I misunderstood it that way as well, but it dawned on me what he meant. Oddly imprecise for a top-drawer attorney.Maybenaut wrote: ↑Sat Jun 08, 2019 10:31 am
Yeah, that’s what I get for reading the news. I haven’t been able to bring myself to actually listen to his statement so I don’t really know what he actually said.pipistrelle wrote: ↑Sat Jun 08, 2019 10:38 am
"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
Maybenaut wrote: ↑Sat Jun 08, 2019 11:59 amYeah, that’s what I get for reading the news. I haven’t been able to bring myself to actually listen to his statement so I don’t really know what he actually said.pipistrelle wrote: ↑Sat Jun 08, 2019 10:38 amI misunderstood it that way as well, but it dawned on me what he meant. Oddly imprecise for a top-drawer attorney.
The introduction to the Volume II of our report explains that decision. It explains that under longstanding department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited. A special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider. The department’s written opinion explaining the policy makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report, and I will describe two of them for you.
First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president, because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/us/p ... cript.html
Do we have an investigative in investigation thread yet? Do we need one?
Watching Fox to see how things are being spun. Meadows was on Maria Bartilomo show. If I heard correctly there are documents at DOJ that he and Gym Jordan have seen that will blow things out of the water and stuff will hit the fan.
Carter Page on now, he says he's been a VIA asset of sorts, and don't quote me 'cause I'm only half listening, but her been working with them for decades? How old is he?
The short answer is that criminal charges would unduly hamper the president's ability to do the necessary presidenting.
x6 x2 x4 x2
"Devin Nunes is having a cow over this."
Unfortunately, the DOJ has no incentive to find out that it is wrong.Dan1100 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2019 2:19 pm
x6 x2 x4 x2
Oooooh, John Lithgow. I hope he gets to read jr's parts in his 3rd rock character.
The Rule 34 version in 3, 2, 1. . .Kendra wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 7:23 pmhttps://twitter.com/thehill/status/1143191809436377088
I believe this is the correct link to watch live: https://lawworksaction.org/
"Devin Nunes is having a cow over this."
Judge releases court details that show speed, scope of Mueller investigation following CNN request
Washington (CNN) At the request of CNN, a federal judge in Washington on Monday released about 230 pages of data from the court showing new details about the scope and speed of Robert Mueller's investigation.
The pages largely show limited new details about Mueller's work, such as the redacted case names and dates for his 499 search warrants and 200 communications data requests. Mueller began getting permission for searches in early July 2017, not even two months following his appointment as special counsel, the documents show.
His office did the bulk of its searches throughout 2018, conducting only a few searches this year, when the investigation was wrapping up.
Ultimately, Mueller was asking the court for access to thousands of devices and records in a grand jury investigation, according to the documents released by DC District Court Chief Judge Beryl Howell. The documents now may act as a rough road map of how Mueller conducted his investigation.
Almost all of the hundreds of search and seizure cases revealed Monday are still under seal. Yet the lists still confirm that Mueller and the FBI gave extensive information about the special counsel's work to the court system -- and particularly to Howell. Names and addresses are either redacted or not used throughout the lists -- with redactions made because of ongoing investigations, the Justice Department said.
Mueller to testify publicly on July 17 following a subpoena
(CNN) Special counsel Robert Mueller has agreed to testify publicly following a subpoena from the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, the panels announced Tuesday.
Mueller will testify publicly before both committees on Wednesday, July 17, according to a joint statement announcing the hearing.
This story is breaking and will be updated.
NYRB - Murray Waas
NYRB - Murray Waas
Timeline of Deceit: From Trump’s Draft to Rosenstein’s Cover Story
In a confidential draft of a letter that President Trump wrote, firing James Comey as FBI director, the president repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of the FBI’s investigation into Russia’s covert interference in the 2016 presidential election. That the FBI’s inquiry was the president’s main complaint in the original four-page May 2017 draft provides new and previously unreported evidence that Trump’s primary motivation in firing Comey may have been to impede the Russia investigation, a potential obstruction of justice. Although the existence of the draft was first disclosed by The New York Times in the fall of 2017, and it was discussed at some length in the Mueller Report, the text of the letter itself has remained secret; also previously undisclosed is the fact that President Trump so directly linked the firing of Comey to the FBI’s Russia investigation.
In the letter, President Trump railed against the Russia investigation as “fabricated and politically motivated.” He complained about then Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe’s involvement in the investigation, claiming bias since McCabe’s wife had run for state office as a Democrat. The letter also expressed frustration that Comey had refused to issue a public statement saying the president was not under investigation. In part because of these things, the draft letter said, morale was at an all-time low at the FBI.
Finally, as I have previously reported, Trump claimed that shortly after he became president, he had told Comey that he was only allowing him to stay on in his job as FBI director on a probationary or trial basis; he had then decided to fire Comey when he failed to improve his performance—a claim that Special Counsel Robert Mueller concluded was likely concocted by Trump. By the time a final version of the letter was made public, the president’s advisers had intervened and the letter was cut from four pages to only five sentences, with all of the president’s aforementioned references to the Russia investigation removed.
These new disclosures of what Trump said in the draft termination letter highlight the central parts played in the affair by then Attorney General Jeff Sessions and then Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Even though Trump had provided them copies of the draft letter, the nation’s two top federal law enforcement officials agreed to assist the president in his effort to fire Comey. Notably, Rosenstein has said he had no reason to believe that Trump fired Comey to undercut the FBI’s Russia investigation until after Comey’s firing. The draft letter appears to directly contradict that claim.
Trump Dossier Author Christopher Steele Grilled by DOJ Watchdogs: Report
Christopher Steele—the former British intelligence author who wrote the infamous dossier that alleged misconduct between the Trump campaign and Moscow—has been interviewed by federal lawyers probing the origins of the Mueller investigation, according to Reuters. Three attorneys from the Inspector General’s office of the Justice Department reportedly met Steele in Britain last month, while Trump was visiting the country. Steele’s dossier alleged that Moscow tried to help Trump's campaign and was widely quoted for other, more salacious claims, about the president. One of Reuters' sources said the investigators appear to have found Steele’s information sufficiently credible to extend the investigation.
Addie wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:28 amCross-posting
I know it's early but were they going to halt the investigation if they decided Steele wasn't credible? I'd bet they were praying to find something that would take Steele down.Trump Dossier Author Christopher Steele Grilled by DOJ Watchdogs: Report
Christopher Steele—the former British intelligence author who wrote the infamous dossier that alleged misconduct between the Trump campaign and Moscow—has been interviewed by federal lawyers probing the origins of the Mueller investigation, according to Reuters. Three attorneys from the Inspector General’s office of the Justice Department reportedly met Steele in Britain last month, while Trump was visiting the country. Steele’s dossier alleged that Moscow tried to help Trump's campaign and was widely quoted for other, more salacious claims, about the president. One of Reuters' sources said the investigators appear to have found Steele’s information sufficiently credible to extend the investigation.[/quote]
Yeah, I think that paragraph is a victim of poor writing. I took it the way you did. But now I think it means that the previous FBI investigators found Steele credible enough to continue the Russia investigation.
"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try."