Mueller's investigation

User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 7212
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:26 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8601

Post by pipistrelle » Sat Jun 08, 2019 10:38 am

Maybenaut wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 10:31 am
SLQ wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 10:11 am
Maybenaut wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:09 am
If Mueller really thought the prohibition on indicting a sitting president was unconstitutional, and he thought Trump committed a crime, he should have sought an indictment.
I don’t think he said the prohibition on indicting a president was unconstitutional. He said that indicting a president was unconstitutional.
I must’ve missed understood. I thought I read somewhere that Mueller said that the DOJ policy was unconstitutional. I must have misunderstood that.
I misunderstood it that way as well, but it dawned on me what he meant. Oddly imprecise for a top-drawer attorney.



User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 5822
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8602

Post by Maybenaut » Sat Jun 08, 2019 11:59 am

pipistrelle wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 10:38 am
Maybenaut wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 10:31 am
SLQ wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 10:11 am

I don’t think he said the prohibition on indicting a president was unconstitutional. He said that indicting a president was unconstitutional.
I must’ve missed understood. I thought I read somewhere that Mueller said that the DOJ policy was unconstitutional. I must have misunderstood that.
I misunderstood it that way as well, but it dawned on me what he meant. Oddly imprecise for a top-drawer attorney.
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.


"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
Sugar Magnolia
Posts: 10522
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:44 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8603

Post by Sugar Magnolia » Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:20 pm

Maybenaut wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 11:59 am
pipistrelle wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 10:38 am
Maybenaut wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 10:31 am


I must’ve missed understood. I thought I read somewhere that Mueller said that the DOJ policy was unconstitutional. I must have misunderstood that.
I misunderstood it that way as well, but it dawned on me what he meant. Oddly imprecise for a top-drawer attorney.
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.
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



User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 5822
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8604

Post by Maybenaut » Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:23 pm

Not a model of clarity.


"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
SLQ
Posts: 3043
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8605

Post by SLQ » Sat Jun 08, 2019 4:56 pm

Maybenaut wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:23 pm
Not a model of clarity.
:yeah:


"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try."
-- Yoda

User avatar
Sluffy1
Posts: 492
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 4:35 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8606

Post by Sluffy1 » Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:14 pm

Just where in the Constitution does it say Thou Shalt Not indict a sitting President?..for it to be unconstitutional..



User avatar
Sugar Magnolia
Posts: 10522
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:44 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8607

Post by Sugar Magnolia » Sat Jun 08, 2019 10:05 pm

Sluffy1 wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:14 pm
Just where in the Constitution does it say Thou Shalt Not indict a sitting President?..for it to be unconstitutional..
Same place it says abortions are legal?



User avatar
Hurtzi
Posts: 435
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2019 2:52 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8608

Post by Hurtzi » Sat Jun 08, 2019 11:50 pm

Wasn't it once "No one is above the law "?


The "water bear" is the first creature to live on the moon.

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 14942
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8609

Post by Kendra » Sun Jun 09, 2019 10:59 am

:?:

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?



User avatar
bob
Posts: 27353
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8610

Post by bob » Sun Jun 09, 2019 2:13 pm

Sluffy1 wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:14 pm
Just where in the Constitution does it say Thou Shalt Not indict a sitting President?..for it to be unconstitutional..
The short answer is that criminal charges would unduly hamper the president's ability to do the necessary presidenting.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Dan1100
Posts: 3582
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:41 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8611

Post by Dan1100 » Sun Jun 09, 2019 2:19 pm

bob wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2019 2:13 pm
Sluffy1 wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:14 pm
Just where in the Constitution does it say Thou Shalt Not indict a sitting President?..for it to be unconstitutional..
The short answer is that criminal charges would unduly hamper the president's ability to do the necessary presidenting.
It's worth noting that was the exact same reason the Justice Department gave when it said that the president couldn't be sued in civil court until Clinton got sued for his sexcapades and the courts said the DOJ was wrong.


"Devin Nunes is having a cow over this."

-George Takei

User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 16170
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8612

Post by ZekeB » Sun Jun 09, 2019 2:19 pm

bob wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2019 2:13 pm
The short answer is that criminal charges would unduly hamper the president's ability to do the necessary presidenting.
Which, is this case, would be a Good Thing.


Trump: Er hat eine größere Ente als ich.

Putin: Du bist kleiner als ich.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27353
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8613

Post by bob » Sun Jun 09, 2019 3:40 pm

Dan1100 wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2019 2:19 pm
bob wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2019 2:13 pm
Sluffy1 wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:14 pm
Just where in the Constitution does it say Thou Shalt Not indict a sitting President?..for it to be unconstitutional..
The short answer is that criminal charges would unduly hamper the president's ability to do the necessary presidenting.
It's worth noting that was the exact same reason the Justice Department gave when it said that the president couldn't be sued in civil court until Clinton got sued for his sexcapades and the courts said the DOJ was wrong.
Unfortunately, the DOJ has no incentive to find out that it is wrong.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 8325
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8614

Post by RVInit » Mon Jun 10, 2019 3:52 am



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

ImageImage

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 14942
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8615

Post by Kendra » Mon Jun 24, 2019 7:23 pm


Star-studded cast to perform play based on Mueller Report http://hill.cm/OoSOKYs
I believe this is the correct link to watch live: https://lawworksaction.org/



User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 6914
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8616

Post by Slim Cognito » Mon Jun 24, 2019 8:00 pm

Kendra wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2019 7:23 pm

Star-studded cast to perform play based on Mueller Report http://hill.cm/OoSOKYs
I believe this is the correct link to watch live: https://lawworksaction.org/
Oooooh, John Lithgow. I hope he gets to read jr's parts in his 3rd rock character.


ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
Dan1100
Posts: 3582
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:41 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8617

Post by Dan1100 » Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:33 am

Kendra wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2019 7:23 pm
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1143191809436377088
Star-studded cast to perform play based on Mueller Report http://hill.cm/OoSOKYs
I believe this is the correct link to watch live: https://lawworksaction.org/
The Rule 34 version in 3, 2, 1. . .


"Devin Nunes is having a cow over this."

-George Takei

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 35928
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8618

Post by Addie » Tue Jun 25, 2019 8:14 am

Cross-posting

CNN
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.



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 35928
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8619

Post by Addie » Tue Jun 25, 2019 9:21 pm

Cross-posting

CNN
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.



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 35928
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8620

Post by Addie » Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:48 am

Cross-posting

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.



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 35928
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8621

Post by Addie » Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:28 am

Cross-posting

Daily Beast
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.



User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 6914
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8622

Post by Slim Cognito » Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:37 am

Addie wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:28 am
Cross-posting

Daily Beast
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]
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.


ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
SLQ
Posts: 3043
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8623

Post by SLQ » Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:01 am

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."
-- Yoda

User avatar
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater
Posts: 5298
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8624

Post by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater » Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:33 am

Wait I'm confused? The current investigation that Trump ordered found Steele to be credible?



User avatar
SLQ
Posts: 3043
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8625

Post by SLQ » Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:44 am

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:33 am
Wait I'm confused? The current investigation that Trump ordered found Steele to be credible?
Maybe. Hence the all around confusion.


"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try."
-- Yoda

Post Reply

Return to “Trump Administration”