Ed Breaking: Mueller Grand Jury charges filed, arrests as soon as Monday

[jimbob]

By the way, i sure am happy i spent a bunch of time typing out obvious statements from the OIG report that people were so confused about.

tbd:Hey here is what the OIG said!
Evidence!
tbd: Link
We don't wanna read links!
tbd; Links again
Highlight the exact language with SPECIFICITY.
TBD finds a pdf, cuts, pastes, formats posts
.....
Tbd: Hello?
crickets....

I did put a link to the report... they want me to cut and paste a report....

wow...

Hey Big Dog, retype the OIG's report because when the OIG said he testified falsely under oath we can't understand that!



Hey, that was a big pain in the ass. You can't just cut and paste from Scribd and you have to reformat PDFs entirely

In fact there were numerous of other individual lies mentioned in the report, and in fact another whole major lie that I overlooked ("(c) the May 9 INSD interview occurred at the end of an unrelated meeting") which makes at least SIX major lies, and I left out two entire sections of the report about lack of candor and violating media policies.

I cannot wait for the posts that follow to minimize, ignore or nitpick these findings.

"when he falsely told the OIG in a recorded interview that..." So confusing!

Thank you

Personally I have little interest in that case - I am amenable to the idea that he should have been fired, but the manner and timing of his firing seemed vindictive, but I'll accept that. It doesn't distract from the stories about Trump's lies and shady dealings though.

 

[slyjoe]

Kimba Wood mades some decisions today (from CNN):

After hearing from his attorneys, here's what the judge decided:

— Judge Kimba Wood allowed Cohen and President Trump to review material seized in the FBI raids, so they can weigh in on how much of it is subject to attorney-client privilege.

— She also rejected Cohen's request for a temporary restraining order. Cohen's attorneys had filed an order on Friday, asking the court to stop federal prosecutors from using some of the records they seized.

— A government "taint team" of investigators separate from the investigation is permitted to do a mechanical keyword search to determine what material is protected.

— The judge will then decide whether the government "taint team" or an appointed special master would ultimately review the seized materials before prosecutors can use the evidence in the investigation.

— Meanwhile, investigators will not review the seized material.

 

[gabeygoat]

Wouldn’t it just be easier to pardon the ones who have plead guilty?

Nope. Once pardoned, they no longer have fifth amendment right, as by being pardoned, it’s already an admission of crime. You can’t be pardoned for not committing a crime.

 

[The Big Dog]

Nope. Once pardoned, they no longer have fifth amendment right, as by being pardoned, it’s already an admission of crime. You can’t be pardoned for not committing a crime.

None of that makes any sense...

 

[BobTheCoward]

None of that makes any sense...

Supreme court says accepting a pardon is admission of guilt.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

None of that makes any sense...

Sure it does. The 5th amendment allows someone to avoid answering questions because by doing so they might implicate themselves in a crime. If they've been pardoned for that crime, they cannot implicate themselves in that crime, and therefore they cannot plead the 5th.

This is relevant:

A grand jury was investigating whether any Treasury Department employee was leaking information to the press. George Burdick, city editor of the New York Tribune, took the fifth and refused to reveal the source of his information. He was handed a pardon by President Woodrow Wilson but he refused to accept it or testify. He was fined $500 and jailed until he complied. The Supreme Court ruled that Burdick did not have to testify because he had the right to reject the pardon. Thus, the government did not have the ability to cause him to lose his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination through the maneuver of granting him a pardon. The Court declined to answer the question of whether the pardoning power may be exercised before conviction.

If he had accepted the pardon, it would have taken away his fifth amendment right to not testify.

 

[Darat]

Quick and dirty clean-up. The subject of this thread is not each other, drop the personalisation and keep to the topic.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

At least 6 House Republicans now back a bill to protect Mueller

 

[logger]

At least 6 House Republicans now back a bill to protect Mueller

Unconstitutional

 

[acbytesla]

Unconstitutional

Why is it unconstitutional? Do you have any idea what the Constitution says regarding the matter?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

At least 6 House Republicans now back a bill to protect Mueller

They need a veto proof majority.

 

[Segnosaur]

At least 6 House Republicans now back a bill to protect Mueller

If you look though the article, it suggests a mixed bag.

While its good that some congress critters are now supporting a bill to protect Mueller (when they didn't before), it also points out that:

- The house is unlikely to pass the bill
- Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnel has stated that the bill will never reach the senate floor
- Paul Ryan doesn't think the bill is necessary because he trust the White house for... reasons.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Unconstitutional

Use logic, reasoning and evidence.

 

[phiwum]

Use logic, reasoning and evidence.

Oh, do find a new line. Or, better, an actual rebuttal rather than a catchphrase.

 

[quadraginta]

They need a veto proof majority.

Oh, I disagree.

I think it would be at least as good, if not better, to put Trump in the position of either having to accept it, or pay the political price of vetoing it, whether or not it was ever voted upon again to try to override the veto.

That price would be considerable.

 

[Cain]

Oh, I disagree.

I think it would be at least as good, if not better, to put Trump in the position of either having to accept it, or pay the political price of vetoing it, whether or not it was ever voted upon again to try to override the veto.

That price would be considerable.

And it would be even better (for Trump's opponents) if the President fired Mueller. As Sen. Grassley observed, such a move would be "political suicide." Even if Mueller were fired, we'd still have everything he's uncovered. Mueller's untouchable.

Their only play against the special counsel is that it's a "witch-hunt."

 

[blutoski]

And it would be even better (for Trump's opponents) if the President fired Mueller. As Sen. Grassley observed, such a move would be "political suicide." Even if Mueller were fired, we'd still have everything he's uncovered. Mueller's untouchable.

Their only play against the special counsel is that it's a "witch-hunt."

I wouldn't take those odds.

I think the strategy at this point is that Trump intends to fire Rosenstein, and replace him with somebody who will then fire Mueller. I don't think Mueller's untouchable.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I wouldn't take those odds.

I think the strategy at this point is that Trump intends to fire Rosenstein, and replace him with somebody who will then fire Mueller. I don't think Mueller's untouchable.

If Trump can replace Rosenstein with a lackey, then he won't need to fire Mueller. He can just limit the investigation or call it off altogether. Mueller can only do what he's legally allowed to do, and he's legally allowed to do whatever the Deputy Attorney General of the DoJ tells him he's allowed to do.

 

[ddt]

I wouldn't take those odds.

I think the strategy at this point is that Trump intends to fire Rosenstein, and replace him with somebody who will then fire Mueller. I don't think Mueller's untouchable.

I wouldn't take those odds either.

But what's the current wisdom on who replaces Rosenstein? Can Trump move in someone "sideways" from another department - someone who's already had Senate approval - without having to seek consent from the Senate anew?

If not, then either Trump needs Senate consent for the new DAG and the Senate can get their word they won't fire Mueller; or the SG becomes acting DAG.

Who is the SG and what do the pundits say their stance is on Mueller?

 

[ddt]

I wouldn't take those odds either.

But what's the current wisdom on who replaces Rosenstein? Can Trump move in someone "sideways" from another department - someone who's already had Senate approval - without having to seek consent from the Senate anew?

If not, then either Trump needs Senate consent for the new DAG and the Senate can get their word they won't fire Mueller; or the SG becomes acting DAG.

Who is the SG and what do the pundits say their stance is on Mueller?

In addition to that: if Trump can move another minister to the post of DAG, he could also move them to AG. So why fire Rosenstein when you can fire Jeff the garden gnome? A new AG would not be bound by Jeff's recusal.