Mueller's investigation

User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 8053
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8676

Post by Slim Cognito »

I'm assuming everyone is wearing their shocked faces. :yawn:
ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 24541
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8677

Post by RTH10260 »

:twisted: IFF I were one of the bad guys wanting to move this administration into a crisis, I would be tempted to see that Hannity fell from a window just in time to leave impotus without his his tv adviser and moral backup. :twisted: Does H. realize that he is living a risky life?

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 15993
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8678

Post by Kendra »


!!! Despite a court order, the Justice Department is holding back Special Counsel Mueller memos regarding the interviews conducted with the President’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner.
CNN and Buzzfeed won access to thousands of pages of Mueller’s witness memos.

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 27072
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8679

Post by Volkonski »

Josh Gerstein
@joshgerstein
· 2h
NEW OVERNIGHT: In late-night court filing from DOJ, @RodRosenstein acknowledges he made decision to release Strzok-Page texts that have fueled many a POTUS attack on the former FBI employees. Both are suing over release, saying it invaded their privacy https://politico.com/news/2020/01/18/ro ... xts-100776
Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 39061
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8680

Post by Addie »

Cross-posting

Associated Press
AP FACT CHECK: Trump defense misrepresents Mueller findings

WASHINGTON (AP) — In opening arguments of the impeachment trial, President Donald Trump’s defense misrepresented the findings of a special counsel’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election by claiming the president was cleared of obstruction of justice.

A look at some of his legal team’s claims Tuesday during debate on the format of the Senate trial:

JAY SEKULOW, on special counsel Robert Mueller: “We had the invocation of the ghost of the Mueller report. I know something about that report. It came up empty on the issue of collusion with Russia. There was no obstruction, in fact.”

THE FACTS: He’s wrong to suggest that special counsel Robert Mueller’s report cleared the Trump campaign of collusion with Russia. Nor did the report exonerate Trump on the question of whether he obstructed justice.

Instead, the report factually laid out instances in which Trump might have obstructed justice, leaving it open for Congress to take up the matter or for prosecutors to do so once Trump leaves office.

“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Mueller declared after the report was released.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 39061
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8681

Post by Addie »

BuzzFeed News: Mueller Memos Part 5: Hundreds Of Pages Of FBI Witness Interviews Declassified

BuzzFeed News sued the US government under the Freedom of Information Act for the right to see all the work that Robert Mueller’s team kept secret. Today we are publishing the fifth installment of the FBI’s summaries of interviews with witnesses.


Stephen Miller, Hope Hicks, and Jared Kushner sometimes drafted tweets for President Donald Trump. Steve Bannon didn’t think the “Putin stuff” was a big deal. Former national security adviser Michael Flynn sought guidance from former Obama administration officials Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes “about how to do things.”

Those are some of the key findings in hundreds of pages of FBI interview summaries from former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, which were released Monday to BuzzFeed News and CNN in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

The documents also contained a summary of an interview that Kushner, the president’s adviser and son-in-law, had with FBI agents and federal prosecutors in November 2017. But the five-page summary, known as an FBI 302, was almost entirely redacted. Intelligence agencies are still reviewing another Kushner interview summary from 2018 for classified information. Kushner’s interview summaries have been some of the most highly sought-after records from Mueller’s investigation; they were requested by the House Judiciary Committee last year as part of its impeachment inquiry.

Only three lines were left intact: “A few weeks after the election [REDACTED] Kushner, Flynn, and Kislyak met together at Trump Tower [REDACTED]” — referring to Sergey Kislyak, the former US ambassador to Russia — and “Kushner” and “vaguely remembers Flynn handling Russia on the issue.”
Don't do stupid shit. -Barack Obama

User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 2725
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

#8682

Post by fierceredpanda »

How the fuck is the Sidney Powell crowd going to react to Mike Flynn asking "Deep State traitors" like Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes for advice on how to run the NSC?
"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
Slim Cognito
Posts: 8053
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8683

Post by Slim Cognito »

fierceredpanda wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 8:28 am
How the fuck is the Sidney Powell crowd going to react to Mike Flynn asking "Deep State traitors" like Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes for advice on how to run the NSC?
I'll take Fake News for $200, Alex.
ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 27072
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8684

Post by Volkonski »

Lawyer for Russian Firm Apoplectic as Contempt Sanction Looms

https://www.courthousenews.com/us-judge ... sian-firm/
A Trump-appointed judge said Monday there is a strong likelihood that the Russian firm charged with funding interference in the 2016 presidential election has failed to comply with a government subpoena, a legal botch likely to trigger a contempt-of-court finding.

Former special counsel Robert Mueller indicted Concord Management, owned by a Russian oligarch close enough to President Vladimir Putin to have earned the sobriquet “Putin’s chef,” on conspiracy charges back in 2018.

Concord’s attorney Eric Dubelier had an emotional outburst in court Monday morning, telling U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich that she had no basis to believe that the company was in possession of records the government has requested ahead of a trial scheduled for next month.

Accusing the judge of taking a tone that suggests that the defense counsel is engaged in something “sneaky,” Dubelier pounded his fist on the lectern.
Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 46270
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8685

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

Typical of Dubelier. He's done this crap -- and worse -- before: https://trump-russia.com/2019/01/23/ben ... lier-file/

Since he literally pounded the lectern we know what to think of his legal arguments, as well as the evidence against his client.

User avatar
tek
Posts: 4124
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:02 pm
Location: Happy Valley, MA
Occupation: Damned if I know

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8686

Post by tek »

only the best!
There's no way back
from there to here

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 27072
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8687

Post by Volkonski »

In the US District Court for DC Barr gets spanked.
Here, although it is with great consternation, true to the oath that the undersigned took
upon becoming a federal judge, and the need for the American public to have faith in the judicial
Case 1:19-cv-00810-RBW Document 111 Filed 03/05/20 Page 21 of 23

22

process, considering the record in this case, the Court must conclude that the actions of Attorney
General Barr and his representations about the Mueller Report preclude the Court’s acceptance
of the validity of the Department’s redactions without its independent verification. Adherence to
the FOIA’s objective of keeping the American public informed of what its government is up to
demands nothing less. Accordingly, the Court will conduct an independent review of the
unredacted version of the Mueller Report to determine whether it concurs with the Department’s
determination that the redactions of the Mueller Report are authorized by the FOIA exemptions
upon which the Department relies.
Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 8053
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8688

Post by Slim Cognito »

Can someone explain this to me like I'm five years old?
ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 46270
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8689

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

The judge has senior status and was appointed by George W. Bush. (H.W. appointed the judge to the D.C. superior court years earlier.)

User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 7896
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:26 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8690

Post by pipistrelle »

Slim Cognito wrote:
Thu Mar 05, 2020 7:08 pm
Can someone explain this to me like I'm five years old?
Basically, the court thinks Barr overstepped and is going to review the unredacted report for FOIA purposes.

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 9874
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 1 dog, 1 cat, and 1 horse, 4 granddogs, and one grandcat.

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8691

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

Slim Cognito wrote:
Thu Mar 05, 2020 7:08 pm
Can someone explain this to me like I'm five years old?
The judge his own self has ordered the Department of Justice to give him a complete, unredacted Mueller Report. The judge his own self is going to read and compare the unredacted report with Barr's redacted version and Barr's memo of same. The judge his own self will determine if the Barr redactions were lawful and whether the Barr memo was a lawful, factual summary of the Mueller Report.

The judge his own self will then decide whether to grant any other Plaintiff motions or dismiss the Plaintiff motions as Barr has requested.

This is UNUSUAL for a federal judge but he has no choice cuz he thinks and said Barr is a lying liar who lies.
A 19th Amendment Centennial Moment:
The 19th Amendment was first introduced to Congress in 1878, yet it was not approved by Congress until 1919 – 41 years later.
- https://legaldictionary.net/19th-amendment/

User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 7896
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:26 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8692

Post by pipistrelle »

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote:
Thu Mar 05, 2020 7:35 pm
Slim Cognito wrote:
Thu Mar 05, 2020 7:08 pm
Can someone explain this to me like I'm five years old?
The judge his own self has ordered the Department of Justice to give him a complete, unredacted Mueller Report. The judge his own self is going to read and compare the unredacted report with Barr's redacted version and Barr's memo of same. The judge his own self will determine if the Barr redactions were lawful and whether the Barr memo was a lawful, factual summary of the Mueller Report.

The judge his own self will then decide whether to grant any other Plaintiff motions or dismiss the Plaintiff motions as Barr has requested.

This is UNUSUAL for a federal judge but he has no choice cuz he thinks and said Barr is a lying liar who lies.
Showoff. :blink: But I was mostly right. :-D

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 9874
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 1 dog, 1 cat, and 1 horse, 4 granddogs, and one grandcat.

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8693

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

You were right. I merely wanted to emphasize how unusual this is. The judge's clerks usually do the slog work but I got the impression this judge plans to have his own look see.
A 19th Amendment Centennial Moment:
The 19th Amendment was first introduced to Congress in 1878, yet it was not approved by Congress until 1919 – 41 years later.
- https://legaldictionary.net/19th-amendment/

User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 8053
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8694

Post by Slim Cognito »

Thanks all.
ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
MsDaisy
Posts: 5196
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:30 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8695

Post by MsDaisy »

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote:
Thu Mar 05, 2020 7:35 pm
Slim Cognito wrote:
Thu Mar 05, 2020 7:08 pm
Can someone explain this to me like I'm five years old?
:snippity:
This is UNUSUAL for a federal judge but he has no choice cuz he thinks and said Barr is a lying liar who lies.
:popcorn:

I do imagine this will cause Trump to have a shit fit :lol:
Birfers are toast

User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 2725
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

#8696

Post by fierceredpanda »

The Department of Justice is certainly going to appeal. They'll probably get Naomi Rao on the panel again, who will concoct some amazing new legal doctrine in order to conclude that this decision is ultravires. Then it's off to an en banc rehearing and a petition for cert. The next POTUS will be sworn in before the judge actually gets to read the report.

However, my lack of joy on that score is tempered by my gratitude to the judge for having the courage to declare that the emperor is completely nude. His commentary on what Barr has done to the credibility of the DOJ is both heartening and deeply sad.
"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
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 9874
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 1 dog, 1 cat, and 1 horse, 4 granddogs, and one grandcat.

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8697

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... smsnnews11

Highlights from the order:
"The inconsistencies between Attorney General Barr's statements, made at a time when the public did not have access to the redacted version of the Mueller Report to assess the veracity of his statements, and portions of the redacted version of the Mueller Report that conflict with those statements cause the Court to seriously question whether Attorney General Barr made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller Report in favor of President Trump despite certain findings in the redacted version of the Mueller Report to the contrary," Walton wrote.

He added: "The speed by which Attorney General Barr released to the public the summary of Special Counsel Mueller's principal conclusions, coupled with the fact that Attorney General Barr failed to provide a thorough representation of the findings set forth in the Mueller Report, causes the Court to question whether Attorney General Barr's intent was to create a one-sided narrative about the Mueller Report—a narrative that is clearly in some respects substantively at odds with the redacted version of the Mueller Report."

"The Court has grave concerns about the objectivity of the process that preceded the public release of the redacted version of the Mueller Report and its impacts on the Department's subsequent justifications that its redactions of the Mueller Report are authorized by the FOIA," Walton wrote. "These circumstances generally, and Attorney General Barr’s lack of candor specifically, call into question Attorney General Barr’s credibility."
A 19th Amendment Centennial Moment:
The 19th Amendment was first introduced to Congress in 1878, yet it was not approved by Congress until 1919 – 41 years later.
- https://legaldictionary.net/19th-amendment/

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 39061
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8698

Post by Addie »

Daily Beast: Christopher Steele Whacks Mueller Report and ‘Bad Faith’ Team Trump
Don't do stupid shit. -Barack Obama

User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 3506
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 6:09 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH USA
Occupation: We build cars

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8699

Post by Gregg »

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote:
Fri Mar 06, 2020 9:53 am
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... smsnnews11

Highlights from the order:
"The inconsistencies between Attorney General Barr's statements, made at a time when the public did not have access to the redacted version of the Mueller Report to assess the veracity of his statements, and portions of the redacted version of the Mueller Report that conflict with those statements cause the Court to seriously question whether Attorney General Barr made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller Report in favor of President Trump despite certain findings in the redacted version of the Mueller Report to the contrary," Walton wrote.

He added: "The speed by which Attorney General Barr released to the public the summary of Special Counsel Mueller's principal conclusions, coupled with the fact that Attorney General Barr failed to provide a thorough representation of the findings set forth in the Mueller Report, causes the Court to question whether Attorney General Barr's intent was to create a one-sided narrative about the Mueller Report—a narrative that is clearly in some respects substantively at odds with the redacted version of the Mueller Report."

"The Court has grave concerns about the objectivity of the process that preceded the public release of the redacted version of the Mueller Report and its impacts on the Department's subsequent justifications that its redactions of the Mueller Report are authorized by the FOIA," Walton wrote. "These circumstances generally, and Attorney General Barr’s lack of candor specifically, call into question Attorney General Barr’s credibility."
I read it as Harvard Law for "You're such an obvious phucking liar we can't trust anything your whole department has ever touched. If you tell us it's dark at midnight we have to look out the window to believe it. So give us the actual report and we'll decide".
Honorary Commander, 699th Airborne Assault Dachshund Regiment
Deadly Sausage Dogs from the Sky

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 9874
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 1 dog, 1 cat, and 1 horse, 4 granddogs, and one grandcat.

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8700

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

You got it, Gregg!!!!!
A 19th Amendment Centennial Moment:
The 19th Amendment was first introduced to Congress in 1878, yet it was not approved by Congress until 1919 – 41 years later.
- https://legaldictionary.net/19th-amendment/

Post Reply

Return to “Trump Administration”