and the corporations that they own. In so doing, the court of appeals acknowledged that the Supreme Court’s earlier statements had not provided any “clear answer in this case” – which could also be the basis for the corporation’s plea.
There's no way back
from there to here
User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 3527
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:04 pm
Location: BAR Headquarters - Turn left past the picture of King George III
Occupation: Criminal defense attorney - I am not your lawyer, and my posts do not constitute legal advice

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7541

Post by fierceredpanda »

Ordinarily, I feel like I can make some sort of informed guess about whether or not SCOTUS will take up a case. In this case, I'm very hesitant. I can think of compelling reasons for and against granting cert.

On the one hand, the Court could clarify the precise application of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, since even the DC Circuit has conceded that there is uncertainty on this issue. On the other hand, the cat is out of the bag as far as this case being linked to the Mueller investigation, and the sealed nature of the proceedings will limit the ability of the Court to protect itself from accusations of political bias, however they ultimately rule. Also, the opinion below reads like the DC Circuit really was not impressed with the arguments made by the company with respect to how the laws of Country A prevent them from complying with a subpoena. And the DC Circuit panel ruled unanimously.

I'm starting to talk myself into thinking SCOTUS won't touch this. In any case, can you imagine what a mess it would be to keep the proceedings secret? I'm not entirely certain what the equivalent of closing a floor of the Prettiman Courthouse is for the Supreme Court. Having the US Marshals seal off a two block radius around the building?
"There's no play here. There's no angle. There's no champagne room. I'm not a miracle worker, I'm a janitor. The math on this is simple; the smaller the mess, the easier it is for me to clean up." -Michael Clayton

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 6613
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7542

Post by Maybenaut »

I’m in the “they won’t touch it” camp. It’s such a can of worms. I think they’d only take it up if they thought the appellate court had its head up it’s ass, and I think that’s unlikely.
"Hey! You know, we left this England place because it was bogus. So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too." - Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 14098
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7543

Post by Notorial Dissent »

Maybenaut wrote: Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:02 am I’m in the “they won’t touch it” camp. It’s such a can of worms. I think they’d only take it up if they thought the appellate court had its head up it’s ass, and I think that’s unlikely.
I agree with you all across the board, I just can't see the court wanting to go anywhere near it.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 3527
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:04 pm
Location: BAR Headquarters - Turn left past the picture of King George III
Occupation: Criminal defense attorney - I am not your lawyer, and my posts do not constitute legal advice

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7544

Post by fierceredpanda »

My only reason for thinking they might take it up is the ambiguity of FSIA. Even the DC Circuit conceded that it isn't certain whether the Act applies here. I could see the justices thinking that issue needs to be settled one way or the other. Other than that, I concur that there is no good reason to hear this case. But settling ambiguous laws, particularly with respect to foreign nations and entities, is sort of what SCOTUS does.
"There's no play here. There's no angle. There's no champagne room. I'm not a miracle worker, I'm a janitor. The math on this is simple; the smaller the mess, the easier it is for me to clean up." -Michael Clayton

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 6613
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7545

Post by Maybenaut »

fierceredpanda wrote: Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:10 am My only reason for thinking they might take it up is the ambiguity of FSIA. Even the DC Circuit conceded that it isn't certain whether the Act applies here. I could see the justices thinking that issue needs to be settled one way or the other. Other than that, I concur that there is no good reason to hear this case. But settling ambiguous laws, particularly with respect to foreign nations and entities, is sort of what SCOTUS does.
Right, but I can see them deciding that this might not be the case, particularly where they’d have to do it in secret.
"Hey! You know, we left this England place because it was bogus. So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too." - Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 17807
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7546

Post by Kendra »

I was watching MSNCB earlier, and the panel was discussing this. The expert on the panel (sorry, I didn't note names) said that the SC wouldn't touch it since it's all sealed.
User avatar
neonzx
Posts: 10142
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7547

Post by neonzx »

Surprise.
Temporary stay.

Image
User avatar
Dan1100
Posts: 3995
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:41 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7548

Post by Dan1100 »

Search didn't find a Whitaker thread.

He lied about Iowa football. :oops:

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1077985201840504832
Yashar Ali
🐘
‏Verified account @yashar
6m6 minutes ago

Matthew Whitaker has incorrectly claimed on his résumé and in government documents to have been named an Academic All-American while playing football at the University of Iowa, according to the documents and the organization that awards that honor.
User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 11612
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7549

Post by Chilidog »

Why the Fuck do people lie about shit like that?

Don't they realize that this is easy to fact check?
User avatar
neonzx
Posts: 10142
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7550

Post by neonzx »

Chilidog wrote: Wed Dec 26, 2018 1:14 pm Why the Fuck do people lie about shit like that?
:mememe:
rnc-logo-smilie.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Post Reply

Return to “Trump Administration”