Mueller's investigation

User avatar
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater
Posts: 5067
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7901

Post by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater » Fri Jan 25, 2019 7:30 pm

Lol con artist Jacob Wohl's dad just offered to represent stone pro bono




User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 6520
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7902

Post by Sam the Centipede » Fri Jan 25, 2019 9:54 pm

Any lawyers here want to represent Roger Stone pro bozo? :boxing:



User avatar
NMgirl
Posts: 4318
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7903

Post by NMgirl » Sat Jan 26, 2019 11:04 am

Mueller is willing to share more information with the public about the Super Sekret Grand Jury case. Does the timing tell us anything :?: Damned if I know.
Although the Court has granted the application for leave to file the application for a stay, the response and the reply under seal (No. 18A669), the government believes that redacted versions of those filings may now be made on the public record without compromising grand jury secrecy.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... ne-to.html


Stern: Come back. My posts are becoming sloppy and ill-thought out.

User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 1442
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:04 pm
Location: BAR Headquarters - Turn left past the picture of King George III

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7904

Post by fierceredpanda » Sat Jan 26, 2019 11:12 am

That memorandum is interesting. Noel Francisco, the Solicitor General, is believed to be an opponent of the Mueller investigation. His signature is on that brief. Perhaps that assumption is faulty and needs to be reexamined?


"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
neonzx
Posts: 5142
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7905

Post by neonzx » Sat Jan 26, 2019 11:18 am

Sam the Centipede wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 9:54 pm
David Wohl✔@DavidWohl
I want Roger Stone to know I will be happy to assist in his defense.

Pro Bono.
Any lawyers here want to represent Roger Stone pro bozo? :boxing:
Well, at least we know where his son, Jacob, get's his cra-cra. :roll:


To which Trump replied, Fuck the law. I don't give a fuck about the law. I want my fucking money.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 29612
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7906

Post by Addie » Sat Jan 26, 2019 3:02 pm

New York Times - Sharon LaFraniere and Michael S. Schmidt
Collusion or Conspiracy: Here’s What We Know About the Mueller Case

WASHINGTON — The indictment unsealed Friday against President Trump’s longtime adviser Roger J. Stone Jr. raised anew the perennial question about the Russia investigation: Will any Trump associate be charged for what Mr. Trump loves to refer to as collusion?

Mr. Stone, the indictment said, conveyed information to the Trump campaign about WikiLeaks, the group that released thousands of Democratic emails and other documents in the months before the 2016 election. The Russians had stolen that material and delivered it to WikiLeaks as part of its broad effort to interfere in the American presidential election.

But the indictment secured by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, does not contend that Mr. Stone’s efforts to connect with WikiLeaks were illegal. Instead, Mr. Stone was charged with lying to Congress about those efforts and trying to pressure an associate not to expose his lies.

Mr. Trump’s legal team likes to say that “collusion” is not a crime. But that is a purely semantic argument because a “conspiracy” between two or more people or entities to commit an offense is a crime.

The question is whether Mr. Mueller’s team will find evidence that the Trump campaign agreed to work with WikiLeaks or the Russian government, or both, in a conspiracy to violate some statute — such as laws that make it illegal to hack private information or that bar foreigners and foreign entities from expending resources to influence American elections.



User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 11990
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7907

Post by Kendra » Mon Jan 28, 2019 5:20 pm

Acting A.G. Matthew Whitaker says the Mueller probe almost done:

"The [Mueller] investigation is, I think, close to being completed and I hope that we can get the report from Director Mueller as soon as possible."



User avatar
NotaPerson
Posts: 3219
Joined: Mon May 18, 2015 9:33 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7908

Post by NotaPerson » Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:05 pm

The head of the Justice Department said Monday that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation is nearing an end, the first official acknowledgment that the probe ensnaring President Trump may soon reach a conclusion.
:snippity:
Asked about his view of the Mueller probe in light of critical comments he made while working as a television pundit in 2017, Whitaker said those statements were offered while he was a private citizen.

I have been fully briefed on the investigation and I look forward to Director Mueller delivering the final report,” Whitaker said. “I am comfortable that the decisions that were made are going to be reviewed. . . . Right now, you know, the investigation is, I think, close to being completed.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... d49d4230ef

Whitaker's view of Mueller's investigation has clearly changed. :-D


Am I being detained?

User avatar
NMgirl
Posts: 4318
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7909

Post by NMgirl » Tue Jan 29, 2019 12:56 am

What say you, Acting AG Matthew Whitaker?
Mueller team signals to Stone associate another indictment may be in the works

Washington (CNN) A defense attorney for Andrew Miller, who's fighting a subpoena from Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, learned Monday afternoon that the special counsel still wants witness testimony for a federal grand jury.

Paul Kamenar, the defense attorney, says the assertion from Mueller's team made clear to him that Mueller and the Justice Department are considering an additional indictment of Roger Stone or have plans to charge others.

The development sets up the potential for another twist in the Russia probe. It comes hours after acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker said that Mueller's investigation was "close to being completed."

Kamenar's client is Miller, a former employee of Stone's whom Mueller subpoenaed in mid-2018 to testify to the grand jury. In a court hearing about Miller's testimony, a judge made clear that Mueller sought information Miller had about Stone's communications regarding Wikileaks and Russian hackers around the time they disseminated damaging hacked Democratic emails.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/28/politics ... index.html


Stern: Come back. My posts are becoming sloppy and ill-thought out.

User avatar
Turtle
Posts: 2711
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 5:27 pm
Occupation: SPACE FORCE COMMANDER

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7910

Post by Turtle » Tue Jan 29, 2019 1:02 am

I'm guessing they found what they were expecting to find when they raided Stone's places.



User avatar
NMgirl
Posts: 4318
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7911

Post by NMgirl » Tue Jan 29, 2019 11:14 am

Media sez too many redactions on documents filed in the Sekret Grand Jury Subpoena case and why should the government and petitioner get to decide which filings become public and which do not.
Reply in support of motion to intervene filed by Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. in In Re Grand Jury Subpoena, No. 18-948
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... ed-by.html


Stern: Come back. My posts are becoming sloppy and ill-thought out.

User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 1442
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:04 pm
Location: BAR Headquarters - Turn left past the picture of King George III

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7912

Post by fierceredpanda » Tue Jan 29, 2019 12:03 pm

NMgirl wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 11:14 am
Media sez too many redactions on documents filed in the Sekret Grand Jury Subpoena case and why should the government and petitioner get to decide which filings become public and which do not.
Reply in support of motion to intervene filed by Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. in In Re Grand Jury Subpoena, No. 18-948
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... ed-by.html
:roll:

Who even needs Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure? Or the pending investigations exception to FOIA?

I mean, yeah, I want to know these things, too. But you could literally sabotage an investigation this way, to say nothing of dealing irreparable damage to innocent parties reputations - which is precisely why grand jury secrecy under Rule 6(e) exists.


"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
NMgirl
Posts: 4318
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7913

Post by NMgirl » Tue Jan 29, 2019 12:08 pm

fierceredpanda wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 12:03 pm
NMgirl wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 11:14 am
Media sez too many redactions on documents filed in the Sekret Grand Jury Subpoena case and why should the government and petitioner get to decide which filings become public and which do not.
Reply in support of motion to intervene filed by Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. in In Re Grand Jury Subpoena, No. 18-948
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... ed-by.html
:roll:

Who even needs Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure? Or the pending investigations exception to FOIA?

I mean, yeah, I want to know these things, too. But you could literally sabotage an investigation this way, to say nothing of dealing irreparable damage to innocent parties reputations - which is precisely why grand jury secrecy under Rule 6(e) exists.
Since you're around, frpanda, can you explain to me, in the simplest possible way, why the defense attorney(s) want SCOTUS to make decisions rather than the appeals court :?:


Stern: Come back. My posts are becoming sloppy and ill-thought out.

User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 1442
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:04 pm
Location: BAR Headquarters - Turn left past the picture of King George III

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7914

Post by fierceredpanda » Tue Jan 29, 2019 12:14 pm

Which attorneys? The journalists' lawyers, or the attorneys for the mystery corporation fighting the subpoena?


"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
NMgirl
Posts: 4318
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7915

Post by NMgirl » Tue Jan 29, 2019 1:23 pm

fierceredpanda wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 12:14 pm
Which attorneys? The journalists' lawyers, or the attorneys for the mystery corporation fighting the subpoena?
I'll have to go back and look, but I believe it was the attorneys for the mystery corporation who skipped right to SCOTUS on another filing. I know I'm going to sound really dumb here, but to put my question in a different way, what is special about this case that SCOTUS doesn't just deny cert. :?: Is there an issue that hasn't been addressed at lower court levels :?:

Edited to add: I can't find it. Damn, how I wish I had an index of all the documents filed in this case, which I sometimes do for other cases.

At this point, I think we should have a separate topic for the Grand Jury Subpoena case. The "Mueller's investigation" topic is way huge and covers so many discrete investigations and threads. Against that, there is so much info already discussed in the "Mueller investigations" regarding the GJ Subpoena case.


Stern: Come back. My posts are becoming sloppy and ill-thought out.

User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 1442
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:04 pm
Location: BAR Headquarters - Turn left past the picture of King George III

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7916

Post by fierceredpanda » Tue Jan 29, 2019 2:33 pm

NMgirl wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 1:23 pm
fierceredpanda wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 12:14 pm
Which attorneys? The journalists' lawyers, or the attorneys for the mystery corporation fighting the subpoena?
I'll have to go back and look, but I believe it was the attorneys for the mystery corporation who skipped right to SCOTUS on another filing. I know I'm going to sound really dumb here, but to put my question in a different way, what is special about this case that SCOTUS doesn't just deny cert. :?: Is there an issue that hasn't been addressed at lower court levels :?:

Edited to add: I can't find it. Damn, how I wish I had an index of all the documents filed in this case, which I sometimes do for other cases.

At this point, I think we should have a separate topic for the Grand Jury Subpoena case. The "Mueller's investigation" topic is way huge and covers so many discrete investigations and threads. Against that, there is so much info already discussed in the "Mueller investigations" regarding the GJ Subpoena case.
Not to worry. You don't sound dumb, and I know what you're getting at. ;)

There is a very live issue at bottom here; specifically, whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act protects foreign countries from criminal, as well as civil, proceedings here in the US. The courts below have expressed some hesitation even as they have allowed the contempt sanction to stand. If lower courts have uncertainty, than it definitely isn't the sort of thing where SCOTUS would deny cert without even asking the government to file a response. How FSIA is interpreted could have very serious ramifications on foreign relations, and I certainly wouldn't blame the Court for wanting to take a hard look at what the implications would be with regard to allowing American courts to have jurisdiction in criminal cases against foreign countries who are otherwise immune from being dragged into our court system in the context of a civil lawsuit. Generally these types of grants of (or restrictions of) jurisdiction are expressly enacted by Congress (e.g., the law Congress passed by overriding President Obama's veto permitting 9/11 victims' families to sue the government of Saudi Arabia - the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act) - and it makes sense that SCOTUS would want to carefully examine decisions by lower courts that would have the effect of potentially expanding US courts' jurisdiction without Congressional authorization.

Can you make an argument that, because FSIA doesn't expressly immunize foreign governments against criminal actions in the US, it therefore follows that FSIA doesn't apply in the context of criminal cases? Definitely, and I think I would ultimately come down on that side of the argument. But there is also a compelling argument to be made that FSIA was drafted by Congress to accomplish a specific objective, i.e., make clear the boundaries of American jurisdiction with respect to civil lawsuits only , and we cannot infer from that silence that Congress intended to mean that foreign governments had no immunity in the context of criminal cases. Maybe it never occurred to Congress that there would be a time in the future when foreign entities, rather than foreign individuals, would ever become witnesses in federal criminal probes. Foreign government officials in their individual capacity, after all, are almost always protected by diplomatic immunity. So maybe Congress thought it was simply unnecessary to expressly codify immunity in criminal actions for foreign governments because Congress didn't conceive that things like foreign wealth funds would ever become as ubiquitous as they are. Ordinarily, if Congress didn't think of something, that's too bad for Congress. But here we are talking about something which could have ramifications on American foreign relations around the globe. Your average district judge isn't really cut out to think in those terms, but Supreme Court justices do. These aren't easy questions, and it makes total sense that SCOTUS would want to think really hard about it before deciding to deny cert - which would effectively tell lower courts that FSIA doesn't apply to criminal cases.


"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
NMgirl
Posts: 4318
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7917

Post by NMgirl » Tue Jan 29, 2019 3:17 pm

fierceredpanda wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 2:33 pm
:snippity:

There is a very live issue at bottom here; specifically, whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act protects foreign countries from criminal, as well as civil, proceedings here in the US. :snippity:
Thank you so much for taking the time to write that very clear and interesting explanation. Loved it.

:thumbs: :bighug:


Stern: Come back. My posts are becoming sloppy and ill-thought out.

User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 1442
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:04 pm
Location: BAR Headquarters - Turn left past the picture of King George III

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7918

Post by fierceredpanda » Tue Jan 29, 2019 5:07 pm

NMgirl wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 3:17 pm
Thank you so much for taking the time to write that very clear and interesting explanation. Loved it.

:thumbs: :bighug:
You are most welcome. :geek:


"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: 29612
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7919

Post by Addie » Tue Jan 29, 2019 7:28 pm

Sorry if this is a dupe.

CNN
Mueller team signals to Stone associate another indictment may be in the works

Washington (CNN) A defense attorney for Andrew Miller, who's fighting a subpoena from Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, learned Monday afternoon that the special counsel still wants witness testimony for a federal grand jury.

Paul Kamenar, the defense attorney, says the assertion from Mueller's team made clear to him that Mueller and the Justice Department are considering an additional indictment of Roger Stone or have plans to charge others.

The development sets up the potential for another twist in the Russia probe. It comes hours after acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker said that Mueller's investigation was "close to being completed."

Kamenar's client is Miller, a former employee of Stone's whom Mueller subpoenaed in mid-2018 to testify to the grand jury. In a court hearing about Miller's testimony, a judge made clear that Mueller sought information Miller had about Stone's communications regarding Wikileaks and Russian hackers around the time they disseminated damaging hacked Democratic emails.



User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15324
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7920

Post by Reality Check » Tue Jan 29, 2019 8:09 pm

I think conspiracy indictments are coming. Mueller will wait until the big dogs are charged and then go back and include the piss ants like Stone.


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

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 8106
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 2 dogs, 1 cat, and 1 horse

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7921

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Tue Jan 29, 2019 8:58 pm

Reality Check wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 8:09 pm
I think conspiracy indictments are coming. Mueller will wait until the big dogs are charged and then go back and include the piss ants like Stone.
That's how I have seen it 'splained on the interwebz.


“A black woman can invent something for the benefit of humankind.” -Bessie Blount-Griffin, physical therapist, inventor of devices for disabled WWII veterans, and forensic scientist.

User avatar
Flatpointhigh
Posts: 7807
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:05 pm
Location: Hotel California, PH23
Occupation: Voice Actor, Podcaster, I hold a Ph.D in Procrastination.
Contact:

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7922

Post by Flatpointhigh » Wed Jan 30, 2019 3:23 pm

Now, THIS is interesting:

In a new filing in the Internet Research Agency case, Mueller's team says they've found evidence discovery documents were forged as part of a "disinformation campaign aimed (apparently) at discrediting ongoing investigations into Russian interference in the US political system."
Source: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... ition.html



"It is wrong to say God made rich and poor; He only made male and female, and He gave them the Earth as their inheritance."- Thomas Paine, Forward to Agrarian Justice
Cancer broke me

User avatar
NMgirl
Posts: 4318
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7923

Post by NMgirl » Wed Jan 30, 2019 3:31 pm

Flatpointhigh wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 3:23 pm
Now, THIS is interesting:
Source: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... ition.html
Also posted on the trial topic:

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=10538&start=50


Stern: Come back. My posts are becoming sloppy and ill-thought out.

User avatar
NMgirl
Posts: 4318
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7924

Post by NMgirl » Wed Jan 30, 2019 5:29 pm

Edit: Forgot to add that this is in re the Sekret Grand Jury Subpoena
An interesting filing, in which we learn that media knows the name(s) of the attorneys and the law firm which is representing defendants. This is a fairly big deal, since it gives a good idea of what the case might be about. There are widespread rumors on the intertubz that one of the prosecutors involved in this case is an expert on the middle-east. Let Company 1 be a Qatari sovereign investment fund! :pray: Very strong tie-in with Jared Kushner. This has been a super-secret grand jury proceeding, but both the government and defense are agreed that there's going to be some loosening up on the secrecy. :thumbs:

ON APPLICATION FOR A STAY AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI UNDER SEAL

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... -2019.html


Stern: Come back. My posts are becoming sloppy and ill-thought out.

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 11990
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7925

Post by Kendra » Wed Jan 30, 2019 5:35 pm



THREAD.
Mystery company fighting Mueller subpoena:

-Wholly owned by a foriegn government (court docs)
-Has business in the US (court docs)
-Financial institution (per WaPo)
-Represented by Alston & Bird (per BuzzFeed and CNN)



Post Reply

Return to “Trump Administration”