PDA

View Full Version : Ex-FBI Director Mueller appointed DOJ Special Counsel



Ironduke
18 May 17,, 01:34
I was going to post this in the 'Director Comey' fired thread - but as this is a very important development, it's very much deserving of its own thread.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/deputy-attorney-general-appoints-special-counsel-to-oversee-probe-of-russian-interference-in-election/2017/05/17/302c1774-3b49-11e7-8854-21f359183e8c_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_specialcounsel606%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.375cc88f5803

Deputy attorney general appoints special counsel to oversee probe of Russian interference in election

By Devlin Barrett, Sari Horwitz and Matt Zapotosky May 17 at 6:30 PM
The Justice Department has decided to appoint a special counsel to investigate possible coordination between Trump associates and Russian officials seeking to meddle in last year’s election, according to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

Robert Mueller, a former prosecutor who served as the FBI director from 2001 to 2013, has agreed to serve in the role, Rosenstein said. The move marks a concession by the Trump administration to Democratic demands for the investigation to be run independently of the Justice Department. Calls for a special counsel have increased since Trump fired FBI Director James Comey last week.

“In my capacity as acting attorney general I determined that it is in the public interest for me to exercise my authority and appoint a special counsel to assume responsibility for this matter,’’ Rosenstein said in a statement. “My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination. What I have determined is that based upon the unique circumstances the public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree of independence from the normal chain of command.’’

He said Mueller has agreed to resign from his private law firm to avoid any conflict of interest.

Rosenstein is overseeing the Russia probe after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself. Democrats have challenged Rosenstein’s impartiality in the Russia probe because he wrote a memorandum used as the rationale for Comey’s firing. In the memo, Rosenstein said Comey had violated longstanding Justice Department practices in his handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, but shortly after the announcement of the firing the president said he’d decided to fire Comey before he received the recommendation from Rosenstein.

Under the order signed Wednesday by Rosenstein, Mueller is tasked with investigating “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump’’ as well as “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation’’ and any other matters that fall under the scope of the Justice Department regulation covering special counsel appointments.

“If the special counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the special counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters,’’ the order states.

Officials said the appointment was being made under a Justice Department statute that has only been used once, in 1999, though the Justice Department has made other special counsel appointments more recently under different authority.

Peter Zeidenberg, who has worked for a past special counsel, called Mueller an “inspired choice’’ because he comes to the job with automatic credibility among both parties.

“He’s nominally a Republican, but he’s really not a political person at all,’’ said Zeidenberg, a lawyer now in private practice, who cautioned that such an investigation is likely to take a long time, and may not ultimately satisfy the public’s demand for a full accounting. “People are waiting for public answers to what happened, but that’s not his job. There won’t be a report or a press conference at the end of this from him, that’s not his role.’’

Ironduke
18 May 17,, 01:37
So, Comey's out, and Mueller is "back" in.

An interesting development.

PeeCoffee
18 May 17,, 02:45
Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein seems to understand how things should work from an independent investigative standpoint as his boss ŔG Sessions had reclused himself.

InfiniteDreams
18 May 17,, 03:48
Doesn't a crime have to be committed first? Where's the evidence a crime has been committed?

PeeCoffee
18 May 17,, 06:31
Possibly commence with spoliation of evidence and potentially move onward from there.

I'm not stating that I would start an enlarged investigation with the taxpayers buck at this juncture...but sureIy I would seek some plain answers to certain simple questions from the highest elected official of the American people.
(Obviously Trump's twitter account is giving f**k all.)

I believe that being disingenuous is not listed in any statute as a crime.

Ironduke
18 May 17,, 06:44
Doesn't a crime have to be committed first? Where's the evidence a crime has been committed?
It seems Deputy AG Rosenstein felt that there was enough evidence to warrant appointing Mueller as special counsel.

There are likely things, that have not yet been publicly revealed, as is the case with any ongoing investigation.

We can't assume that just because we haven't yet seen certain things on the cable/nightly news circuit, or in print media, that they don't exist. The facts regarding Watergate took months or a year or more to fully emerge. Just as was the case back then, there are likely bombshell revelations yet to be made.

For example, Flynn request immunity six weeks ago... immunity in exchange for what?

With that being said, I think the matter of Flynn is just a small portion of the entirety of what is yet to be revealed.

What better place though to discuss these revelations, as they emerge, than right here, on WAB?

I do have my own inferences and predictions on what is yet to come, but as an outside observer employed in a non-government capacity in a backwater flyover state, I personally don't have any evidence which I can produce to verify them.

InfiniteDreams
18 May 17,, 08:36
It seems Deputy AG Rosenstein felt that there was enough evidence to warrant appointing Mueller as special counsel.
Rosenstein says it's in the public interest. There’s a difference.

Why is it the public interest when there is no evidence!?

It's in the public interest because we have the MSM pouring the “Russia Connection“ down the American public’s throat night after night while providing ZERO evidence. Both the democrats & republicans are looking for anything they can do to get Trump out of power.

MSM which has now become a faction of the Democratic Party has taken a page right out Goebbels playbook.

This whole this is akin to someone yelling "fire fire", and everyone turns around to look and there is no smoke anywhere. But the same people keep yelling "fire fire". They can’t be lying right? No one would lie and yell fire when there is none? Finally someone calls the Fire Department just to shut those people up.

That's what we have here folks. The MSM has fed the American public a lie enough times that the Deputy AG feels it’s in the public interest.


There are likely things, that have not yet been publicly revealed, as is the case with any ongoing investigation.
Wishful thinking.

With all the leaks coming out of the White House and the Intelligence community, don't you think if there was anything out there damaging enough to lead to an impeachment it would have been leaked by now!?

Also, why would Moscow conspire with the Trump campaign when no one thought Trump had a snowballs chance in hell of winning? No one, nary a one except the ‘silent majority’ actually believed Trump would win the presidency.


"For example, Flynn request immunity six weeks ago... immunity in exchange for what?
Why wouldn't he ask for immunity? Afterall, the Clinton aides all received immunity.


I do have my own inferences and predictions on what is yet to come, but as an outside observer employed in a non-government capacity in a backwater flyover state, I personally don't have any evidence which I can produce to verify them.

Time will tell. I think it's a witch hunt, and a waste of tax payer money.

Anything Mueller finds that doesn't lead to an impeachment won't appease the democrats, and will need another Independent Investigation/special prosecutor for the next impeachment attempt.

Ironduke
18 May 17,, 09:54
there is no evidence!
I distilled your post down to just this, because this is what you're saying.

DOR
18 May 17,, 10:30
Doesn't a crime have to be committed first? Where's the evidence a crime has been committed?

Judges and juries determine if a crime has been committed.
Investigators -- with the title "special counsel" in this case -- investigate whether there is sufficient evidence to charge someone with a crime.

tbm3fan
18 May 17,, 17:06
Doesn't a crime have to be committed first? Where's the evidence a crime has been committed?

Getting past all the Kool-Aid the above is what Grand Juries are used for

tbm3fan
18 May 17,, 17:33
What I find interesting/amusing is that Wednesday night the WH released a statement (from Trump?) that there will be "thorough investigation will confirm what we already know -- there was no collusion between my campaign and any foreign entity."

Then during Twitter time, Thursday morning, Trump let's loose with what he really is thinking. So apparently what is released during media time is what the communication staff wants to say (not Trump) and during Twitter time the window in Trump's mind opens up. Got to say he is true to form, has always been true to form, and always will be true to form. He is a great case study.

zraver
19 May 17,, 03:38
Getting past all the Kool-Aid the above is what Grand Juries are used for

Who wants to bet Comey and Hillary/Obama staffers are sleeping nervous?

"any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump’’ as well as “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation"

Who unmasked Flynn, Why does Comey's under oath testimony before Congress and his personal journal conflict, who hacked/leaked the DNC and why did they refuse to let the FBI do a forensic compuer investigation, what exactly are Podesta's links to Russia, the whole Uranium 1 after massive payments to Bill Clinton in Moscow....

snapper
19 May 17,, 04:28
Wasn't Uranium I a Canadian company?

zraver
19 May 17,, 04:39
Wasn't Uranium I a Canadian company?

Yes but subject to US export control laws becuase of what it mined.

Ironduke
19 May 17,, 05:13
Who wants to bet Comey and Hillary/Obama staffers are sleeping nervous?
I'll bet Comey sleeps just fine.

That being said, just because one is bad, Trump vis-a-vis Clinton, doesn't make the other good. They are both spectacularly bad, but while Clinton is corruptly bad, Trump is dangerously bad.

snapper
19 May 17,, 05:58
Yes but subject to US export control laws becuase of what it mined.

So did Clinton sit on the export supervisory board? I recall reading the case long ago but alot has happened since then and I seem to think there was a political supervisory board and a regulatory export board and that the Muscovites bought U1? As I recall - albeit very dimly - the uranium could not be exported? However U1 did have assets and rights in one of the Stans; I seem to recall the impression that Muscovites got U1 for their rights in the stans? I am pretty sure you are barking at up the wrong tree or special counsels etc would have been appointed and even if there was some underhand dealing - and I am one who thinks Hilary was ineligible as President for her private email account - Trump in my view was far worse even as a candidate. As a President he has been a consistent liar and a joke.

DOR
19 May 17,, 09:32
So did Clinton sit on the export supervisory board? I recall reading the case long ago but alot has happened since then and I seem to think there was a political supervisory board and a regulatory export board and that the Muscovites bought U1? As I recall - albeit very dimly - the uranium could not be exported? However U1 did have assets and rights in one of the Stans; I seem to recall the impression that Muscovites got U1 for their rights in the stans? I am pretty sure you are barking at up the wrong tree or special counsels etc would have been appointed and even if there was some underhand dealing - and I am one who thinks Hilary was ineligible as President for her private email account - Trump in my view was far worse even as a candidate. As a President he has been a consistent liar and a joke.

Is this one still hanging around?
That part of the Grand Lie was outed so long ago I forgot about it.

Snopes: false.

Russian to Judgment
Allegations of a "quid pro quo" deal giving Russia ownership of one-fifth of U.S. uranium deposits in exchange for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation are unsubstantiated.
The Uranium One deal was not Clinton’s to veto or approve. Despite transfer of ownership, the uranium remained in the U.S. The timing of most of the donations does not match. Foundation admits disclosure mistakes
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/

PolitiFact: mostly false

Donald Trump repeats his Mostly False claim about Hillary Clinton, Russia and uranium
Our rating of that claim was Mostly False.
Trump’s reference was to Russia’s nuclear power agency buying a controlling interest in a Toronto-based company. That company has mines, mills and tracts of land in Wyoming, Utah and other U.S. states equal to about 20 percent of U.S. uranium production capacity (not produced uranium).

Clinton was secretary of state at the time, but she didn’t have the power to approve or reject the deal. The State Department was only one of nine federal agencies that signed off on the deal, and only President Barack Obama had the power to veto it.

And as FactCheck.org noted in a related fact check, while any of the nine agencies could have objected to the deal, only President Barack Obama had the power to veto it.
Even then, the president can only prohibit such transactions only with "credible evidence" that the "foreign interest exercising control might take action that threatens to impair the national security.’
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2017/feb/16/donald-trump-repeats-his-mostly-false-claim-about-/
..


Never mind; I found your source:

Breitbart News: fake news (sorry: FAKE NEWS!!)
FAKE NEWS: CNBC Cites Left-Wing Politifact in Clinton Russian Uranium Story
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/02/17/fake-news-cnbc-cites-left-wing-politifact-clinton-russian-uranium-story/

astralis
19 May 17,, 14:38
Mueller and Comey are pretty much best buddies, so yeah, pretty sure Comey is going to sleep with a smile on his face.

Ironduke
20 May 17,, 01:15
Just making a general statement here.

Regarding Clinton - she's not the president. And with the results in November, she never will be.

I personally don't care for the present-day Clintons and how they grifted their way to multi-millionaire status through barely legal means, their influence peddling, staying just a hair within the extremely flawed corruption laws on the books in the US, via this revolving door between public service and millionaire riches that most American politicians end up pursuing.

That being said, let's not get lost in the weeds on this Clinton stuff. At this point, it's just a distraction being thrown out (I'm not talking about just here - though I see many falling victim to it on this very board). Bringing up the sins of Clinton is just a ploy to distract from the sins of Trump.

These are very real and pressing concerns regarding Trump. People who've thrown good money after bad becoming emotionally and psychologically invested in Trump, and conversely hating Clinton, will use Clinton's sins to distract us from Trump's. She's not the president, Trump is.

Since she is not the president, I'm personally just going to ignore anything said about Clinton, and focus on Trump.

zraver
20 May 17,, 02:36
Mueller and Comey are pretty much best buddies, so yeah, pretty sure Comey is going to sleep with a smile on his face.

Which means Trump is sleeping easy too. The only way to square Comey's testimony before Congress and his memo without a perjury charge against Comey is rule that memos record mere idle speculation, not obstruction of justice.

snapper
20 May 17,, 08:34
I would not sleep well if I were Trump as he has now admitted firing Comey because of the "great pressure' he was under due to Comey's investigation of his links to Moscow. So what he told the American people - that Comey was fired for matters related to the Clinton inquiry was rubbish yet to his Muscovite pals he admits interfering in the course of an FBI investigation for his own benefit...

gf0012-aust
22 May 17,, 10:37
in another life I've been involved in investigations. We would start from the bottom and work our way up - the junior staff know far more about how things have been compromised than the higher ups - and despite executive privilege - its the junior staff who bind things together

I'd be starting lower down and making senior staff sweat. junior staff are also far more willing and transparent at interviews

the institution as it stands is a daily circus

Albany Rifles
30 Oct 17,, 16:39
Well, first shots fired.

Lot of nervous people in DC this morning.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/manafort-and-former-business-partner-asked-to-surrender-in-connection-with-special-counsel-probe/2017/10/30/6fe051f0-bd67-11e7-959c-fe2b598d8c00_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_specialcounsel-817am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.34c5668aee32

snapper
30 Oct 17,, 18:02
Full indictment text: https://www.justice.gov/file/1007271/download

I see one factual mistake in this. On page 16 it says that Yulia Tymoshenko "(who had served as Ukraine President prior to Yanukovych)" and this factually incorrect. She was Prime Minister but never President.

GVChamp
30 Oct 17,, 21:45
I always knew Manafort was a spy for Rus- errr, Ukraine!

snapper
30 Oct 17,, 22:03
Yanukovych is not Ukraine and from 2014 has been living in Muscovy.

GVChamp
30 Oct 17,, 23:26
Yeah, and before that he was President of Ukraine.

snapper
31 Oct 17,, 09:00
Now you know why we want him for trial. Sadly the 'fraternal neighbour' will not extradite him. By the indictment we are owed some $78m.

snapper
31 Oct 17,, 10:37
Full Papadapolous statement: https://www.justice.gov/file/1007346/download

astralis
01 Nov 17,, 01:10
this nothingburger is getting pretty tasty.

GVChamp
01 Nov 17,, 15:19
Yup, will have to wait in the coming months to see what more comes out. The file says there is more information known to the parties. That he pled guilty means cooperation and possibly more charges forthcoming. The timeline cuts off abruptly in August 2016, by which time this guy had been trying to set up a meeting between Russia and Trump for 5 months to no avail.

The charges are very "meh." Based on my limited reading, this is a case where I wouldn't be upset by a jury nullification.

Albany Rifles
01 Nov 17,, 15:46
this nothingburger is getting pretty tasty.

Me likee

astralis
01 Dec 17,, 18:03
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/362773-flynn-to-testify-trump-directed-him-to-make-contact-with-the

Flynn to testify Trump 'directed him to make contact with the Russians': report

Former national security adviser Michael Flynn is expected to testify that President Trump instructed him to contact Russian officials during the 2016 campaign, ABC News reports.

Trump "directed him to make contact with the Russians," ABC's Brian Ross said Friday, just moments after Flynn entered a guilty plea for lying about his contact with Russians during the presidential transition period.

Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI on Friday, after being charged with one felony count in special counsel Robert Mueller's probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

According to ABC News, Flynn is also prepared to testify against Trump, members of Trump's family and White House officials.

The former adviser has reportedly also "promised full cooperation to the Mueller team" within the last 24 hours.

Flynn is the first official to hold a formal office in the Trump administration to be brought down by the Mueller probe, which is examining potential ties between the campaign and Moscow during the 2016 election.

Flynn's misrepresentation of his conversations with Kislyak — which took place in December, before Trump took office — were the justification for his ouster from the White House after just 24 days.

snapper
01 Dec 17,, 20:44
Trump must be paniking... probably see Mueller fired next.

astralis
01 Dec 17,, 21:59
well, hasn't touched Mueller yet but he's pressuring Congress to end their investigations (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/us/politics/trump-russia-senate-intel.html).

as a reminder, regarding the Flynn situation (h/t Matthew Miller):

January 24: Flynn makes false statements to FBI

January 26: Yates warns White House that Flynn's call had been monitored

January 27: Trump asks Comey for loyalty pledge

January 30: Yates is fired

Ironduke
07 Dec 17,, 13:30
Yup, will have to wait in the coming months to see what more comes out. The file says there is more information known to the parties. That he pled guilty means cooperation and possibly more charges forthcoming. The timeline cuts off abruptly in August 2016, by which time this guy had been trying to set up a meeting between Russia and Trump for 5 months to no avail.

The charges are very "meh." Based on my limited reading, this is a case where I wouldn't be upset by a jury nullification.
The abrupt cutoff of the timeline was due to keeping information regarding other defendants and aspects of the investigation under seal.

Likewise, the Flynn indictment only covers events for the period from Dec 22 - Dec 31, 2016.

https://www.justice.gov/file/1015126/download
https://www.justice.gov/file/1015121/download

Kind of like a jigsaw puzzle falling into place.

I don't think Papadapoulos is eligible for jury nullification, he waived his right to a jury trial and pled guilty.

It seems obvious to me, at minimum, Trump committed obstruction of justice (asking Comey to drop the Flynn matter and firing him when he didn't) and witness intimidation ("better hope there are no tapes").

While I do think enough Republican senators alongside Democrats would vote to convict if impeachment were to occur in the next year, it seems doubtful that the current Republican House would bring forth articles of impeachment unless something even more extremely egregious were to come to light as a result of the Mueller investigation. Now if the Democrats win the House elections in 2018, impeachment obviously becomes much more likely.

zraver
11 Dec 17,, 01:07
The abrupt cutoff of the timeline was due to keeping information regarding other defendants and aspects of the investigation under seal.

Likewise, the Flynn indictment only covers events for the period from Dec 22 - Dec 31, 2016.

https://www.justice.gov/file/1015126/download
https://www.justice.gov/file/1015121/download

Kind of like a jigsaw puzzle falling into place.

I don't think Papadapoulos is eligible for jury nullification, he waived his right to a jury trial and pled guilty.

It seems obvious to me, at minimum, Trump committed obstruction of justice (asking Comey to drop the Flynn matter and firing him when he didn't) and witness intimidation ("better hope there are no tapes").

While I do think enough Republican senators alongside Democrats would vote to convict if impeachment were to occur in the next year, it seems doubtful that the current Republican House would bring forth articles of impeachment unless something even more extremely egregious were to come to light as a result of the Mueller investigation. Now if the Democrats win the House elections in 2018, impeachment obviously becomes much more likely.

Sorry, but there is no obstruction. 1. Trump has prosecutorial discretion as the ultimate law enforcement officer of the country. ex Obama ordered ICE to not deport dreamers and to release minors caught crossing the border to family members already in the country. 2. You can't indict a sitting president.

Further, all the evidence publicly available so far says Flynn was convicted as part of a witch hunt that had nothing to do with collusion. The FBI agent who ran the Flynn interrogations was also the one who ran the Hillary and company discussions and was sending anti-Trump texts and has since been demoted. In Flynn's case he gets prosecuted for lying, a mere process crime, while in the later lying, physical destruction of evidence, mishandling classified information as part of a scheme/conspiracy et al were all white washed. In fact the FBI originally cleared Flynn of lying saying the lapses in memory were not intentional. They only got a plea because they spent the general into bankruptcy and put pressure on his family. Traits Weissman is famous for, he will do anything to get a conviction, even inventing new crimes and novel readings of law that courts will later reverse.

The whole story of collusion is unraveling. The FBI investigation seems to be based on the Steele Dossier paid for by the Clinton Campaign and advanced through the FBI and DoJ by Clinton loyalists. If Trump was working with the Russians during the campaign, why did he order Flynn to reach out to them after he was President-Elect?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-reviewed-flynns-calls-with-russian-ambassador-but-found-nothing-illicit/2017/01/23/aa83879a-e1ae-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/356253-judging-by-muellers-staffing-choices-he-may-not-be-very-interested-in

Ironduke
11 Dec 17,, 09:02
1. Trump has prosecutorial discretion as the ultimate law enforcement officer of the country.
If what would otherwise be a legal power is exercised with corrupt intent, it is a crime.

DOR
11 Dec 17,, 11:37
Sorry, but there is no obstruction. 1. Trump has prosecutorial discretion as the ultimate law enforcement officer of the country. ex Obama ordered ICE to not deport dreamers and to release minors caught crossing the border to family members already in the country. 2. You can't indict a sitting president.

Further, all the evidence publicly available so far says Flynn was convicted as part of a witch hunt that had nothing to do with collusion. The FBI agent who ran the Flynn interrogations was also the one who ran the Hillary and company discussions and was sending anti-Trump texts and has since been demoted. In Flynn's case he gets prosecuted for lying, a mere process crime, while in the later lying, physical destruction of evidence, mishandling classified information as part of a scheme/conspiracy et al were all white washed. In fact the FBI originally cleared Flynn of lying saying the lapses in memory were not intentional. They only got a plea because they spent the general into bankruptcy and put pressure on his family. Traits Weissman is famous for, he will do anything to get a conviction, even inventing new crimes and novel readings of law that courts will later reverse.

The whole story of collusion is unraveling. The FBI investigation seems to be based on the Steele Dossier paid for by the Clinton Campaign and advanced through the FBI and DoJ by Clinton loyalists. If Trump was working with the Russians during the campaign, why did he order Flynn to reach out to them after he was President-Elect?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-reviewed-flynns-calls-with-russian-ambassador-but-found-nothing-illicit/2017/01/23/aa83879a-e1ae-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/356253-judging-by-muellers-staffing-choices-he-may-not-be-very-interested-in

No one is above the law.
That's basic America 101.

zraver
11 Dec 17,, 13:54
No one is above the law.
That's basic America 101.

Except the President using his constitutional powers to control the executive is not above the law. Co-Equal Branches of Government. Its why for example no president has ever acknowledged the War Powers Act. Congress does not have the authority to statutorily confine the President's actions. We have had 2 presidents nailed for obstruction. Nixon for Bribery and Clinton for perjury. Neither of those involved using constitutional powers. The heads of executive agencies serve at the pleasure of the president and wield authority devolved from the office of the president and the president retains those powers anytime he wishes to exercise them.

However, since no one is above the law; Mueller should be investigated for leaks from the special counsel, Comey should be prosecuted for mishandling government documents and leaks... Your words and all that.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-a-president-obstruct-justice-1512938781?shareToken=st43b2cfc7e8824c63924afbbf9b e20a7e&reflink=article_email_share

astralis
11 Dec 17,, 16:42
z,



Further, all the evidence publicly available so far says Flynn was convicted as part of a witch hunt that had nothing to do with collusion. The FBI agent who ran the Flynn interrogations was also the one who ran the Hillary and company discussions and was sending anti-Trump texts and has since been demoted. In Flynn's case he gets prosecuted for lying, a mere process crime, while in the later lying, physical destruction of evidence, mishandling classified information as part of a scheme/conspiracy et al were all white washed. In fact the FBI originally cleared Flynn of lying saying the lapses in memory were not intentional. They only got a plea because they spent the general into bankruptcy and put pressure on his family. Traits Weissman is famous for, he will do anything to get a conviction, even inventing new crimes and novel readings of law that courts will later reverse.

if the Flynn investigation was run on a single thread by a biased investigator (which shouldn't matter outside purposes of professional perception; after all, the charges/evidence needs to hold up in court), then there's no way Flynn pleads guilty to anything.

the idea that Flynn gave up because he feared bankruptcy is risible-- not only does the LTG (ret) have plenty of resources by himself, Trump certainly wouldn't leave a guiltless subordinate in the lurch, plus every conservative law group in DC would be jumping to fight this out pro-bono.

i agree that ultimately the President himself will be judged not in a court of law but as part of a straight political calculation in the Senate. does Trump being there help or hurt the Republican cause, or more specifically, the re-election cause of a bunch of GOP senators.

the way this investigation is going leads me to believe there will probably be more indictments and convictions of other members in the Trump candidacy, but probably not of Trump himself-- as far as i can tell he neither has the cunning nor the secretiveness needed to keep up a campaign of deliberate collusion.

given that Trump's campaign DID feature more-than-the-usual collection of stupid naive fools (see: Papadopoulos (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/for-trump-adviser-at-center-of-russia-probe-a-rapid-rise-and-dramatic-fall-in-his-ancestral-land/2017/12/10/91bb696a-d390-11e7-9ad9-ca0619edfa05_story.html), Kushner, Trump Jr), it's likely there was a bunch of situational activities, a la Trump Jr accepting "help" from Wikileaks.

DOR
11 Dec 17,, 18:54
Wasn't Uranium I a Canadian company?


“Hillary Clinton Gave 20 Percent of United States' Uranium to Russia in Exchange for Clinton Foundation Donations?”
Can I get a big “nope” ?
Yup.
https://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/


"Did Hillary Clinton Tell FBI's Mueller to Deliver Uranium to Russians in 2009 'Secret Tarmac Meeting'?"
Did someone say, “nope” ?
Yup.
https://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-robert-mueller-uranium/


"Two Clinton Employees Arrested For Destroying Evidence As Uranium Probe Begins?"
Does Snopes.com have a “liar, liar, pants on fire” rating?
Nope, but it should.
https://www.snopes.com/two-clinton-employees-arrested-destroying-evidence-uranium-probe-begins/

DOR
11 Dec 17,, 18:57
Except the President using his constitutional powers to control the executive is not above the law. Co-Equal Branches of Government. Its why for example no president has ever acknowledged the War Powers Act. Congress does not have the authority to statutorily confine the President's actions. We have had 2 presidents nailed for obstruction. Nixon for Bribery and Clinton for perjury. Neither of those involved using constitutional powers. The heads of executive agencies serve at the pleasure of the president and wield authority devolved from the office of the president and the president retains those powers anytime he wishes to exercise them.

However, since no one is above the law; Mueller should be investigated for leaks from the special counsel, Comey should be prosecuted for mishandling government documents and leaks... Your words and all that.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-a-president-obstruct-justice-1512938781?shareToken=st43b2cfc7e8824c63924afbbf9b e20a7e&reflink=article_email_share

Wow.
Just, wow.

You're actually responding to "no one is above the law" with "the President using his constitutional powers to control the executive."

What part of your response was supposed to be related in some way to my statement?

snapper
11 Dec 17,, 19:48
Reminiscent of Charles l. But in truth it is more Roman Law vs Common Law dating back from Justinian's codification of Roman Law and declaring the 'legal code' by virtue of him being him - Emperor and God's Regent and whatever else. Napoleon did another codification in much the same way. But Common Law does not work from the top down but from the bottom up being originally built on custom. I believe if you can prove that some practice has been carried on in such a place/fashion or whatever since the time of Richard ll or some other ways that I forget but which prove it has always been that way for known memory in England that becomes enshrined in Common Law and only an Act of Parliament may change it.

The English Civil War actually started on a point of law regarding who should pay for Navy. By custom certain ports (called the "Cinque Ports", there being 5 of them) were free from excise duty payments when importing French wine etc... In return they had to supply ships for the Navy or pay a 'ship tax' so others could build and maintain the Navy. Well Charlie l was after money so he proposed that all towns should contribute to the 'ship tax' but the law, being based on custom, said no; this is not normal practice. Charles was very reluctant to call Parliament to propose this change and tried to impose it himself because of his theory of the Divine Right of Kings - being appointed by God etc - and therefore all law must be derived from God's Appointed - just like Justinian. Of course the English at the time were not so easily fooled - if one person is the font of law and therefore above it then absolute rule - a la Loius XlV - follows. When Charles eventually had to call Parliament they kicked up a fuss and he insisted on his presumed 'rights' which were contrary to the Common Law. Thus war.

I don't know much about the US version of Common Law but if you let this claptrap pass liberty is over. It disgusts me to see so called 'conservatives', the very idea of which is enshrined in the custom based Common Law, try to say that the Head of State is above all law. So should he turn the troops on the people that would be legal, should he imprison all opposition - abolish the Congress - nothing illegal would have passed? Perhaps this is what he admires in Putin? A 'show democracy' might suit him or just rule by decree. No no this a very dark path.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBiLT3LASk

GVChamp
11 Dec 17,, 22:04
The President has absolute and total authority over all federal criminal prosecution.

The last administration to lay out the policy that DOJ could not indict the President was Clinton.

Liberty is not dead. There is the opportunity to hold the President accountable: it's impeachment.

zraver
12 Dec 17,, 01:59
z,



if the Flynn investigation was run on a single thread by a biased investigator (which shouldn't matter outside purposes of professional perception; after all, the charges/evidence needs to hold up in court), then there's no way Flynn pleads guilty to anything.

the idea that Flynn gave up because he feared bankruptcy is risible-- not only does the LTG (ret) have plenty of resources by himself, Trump certainly wouldn't leave a guiltless subordinate in the lurch, plus every conservative law group in DC would be jumping to fight this out pro-bono.

Flynn was fired for lying. Being guiltless and subject to a malicious persecution are not mutually exclusive.


i agree that ultimately the President himself will be judged not in a court of law but as part of a straight political calculation in the Senate. does Trump being there help or hurt the Republican cause, or more specifically, the re-election cause of a bunch of GOP senators.

Never getting to the senate. Trump is too popular with the base, the GOP's hold on the House is a lot stronger than media likes to portray and its the Dems in trouble in the Senate as far as seats to defend goes.


the way this investigation is going leads me to believe there will probably be more indictments and convictions of other members in the Trump candidacy, but probably not of Trump himself-- as far as i can tell he neither has the cunning nor the secretiveness needed to keep up a campaign of deliberate collusion.

given that Trump's campaign DID feature more-than-the-usual collection of stupid naive fools (see: Papadopoulos (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/for-trump-adviser-at-center-of-russia-probe-a-rapid-rise-and-dramatic-fall-in-his-ancestral-land/2017/12/10/91bb696a-d390-11e7-9ad9-ca0619edfa05_story.html), Kushner, Trump Jr), it's likely there was a bunch of situational activities, a la Trump Jr accepting "help" from Wikileaks.

Trump Jr was turned on to Wikileaks after they released the Podesta Emails. Working with them is no different than the HRC working with other favorable media outlets to run stories for her and against Trump. Its not illegal. End of the day, no one has been able to cite a statute that the Trump campaign broke.

zraver
12 Dec 17,, 02:05
I don't know much about the US version of Common Law but if you let this claptrap pass liberty is over. It disgusts me to see so called 'conservatives', the very idea of which is enshrined in the custom based Common Law, try to say that the Head of State is above all law. So should he turn the troops on the people that would be legal, should he imprison all opposition - abolish the Congress - nothing illegal would have passed? Perhaps this is what he admires in Putin? A 'show democracy' might suit him or just rule by decree. No no this a very dark path.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBiLT3LASk

No president has ever been subject to criminal law while in office. The Constitution leaves no provision for a judicial branch judge to sit in judgement of the president personally. Instead the Constitution relies on impeachment for High Crimes and Misdemeanors. To subject the President to both prosecution and impeachment would violate the double jeopardy provision. His control of the executive, all of it is baked into the Constitution.

snapper
12 Dec 17,, 06:16
Common Law is dependent on precedent - custom - it has been proved by the English Civil War that not even a King is above the law. There is no "Divine Right" or above the law in Common Law. You want a despot King? You are arguing the case for amending your Constitution in my view.

WABs_OOE
12 Dec 17,, 07:41
Common Law is dependent on precedent - custom - it has been proved by the English Civil War that not even a King is above the law. There is no "Divine Right" or above the law in Common Law. You want a despot King? You are arguing the case for amending your Constitution in my view.What don't you get? The President is NOT above the Law. Congress and Only Congress can impeach him and punish him accordingly. What's getting your goat is that no one in Congress is listening to you to arrest Trump.

DOR
12 Dec 17,, 10:41
Trump Jr was turned on to Wikileaks after they released the Podesta Emails. Working with them is no different than the HRC working with other favorable media outlets to run stories for her and against Trump. Its not illegal. End of the day, no one has been able to cite a statute that the Trump campaign broke.

So, your contention is that an outfit that deals in stolen information is no different from one that gets its info legitimately?

Nice to know where your particular moral compass points.

surfgun
12 Dec 17,, 15:48
Sort of like the National Enquirer?

WABs_OOE
12 Dec 17,, 16:23
So, your contention is that an outfit that deals in stolen information is no different from one that gets its info legitimately?

Nice to know where your particular moral compass points.Politicians have a moral compass?

zraver
13 Dec 17,, 03:42
So, your contention is that an outfit that deals in stolen information is no different from one that gets its info legitimately?

Nice to know where your particular moral compass points.

Are you really condemning the NYT and WaPo? They set the standard with the Pentagon Papers.

DOR
13 Dec 17,, 10:07
Politicians have a moral compass?

zraver's a politician?

snapper
13 Dec 17,, 19:36
What don't you get? The President is NOT above the Law. Congress and Only Congress can impeach him and punish him accordingly. What's getting your goat is that no one in Congress is listening to you to arrest Trump.

I do not believe I mentioned arresting anyone but I am pleased you agree with me.

WABs_OOE
13 Dec 17,, 21:13
I do not believe I mentioned arresting anyone but I am pleased you agree with me.Your lack of comprehension is astounding. No where did I agree with you. My comment was to point out that you are wrong, plain and simple. Trump is not king and he is not above the law. However, Congress and only Congress can punish him while he's in Office. The fact that they have not done so means that Trump has broken no laws in the eyes of Congress.

You, however, are the not the authority to decide Trump's guilt under American Law.

snapper
13 Dec 17,, 21:59
Your lack of comprehension is astounding. No where did I agree with you. My comment was to point out that you are wrong, plain and simple. Trump is not king and he is not above the law. However, Congress and only Congress can punish him while he's in Office. The fact that they have not done so means that Trump has broken no laws in the eyes of Congress.

You, however, are the not the authority to decide Trump's guilt under American Law.

I am not sure it is I that misunderstand Sir - I argued precisely that nobody is above the law in a Common Law system. I mentioned Charles l and the English Civil War - what does that history teach you? So you agreed with me in supporting the principles of Common Law within a Common Law jurisdiction - which the US is. I apologise if my view was not clear to you.

I also said I am no expert on the US version of Common Law - they also have a Constitution as well as the law unlike England or the UK. My view would be that any leader - be he/she a President or a Monarch - should be subject to the laws that any normal citizen or subject normally has no problem complying with. If the Queen murdered someone she should be tried for murder just like Joe Smith who murders his enemy. For the law to be respected it must apply equally to all. Perhaps that is not the case in the US Constitution and it requires - as you say - impeachment. You probably know more about the US Constitution than I. But my point was that if any Head of State get's different treatment than the lowest person in the country - or can openly break the law with immunity - freedom in that country is at serious risk.

GVChamp
13 Dec 17,, 22:15
How does Her Majesty command Her Majesty's Navy when she is sitting in a prison?

There are established lines of succession in the event of illness or nuclear attack, but they are not there for sitting in prison. A part of the government trying to remove or incapacitate a chief executive is a coup.

snapper
14 Dec 17,, 00:38
As you are probably aware the Monarch in the UK has little executive power but to answer your question the heir takes over; this has happened before with George lll when his son, the heir, became Regent for his Father who suffered a temporary mental incapacity.

DOR
14 Dec 17,, 10:04
How does Her Majesty command Her Majesty's Navy when she is sitting in a prison?

There are established lines of succession in the event of illness or nuclear attack, but they are not there for sitting in prison. A part of the government trying to remove or incapacitate a chief executive is a coup.

The inability to carry out the duties of the Office of the President is pretty well covered by the 25th Amendment.
"A part of the government trying to remove or incapacitate a chief executive" is called the House of Representatives (impeachment) and the Senate (trial).

GVChamp
14 Dec 17,, 15:31
The inability to carry out the duties of the Office of the President is pretty well covered by the 25th Amendment.
"A part of the government trying to remove or incapacitate a chief executive" is called the House of Representatives (impeachment) and the Senate (trial).

I agree with the 2nd. There's a Constitutional method for removing a criminal President, which is impeachment.

I agree with the 1st, but if the original intent was to have the executive immune from prosecution, then the presence of the 25th doesn't matter.

WABs_OOE
14 Dec 17,, 15:40
I am not sure it is I that misunderstand Sir - I argued precisely that nobody is above the law in a Common Law system. I mentioned Charles l and the English Civil War - what does that history teach you? So you agreed with me in supporting the principles of Common Law within a Common Law jurisdiction - which the US is. I apologise if my view was not clear to you.That is the most stupid thing you ever said, especially coming from you who claimed to be part of the diplomatic service. How often do diplomats abused diplomatic immunity?


I also said I am no expert on the US version of Common Law - they also have a Constitution as well as the law unlike England or the UK. My view would be that any leader - be he/she a President or a Monarch - should be subject to the laws that any normal citizen or subject normally has no problem complying with. If the Queen murdered someone she should be tried for murder just like Joe Smith who murders his enemy. For the law to be respected it must apply equally to all. Perhaps that is not the case in the US Constitution and it requires - as you say - impeachment. You probably know more about the US Constitution than I. But my point was that if any Head of State get's different treatment than the lowest person in the country - or can openly break the law with immunity - freedom in that country is at serious risk.Edward VIII. Criminal Negligence if not outright Treason.

astralis
14 Dec 17,, 16:27
z,

as i agree with the overall sentiment that ultimately, rule of law regarding the President is ultimately shaped by a political judgment rather than a strictly legal one, i'll cover this part, which is not quite as germane to the rest of the conversation.


Trump is too popular with the base, the GOP's hold on the House is a lot stronger than media likes to portray and its the Dems in trouble in the Senate as far as seats to defend goes.

I think Jones (D-AL) just demonstrated the limits of the first, and there's enough evidence with the recent special elections/VA/etc to prove the second is not quite right, and now it's a toss-up on the third, even with the terrible map for Dems in '18.

i'll be happy to do another butter cookie bet, regarding Dem control of the House. for that matter, i'll bet on the Dem control of the Senate, as I figure it'll be a wash if I lose this bet and win the House one.

snapper
14 Dec 17,, 18:56
That is the most stupid thing you ever said, especially coming from you who claimed to be part of the diplomatic service. How often do diplomats abused diplomatic immunity?

Rarely in my experience. Most are not spies and the protocols on the privacy of diplomatic baggage are agreed. Diplomats work on in an Embassy which is sovereign territory of the country they come from and so there they are not subject to the laws of the country in which the Embassy is based. Nor are they citizens of that country and have no right to vote or anything in it. They are therefore - and for many other reasons - given special status. I agree though it gets a bit much when they refuse to pay parking tickets etc...


Edward VIII. Criminal Negligence if not outright Treason.

Actually about the Head of the English Church marry a divorced woman does not amount to treason.

WABs_OOE
14 Dec 17,, 19:34
Rarely in my experience. Most are not spies and the protocols on the privacy of diplomatic baggage are agreed. Diplomats work on in an Embassy which is sovereign territory of the country they come from and so there they are not subject to the laws of the country in which the Embassy is based. Nor are they citizens of that country and have no right to vote or anything in it. They are therefore - and for many other reasons - given special status. I agree though it gets a bit much when they refuse to pay parking tickets etc...So the King is not above the law but diplomats are since their own governments won't prosecute them for harming our citizens. Got it.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/24534/9-shameless-abuses-diplomatic-immunity


Actually about the Head of the English Church marry a divorced woman does not amount to treason.Don't feint ignorance. Simpson gave British battleplans to the Nazis. Edward was at least criminally negligent in allowing Simpson to see those plans if not outright treasonous allowing them to goto the enemy.

However, Edward also secretly asked the Nazis to post guards on his villas in France. Anyone else would have ended up in jail. The Duke got to sit in the sun in the Bahamas.

Yeah, so the British punish their royals just as they do the commoners. Right. Horse Puckey!

Ironduke
14 Dec 17,, 19:50
2. You can't indict a sitting president.

No president has ever been subject to criminal law while in office. The Constitution leaves no provision for a judicial branch judge to sit in judgement of the president personally. Instead the Constitution relies on impeachment for High Crimes and Misdemeanors. To subject the President to both prosecution and impeachment would violate the double jeopardy provision. His control of the executive, all of it is baked into the Constitution.
Spiro Agnew was indicted while he occupied the office of the Vice President, and thereafter resigned after negotiating a plea deal.

Aaron Burr was also indicted while he was Vice President.

Impeachment of a President or Vice President are covered by the same provisions in the Constitution (Article II, Section 4 and Article I, Section 3). There is no difference in the Constitution regarding the two in this regard.

I'm not going to argue Trump is going to be indicted, but it stands to reason that if a Vice President can be indicted, so can a President.

snapper
14 Dec 17,, 20:13
Simpson gave British battleplans to the Nazis. Edward was at least criminally negligent in allowing Simpson to see those plans if not outright treasonous allowing them to goto the enemy.

Really? Didn't know that but if true certainly she should have stood trial and if he knew her intentions when showing the plans to her him too.

WABs_OOE
14 Dec 17,, 20:19
Really? Didn't know that but if true certainly she should have stood trial and if he knew her intentions when showing the plans to her him too.He should not have shown her the plans. That is treason in itself. She was not even a British Subject with no privy to private British Government matters.

You actually bought that Horse Puckey that Edward was forced to abadicate by the Dominions over a woman? Canada and Australia refused to allow Edward to be king precisely because of Edward's sympathies towards Hitler. It had nothing to do with Edward banging Simpson but everything to do with Simpson banging Ribbentrop, the German ambassador in London before the war.

Your point, however, that British Common Law punishes Royals just as the same as Commoners since Charles I, is false.

Ironduke
14 Dec 17,, 20:37
To subject the President to both prosecution and impeachment would violate the double jeopardy provision.
The relevant excerpt from Article V:

nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;

The relevant portion of Article I, Section 3, which defines what impeachment is and isn't, states:

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

surfgun
14 Dec 17,, 23:34
Got to love Trey Gowdy! He has the best BS meter on the Hill.
http://www.theblaze.com/video/trey-gowdys-scorched-earth-judiciary-committee-hearing-what-in-the-hell-is-going-on-at-the-fbi

zraver
16 Dec 17,, 23:57
Spiro Agnew was indicted while he occupied the office of the Vice President, and thereafter resigned after negotiating a plea deal.

Aaron Burr was also indicted while he was Vice President.

Impeachment of a President or Vice President are covered by the same provisions in the Constitution (Article II, Section 4 and Article I, Section 3). There is no difference in the Constitution regarding the two in this regard.

I'm not going to argue Trump is going to be indicted, but it stands to reason that if a Vice President can be indicted, so can a President.

VP does not control the executive, foreign policy or the power of pardon. They are different offices.

Ironduke
17 Dec 17,, 01:16
VP does not control the executive, foreign policy or the power of pardon. They are different offices.
Sure. The Constitution, however, has the same provisions regarding impeachment for both offices, and Vice-Presidents have been indicted.

zraver
17 Dec 17,, 16:25
Sure. The Constitution, however, has the same provisions regarding impeachment for both offices, and Vice-Presidents have been indicted.

VP's are not presidents... You gonna have Trump sitting in the pokey with the nuclear football? The magnitude of his duties likely preclude indictment if the issue ever came before the courts. Additionally, under a strict reading of the Constitution he can pardon himself.