Mueller's investigation

User avatar
BrianH
Posts: 485
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 9:00 am

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3626

Post by BrianH » Tue Jan 30, 2018 5:55 pm

June bug wrote:
Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:10 pm
He will never be convicted by 2/3 of the Senate.
That's especially true since (unlike with Nixon) Trump's dirtier deeds are likely to date from a time before he occupied the Oval Office. Even with some "strong case" where Mueller shows coordination between Cambridge Analytics and the Russian operations, my guess is the evidence of Trump's knowledge or involvement will be minimal: there would be no reason to involve him as he's strategically useless. I can't imagine 16 or so R Senators willing to blow up their party and their careers for that. And, unfortunately, the efforts to throw up a big cloud of smoke as to Mueller and the FBI will keep them from considering the obstruction claims as well.



User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 8825
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3627

Post by Kendra » Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:45 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/30/politics/ ... index.html

Washington (CNN) — President Donald Trump's attorneys are arguing that special counsel Robert Mueller's team has not met the high threshold they believe is needed to interview a president in person, according to sources familiar with the ongoing deliberations.

Despite the fact that Trump himself has said he is "looking forward" and would "love to" meet with Mueller, he did say any interview would be "subject to my lawyers," who believe that Trump should not be required to do that.

Sources said this is an ongoing negotiation and the position by the President's lawyers is not a final stance.
Jake Tapper interviews Preet Bharara (sp?) at the link.



NMgirl
Posts: 3233
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3628

Post by NMgirl » Tue Jan 30, 2018 8:32 pm

WaPo has an excellent article on what Mueller's powers are, comparing them to puritanical fuckwad Ken Starr's in the Clinton investigation. Highly recommended for IANALs.
Mueller won’t indict Trump. But here’s what he can do.
Control of Congress could determine whether Trump faces any direct consequences from the special counsel investigation.

By Eric Columbus January 30 at 3:00 PM
:snippity:

Starr, of course, did not wash his hands of the matter when he decided not to indict Clinton. Rather, he issued a 445-page report cataloging in exhaustive and sometimes explicit detail Clinton’s sexual relationship with Lewinsky, outlining how the facts could give rise to impeachment. This report was mandated by the independent counsel statute, which required Starr to advise Congress of “any substantial and credible information” that “may constitute grounds for an impeachment.” Starr’s report provided a road map, and Clinton was, indeed, impeached by the House of Representatives in December 1998, although he remained in office because the Senate acquitted him in February 1999.

But Mueller cannot do this, at least not directly. The special counsel regulations, unlike the independent counsel statute, neither mandate nor allow Mueller to transmit a report to Congress. Rather, at the end of his work, he must provide a “confidential report” to the attorney general — Rosenstein, in Sessions’s stead — explaining his “prosecution or declination decisions.”
:snippity:

Congress could likely subpoena the report in its entirety pursuant to recognized exceptions to grand jury secrecy, including a Nixon-era precedent in which courts upheld a grand jury’s decision to transmit evidence and a sealed report to the House Judiciary Committee. Indeed, Congress could procure not only Mueller’s report, but all investigative files that relate to the president. It could then make the material public if it so chose, as it did with the Starr report.

The catch? Only congressional committee chairmen can issue subpoenas. With both the House and Senate under GOP control, Republicans could simply decline to do so. The 2018 midterm elections, therefore — and the potential for one or both houses of Congress to change hands — may be crucial to determining whether and when Mueller’s Trump-related work sees the light of day.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... 90a3da06f2



User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20376
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation

#3629

Post by TollandRCR » Tue Jan 30, 2018 8:49 pm

A complement to the Republican assumption that they have a right to govern is the belief that any Democrat in a high office is illegitimately there.

The Mueller investigation involves much more than Trump’s malfeasance. However, that malfeasance meeds to be at the forefront of our minds if we watch the SoTU address. We are listen8ng to a criminal.


“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 5854
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3630

Post by Sam the Centipede » Tue Jan 30, 2018 9:26 pm

Would there be much practical point in attempting impeachment for the Democrats? By the time the process was approaching any sort of success, Trump would be waddling towards the end of his term.

Better for a Democrat Congress to focus on (1) preventing Trump and his scum from doing more damage, (2) doing some good, and (3) ensuring that voters understand that voting for Trump and Republicans was incredibly stupid and that they will have a much better country with Democrats running government.

But bg all means nail the crooks supporting Trump!



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 26362
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3631

Post by Addie » Tue Jan 30, 2018 9:30 pm

The Hill
Mueller seeking to interview ex-spokesman for Trump's legal team

Special counsel Robert Mueller is reportedly seeking to interview the former top spokesman for the Trump campaign's legal team as he investigates further into possible collusion between the Russian government and individuals on the campaign.

Mueller's team has reportedly reached out to Adam Corallo's attorneys within the last two weeks and are currently in negotiations over the terms of the interview, according to ABC News.

Corallo left the campaign in July, less than two weeks after a highly scrutinized meeting between Donald Trump Jr., top campaign staff and a Russian attorney in Trump Tower, which has become a key focus of the Russia probe.

Corallo may have quit over concerns that others on the campaign team were looking for dirt on Mueller that would have exposed a conflict of interest for the top investigator and crippled the Russia probe, sources told ABC.


¡Estiveo! come home.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3632

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Jan 30, 2018 10:06 pm

Maybe Mueller can't indict Trump. (I think it's an open question, but the present SCOTUS would say no. It would be different if it were a Democratic President, of course.) On the other hand, New York AG Eric Schneiderman can indict anyone he pleases, including the Don of the Trump Crime Family, as well as Jr. and Jared. And there is nothing Trump can do about it (although he may be able to get his prosecution delayed).



User avatar
maydijo
Posts: 2598
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:23 pm
Location: where women glow and men plunder
Occupation: harassing marsupials

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3633

Post by maydijo » Tue Jan 30, 2018 10:21 pm

Trump's lawyers say Mueller hasn't met the threshold to interview POS POTUS:

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/30/poli ... index.html
Despite the fact that Trump himself has said he is "looking forward" and would "love to" meet with Mueller, he did say any interview would be "subject to my lawyers," who believe that Trump should not be required to do that.

Sources said this is an ongoing negotiation and the position by the President's lawyers is not a final stance.

While the White House has cooperated with Mueller's investigation by providing documents and voluntary witness testimony, the President's legal team argues that the President should not be treated like anyone else. Trump's attorneys would like Mueller's prosecutors to show that only the President can give them the information they require.
Isn't that kind of going against the whole vibe of the Constitution?



User avatar
gupwalla
Posts: 2779
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:57 pm
Location: The mind of Cassandra

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3634

Post by gupwalla » Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:00 pm

Addie wrote:
Tue Jan 30, 2018 9:30 pm
The Hill
Mueller seeking to interview ex-spokesman for Trump's legal team

Special counsel Robert Mueller is reportedly seeking to interview the former top spokesman for the Trump campaign's legal team as he investigates further into possible collusion between the Russian government and individuals on the campaign.

Mueller's team has reportedly reached out to Adam Corallo's attorneys within the last two weeks and are currently in negotiations over the terms of the interview, according to ABC News.

Corallo left the campaign in July, less than two weeks after a highly scrutinized meeting between Donald Trump Jr., top campaign staff and a Russian attorney in Trump Tower, which has become a key focus of the Russia probe.

Corallo may have quit over concerns that others on the campaign team were looking for dirt on Mueller that would have exposed a conflict of interest for the top investigator and crippled the Russia probe, sources told ABC.
That doesn't even make chronological sense. If Corallo left he campaign in July 2016 - he may well have done so over concerns he had about the June 2016 "adoption" meeting. But he would have had zero concerns about Robert Mueller, who was a private attorney all the way up until May/June 2017 when he was appointed Special Counsel in the Russia matter. And hell, it wasn't even public knowledge in July 2016 that the FBI was probing contacts between one or more campaigns and Russia.

There is no way on Satan's nuclear-scorched earth that Carillo's July 2016 departure could in any way be related to Robert Mueller. Mueller was but a sinecured once-was when Carillo tendered his wishes to spend more time with his family.


In a wilderness of mirrors, what will the spider do beyond the circuit of the shuddering Bear in fractured atoms? -TS Eliot (somewhat modified)

All warfare is based on deception. - Sun Tzu

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 7483
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3635

Post by Orlylicious » Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:23 am

Amanda Carpenter is absolutely right. This is the scary part: "We’ve all been sucked into a story we know probably isn’t true. And, there’s not a thing we can do to stop it."

I’m a Republican. Why Is My Party Gaslighting America?
By AMANDA CARPENTER January 30, 2018

Riddle me this: If Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee have smoking gun evidence of a deep-state conspiracy that threatens American democracy itself, wouldn’t they be doing more than playing silly hashtag games, such as #ReleasetheMemo? Hint: The answer is yes. If this were a serious undertaking, congressional investigators would be collaborating with the Department of Justice, FBI and relevant Senate committees to save America from the threat within. But we’re no longer dealing in the realm of facts and reason when it comes to grave matters of security and justice. We are, at Donald Trump’s behest, fully engulfed in a narrative explicitly designed to impugn and destroy the credibility of the law enforcement agency tasked with investigating the Trump campaign’s relationship with Russia during the 2016 election.

The memo in question is one written by the staff of Republican Intelligence Committee Chair Rep. Devin Nunes—the same Nunes who recused himself from the Russia investigation last year amongst allegations that “he made unauthorized disclosures of classified information.” Now, Nunes is at it again. This time with a four-page classified memo that, if you believe what those who have read it say, shows an Obama-era FBI rife with corruption and engaging in eye-popping abuses of power. The details of what the memo says have been kept private, because they are classified. But that hasn’t stopped Trump’s allies on Capitol Hill and beyond from crowing about the allegedly shocking memo since mid-January, demanding it be released to the public and spawning a viral hashtag, now used by everyone from Donald Trump Jr. to Sean Hannity and Julian Assange. After the House voted on Monday to do so, House Speaker Paul Ryan made a statement in favor of the decision. Now, the matter is in the president’s hands.

But really, at this point, it doesn’t really matter what the memo says. Prompted by Trump, his allies on Capitol Hill and in the Trump-affirming media universe, millions of Americans have been led to brainstorm all the various ways faceless bureaucrats embedded in the government could be working to undermine Trump. The entire American political media complex is consumed with speculation about what may be in the memo’s contents. We’ve all been sucked into a story we know probably isn’t true. And, there’s not a thing we can do to stop it. The president has already claimed two scalps with his shameless bullying, rumor mongering and conspiracy peddling: Former FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. And it’s happening all over again. With #Releasethememo, the FBI has already been accused of a multitude of various crimes without ever being given the chance to answer or explain.

The #ReleasetheMemo campaign bears all the classic hallmarks of a uniquely Trumpian ruse. Throughout his career as a New York real estate mogul and media star Trump has stumbled upon a foolproof way of trapping people into his web of lies. He always begins by casting vague aspersions about his target, in this case, the law enforcement networks investigating him. Recall how news reports of the now well-known and controversial dossier prompted him to ask, “Are we living in Nazi Germany?” Or how he compared the surveillance of campaign associates, such as Paul Manafort and Carter Page, to “McCarthyism” and “Nixon/Watergate.” Nevermind that his actions more closely resemble those of Nixon during Watergate than anything undertaken those investigating him. Trump wanted his followers to believe one thing and one thing only: A massive conspiracy was underfoot to undermine his presidency, and he’s been peddling this particular theory for well over a year now.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ica-216554



Donald stopped to take a selfie with Carl Gallups' congressman, Matt Gaetz of Milton, Florida. 1st district. Dude is trying to take the title of Most Repulsive from Louie Golmert and Blake Fahrenthold.





ETA: Matt tore himself away from a camera fast enough to post the selfie:





User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 1382
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 6:09 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH USA
Occupation: We build cars

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3636

Post by Gregg » Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:34 am

gupwalla wrote:
Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:00 pm
Addie wrote:
Tue Jan 30, 2018 9:30 pm
The Hill
Mueller seeking to interview ex-spokesman for Trump's legal team

Special counsel Robert Mueller is reportedly seeking to interview the former top spokesman for the Trump campaign's legal team as he investigates further into possible collusion between the Russian government and individuals on the campaign.

Mueller's team has reportedly reached out to Adam Corallo's attorneys within the last two weeks and are currently in negotiations over the terms of the interview, according to ABC News.

Corallo left the campaign in July, less than two weeks after a highly scrutinized meeting between Donald Trump Jr., top campaign staff and a Russian attorney in Trump Tower, which has become a key focus of the Russia probe.

Corallo may have quit over concerns that others on the campaign team were looking for dirt on Mueller that would have exposed a conflict of interest for the top investigator and crippled the Russia probe, sources told ABC.
That doesn't even make chronological sense. If Corallo left he campaign in July 2016 - he may well have done so over concerns he had about the June 2016 "adoption" meeting. But he would have had zero concerns about Robert Mueller, who was a private attorney all the way up until May/June 2017 when he was appointed Special Counsel in the Russia matter. And hell, it wasn't even public knowledge in July 2016 that the FBI was probing contacts between one or more campaigns and Russia.

There is no way on Satan's nuclear-scorched earth that Carillo's July 2016 departure could in any way be related to Robert Mueller. Mueller was but a sinecured once-was when Carillo tendered his wishes to spend more time with his family.
:yeah:


Honorary Commander, 699th Airborne Assault Dachshund Regiment
Deadly Sausage Dogs from the Sky

User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 6981
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3637

Post by RVInit » Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:50 am

Gregg wrote:
Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:34 am
gupwalla wrote:
Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:00 pm
Addie wrote:
Tue Jan 30, 2018 9:30 pm
The Hill

That doesn't even make chronological sense. If Corallo left he campaign in July 2016 - he may well have done so over concerns he had about the June 2016 "adoption" meeting. But he would have had zero concerns about Robert Mueller, who was a private attorney all the way up until May/June 2017 when he was appointed Special Counsel in the Russia matter. And hell, it wasn't even public knowledge in July 2016 that the FBI was probing contacts between one or more campaigns and Russia.

There is no way on Satan's nuclear-scorched earth that Carillo's July 2016 departure could in any way be related to Robert Mueller. Mueller was but a sinecured once-was when Carillo tendered his wishes to spend more time with his family.
:yeah:
he left the administration not the campaign


"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage

SLQ
Posts: 2133
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3638

Post by SLQ » Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:25 am

Good catch Guppy. You are apparently not the only one. The article has been changed to correctly reflect the timeline and the event potentially triggering Corallo's departure, though it still indicates he left the "campaign" in July 2017:
Corallo left the campaign in July of last year, after the administration released a misleading statement on the 2016 Trump Tower meeting that has become a focal point of the election investigations.
Sloppy. Oddly, there no correction noted.



User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 4853
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3639

Post by Slim Cognito » Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:54 am

maydijo wrote:
Tue Jan 30, 2018 10:21 pm
Trump's lawyers say Mueller hasn't met the threshold to interview POS POTUS:

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/30/poli ... index.html
Despite the fact that Trump himself has said he is "looking forward" and would "love to" meet with Mueller, he did say any interview would be "subject to my lawyers," who believe that Trump should not be required to do that.

Sources said this is an ongoing negotiation and the position by the President's lawyers is not a final stance.

While the White House has cooperated with Mueller's investigation by providing documents and voluntary witness testimony, the President's legal team argues that the President should not be treated like anyone else. Trump's attorneys would like Mueller's prosecutors to show that only the President can give them the information they require.
Isn't that kind of going against the whole vibe of the Constitution?
"High threshold?" Is that lawyer shorthand for "My client would incriminate himself in under five minutes."


ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 904
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:04 pm
Location: BAR Headquarters - Turn left past the picture of King George III

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3640

Post by fierceredpanda » Wed Jan 31, 2018 8:00 am

Slim Cognito wrote:
Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:54 am
"High threshold?" Is that lawyer shorthand for "My client would incriminate himself in under five minutes."
No, it's shorthand for the strategy I outlined in a previous post:
fierceredpanda wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:05 pm
:snippity:
More to the point, I don't see the downside for Trump if he just tells Mueller to kick rocks. Sure, it goes back on Trump's promise that he absolutely would testify under oath, but his supporters don't care, and a majority of Congress doesn't care. Maybe I'm being overly cynical, but it seems like the only play for Team Trump here is to stonewall Mueller.

"Want to subpoena me? Fuck off, I'm the President. Cite me for contempt? Fuck off, I'm the President."


"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
Addie
Posts: 26362
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3641

Post by Addie » Wed Jan 31, 2018 8:31 am

ABC News
DOJ gives special counsel internal docs on proposed Sessions resignation, source says

In the weeks before special counsel Robert Mueller’s team interviewed Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the Justice Department turned over a cache of internal correspondence, including documents related to the proposed resignation of Sessions last year and emails with the White House about fired national security adviser Michael Flynn, according to a source with knowledge of the matter.

Details of what the Justice Department has now provided to Mueller’s team, which sources say has been investigating whether President Donald Trump sought to obstruct a federal inquiry into possible connections between his presidential campaign and Russian operatives, reflect how widely investigators are casting their net.

Citing sources familiar with the matter, ABC News reported in November that Mueller’s office was interested in obtaining internal emails related to the firing of FBI Director James Comey and the earlier decision of Sessions to recuse himself from the entire matter, but at the time it was unclear what other type of information Mueller's office might have been seeking. ...

Emails and other documents produced within the Justice Department during that time, including emails with White House officials, have now been sent to Mueller’s office, according to a source with knowledge of the matter.


¡Estiveo! come home.

Somerset
Posts: 3632
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:52 am
Location: Silicon Valley
Occupation: Lab rat

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3642

Post by Somerset » Wed Jan 31, 2018 9:25 am

fierceredpanda wrote:
Wed Jan 31, 2018 8:00 am
Slim Cognito wrote:
Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:54 am
"High threshold?" Is that lawyer shorthand for "My client would incriminate himself in under five minutes."
No, it's shorthand for the strategy I outlined in a previous post:
fierceredpanda wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:05 pm
:snippity:
More to the point, I don't see the downside for Trump if he just tells Mueller to kick rocks. Sure, it goes back on Trump's promise that he absolutely would testify under oath, but his supporters don't care, and a majority of Congress doesn't care. Maybe I'm being overly cynical, but it seems like the only play for Team Trump here is to stonewall Mueller.

"Want to subpoena me? Fuck off, I'm the President. Cite me for contempt? Fuck off, I'm the President."
You're right, of course, and I'm sure that's exactly what White House counsel has told the OSG - Executive Privilege means you can tell Mueller to fuck off. But the OSG is known for not listening to counsel ("He won't do what you tell him, and he doesn't pay his bills"). I can see him testifying just to satisfy his ego.



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 26362
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3643

Post by Addie » Wed Jan 31, 2018 8:03 pm

Business Insider
Mueller just got another critical piece of evidence in the Russia investigation ...

Comey's firing and Trump's subsequent actions make up the basis of Mueller's inquiry into whether he sought to obstruct justice in the Russia investigation. Obstruction of justice is broadly defined: it involves any conduct in which a person willfully interferes with the administration of justice.

That means influencing, obstructing, or impeding any kind of proceeding before a federal agency, department, court, or Congress, according to CNN legal analyst Danny Cevallos.

In order to prove obstruction of justice, prosecutors must establish that the defendant had "corrupt intent" when they made a particular decision, and experts said the Trump-Rosenstein meeting adds another piece of evidence to a growing arsenal in Mueller's hands.

Former federal prosecutor Jeffrey Cramer said Wednesday that the report "seems consistent with numerous other interactions [Trump] has had with senior law enforcement."

While asking for an update on the Russia investigation is not in itself relevant to criminal conduct, he said, "asking whether [Rosenstein] is on his team and connecting it to the Russia investigation by asking for a status update could, however, be relevant."

While obstruction cases like this rarely have a singular watershed moment that proves a crime, "the Rosenstein interaction is one more piece of the puzzle," Cramer added.


¡Estiveo! come home.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 26362
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3644

Post by Addie » Wed Jan 31, 2018 9:41 pm

New York Times
Mueller Zooms In on Trump Tower Cover Story ...

Some lawyers and witnesses who have sat in or been briefed on the interviews have puzzled over Mr. Mueller’s interest in the episode. Lying to federal investigators is a crime; lying to the news media is not. For that reason, some of Mr. Trump’s advisers argue that Mr. Mueller has no grounds to ask the president about the statement and say he should refuse to discuss it.

What is already clear is that, as Mr. Trump’s aides and family members tried over 48 hours to manage one of most consequential crises of the young administration, the situation quickly degenerated into something of a circular firing squad. They protected their own interests, shifted blame and potentially left themselves — and the president — legally vulnerable.

The latest witness to be called for an interview about the episode was Mark Corallo, who served as a spokesman for Mr. Trump’s legal team before resigning in July. Mr. Corallo received an interview request last week from the special counsel and has agreed to the interview, according to three people with knowledge of the request.
Continue reading the main story

Mr. Corallo is planning to tell Mr. Mueller about a previously undisclosed conference call with Mr. Trump and Hope Hicks, the White House communications director, according to the three people. Mr. Corallo planned to tell investigators that Ms. Hicks said during the call that emails written by Donald Trump Jr. before the Trump Tower meeting — in which the younger Mr. Trump said he was eager to receive political dirt about Mrs. Clinton from the Russians — “will never get out.” That left Mr. Corallo with concerns that Ms. Hicks could be contemplating obstructing justice, the people said.


¡Estiveo! come home.

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14719
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3645

Post by Reality Check » Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:35 pm

I hope Hope Hicks goes to jail for a long time. :twisted:


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 4697
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:26 am

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3646

Post by pipistrelle » Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:39 pm

Reality Check wrote:
Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:35 pm
I hope Hope Hicks goes to jail for a long time. :twisted:
If she's guilty, yes. I was uncomfortable a while ago with people hoping she gets away like she's a victim (and an attractive one). She's into it past her waders.



TexasFilly
Posts: 17725
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3647

Post by TexasFilly » Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:43 pm

I don't recall saying Hope Hicks was any kind of victim. I mentioned she is pretty (fact) and that she came from a wealthy family and it was surprising that she has gotten herself mixed up in this crime family. Carry on.


I love the poorly educated!!!

I believe Anita Hill!

User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 4697
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:26 am

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3648

Post by pipistrelle » Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:45 pm

TexasFilly wrote:
Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:43 pm
I don't recall saying Hope Hicks was any kind of victim. I mentioned she is pretty (fact) and that she came from a wealthy family and it was surprising that she has gotten herself mixed up in this crime family. Carry on.
I don't think I mentioned anyone specifically . . .



User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 6981
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3649

Post by RVInit » Wed Jan 31, 2018 11:04 pm

pipistrelle wrote:
Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:39 pm
Reality Check wrote:
Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:35 pm
I hope Hope Hicks goes to jail for a long time. :twisted:
If she's guilty, yes. I was uncomfortable a while ago with people hoping she gets away like she's a victim (and an attractive one). She's into it past her waders.
It sure seems that way.


"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage

User avatar
Turtle
Posts: 2423
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 5:27 pm
Occupation: SPACE FORCE COMMANDER

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3650

Post by Turtle » Wed Jan 31, 2018 11:39 pm




Post Reply

Return to “Trump Administration”