Mueller Investigation pt4

Status
Not open for further replies.
The one failing of the 'ignore button' is that it doesn't work when people quote someone on 'ignore' in a reply. Rather defeats the purpose. Ah, well. Nothing's perfect. Except Trump. Just ask him.
 
timhau said:
Who is Scott Free, and why are Cohen's inlaws on him?
Click to expand...
Wait, is Scot Free a racist term? Does it refer to Scots?

I'm kinda feeling bad about the use of that term now. I have nothing against the Scots, I promise.
 
The Big Dog said:
lauding someone for telling the truth is plainly not a corrupt attempt to impede the investigation, as shown by the language I quoted above.
Click to expand...

I was intending that more broadly, but I see how one could take it more narrowly, to apply to Trump wanting Stone to testify truthfully, as you did.

However, more broadly, do you see anything that Trump has done that might fall under section (c)?
 
Paul2 said:
I was intending that more broadly, but I see how one could take it more narrowly, to apply to Trump wanting Stone to testify truthfully, as you did.

However, more broadly, do you see anything that Trump has done that might fall under section (c)?
Click to expand...

Nothing that anyone would be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, or to steal Comey's line, nothing that a reasonable prosecutor would try to seek an indictment on.
 
smartcooky said:
He doesn't care to... that his problem

In the meantime, from Steve Benen (MSNBC)

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trumps-latest-twitter-tantrum-raises-awkward-legal-questions

"Putting aside the president’s odd grammatical errors – maybe someday, he’ll learn how quotation marks work – there are some substantive issues to consider in the wake of his little rant.

First, it’s worth appreciating the degree to which Trump sounds less like a president and more like Tony Soprano. Last week, Trump argued that those who cooperate with federal investigators (Michael Cohen) are “weak,” while those who don’t (Paul Manafort) may be deserving of a pardon. Today’s tantrum dovetails nicely with this same mob-boss posture.

Second, though Trump often forgets, he is the nation’s chief law-enforcement official – a president is responsible under the Constitution for executing the nation’s laws – and inserting himself in Cohen’s legal proceedings, while they’re ongoing, is a very bad idea.

Third, the idea that Cohen’s misdeeds were “unrelated to Trump” is hilariously wrong. Indeed, when Cohen acknowledged making illegal payoffs to Stormy Daniels, Donald Trump was an unindicted co-conspirator in Cohen’s guilty plea. Unless the president is unclear on the meaning of “unrelated,” he must realize how brazenly he’s lying.

But even if we put all of that aside, there’s the larger question of whether Trump’s Twitter tantrum is itself legally dubious – because it fits into a larger pattern in which the president sends not-so-subtle signals to possible witnesses that those who stand by him are worthy of praise, while those who betray him should “serve a full and complete sentence.”

This is of particular interest this morning with relation to Roger Stone, who appears to be an important figure in the special counsel’s investigation, and whom Trump appears to be encouraging to show “guts” in the face of Mueller’s questions.

George Conway implied this morning that the president’s tweets constitute witness tampering. Neal Katyal, a former acting solicitor general, agreed."​
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for him (Trump) to show up somewhere in a "Snitches Get Stitches" T shirt.
 
private citizen, legal: "Be sure you tell the truth about me, witness."
private citizen, illegal: "Be sure you tell the truth about me, witness, or your kneecaps might accidentally break."
POTUS, *gray area*: "Be sure you tell the truth about me, witness."

The difficulty with a President communicating to the witness is that there are implications either way as to ramifications of loyalty to the President. The power divide between POTUS and private citizen is so great that a threat of potential negative consequence from unflattering testimony is there already. More confusing is the positive consequence – again does not need to be explicitly stated – in the form of a potential pardon resulting from positive testimony.

This is why a sitting POTUS should keep his yap shut in such matters and let the investigation work itself out. Unless, of course, he knows that an extremely tacky house of cards is about to suffer some major structural damage.
 
phiwum said:
Wait, is Scot Free a racist term? Does it refer to Scots?

I'm kinda feeling bad about the use of that term now. I have nothing against the Scots, I promise.
Click to expand...


Archaic word for taxes : https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/scot-free.html

'Skat' is a Scandinavian word for tax or payment and the word migrated to Britain and mutated into 'scot' as the name of a redistributive taxation, levied as early the 10th century as a form of municipal poor relief.

'Scot' as a term for tax has been used since then in various forms - Church scot, Rome scot, Soul scot and so on. Whatever the tax, the phrase 'getting off scot free' simply refers to not paying one's taxes.
Click to expand...
 
ROGER STONE "Those who said the presidents warm and complementary tweet constitutes witness tampering should be reminded that I have never been contacted by any investigative body And therefore by definition this cannot be true"

very legal and very cool
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
The point of the tweet is that this isn't actually new, it's what Abramson has been saying for 2 years now, which is only just now starting to be taken seriously by the mainstream media.

Not to take away from Maddow - I've never watched her stuff so don't know a lot about her - but to note that people praising her and other media pundits for connecting the dots are ignoring that the same dots have actually been connected for quite a long while.
Click to expand...

Except for the Trumpers and people who are apathetic, I think most people are familiar with all this crap. It's not like no one is covering it. Rather, the two main cable news stations, CNN and MSNBC keep piling on story after story without focus. Except for Maddow's in depth program, the rest of it has been reported but nothing stands out for long.

Even Maddow's stories don't stand out for long.
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
Nothing that anyone would be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, or to steal Comey's line, nothing that a reasonable prosecutor would try to seek an indictment on.
Click to expand...
How about Trump firing Comey because of the Russia investigation, as Trump noted in the Lester Holt interview? There is supplementary evidence which, while maybe not examples of attempts to impede on their own, are in support of a corrupt intent toward the investigation (calling it a witch hunt, expressing a desire to stop it, complaining about Sessions having recused himself, and numerous press reports about other activities and conversations about the Mueller investigation).
 
The Big Dog said:
ROGER STONE "Those who said the presidents warm and complementary tweet constitutes witness tampering should be reminded that I have never been contacted by any investigative body And therefore by definition this cannot be true"

very legal and very cool
Click to expand...

Do we have confirmation of Stone's claim that he has not been contacted by any investigative body? I don't mean to imply that we don't have confirmation, I'm just looking for more information.
 
Paul2 said:
How about Trump firing Comey because of the Russia investigation, as Trump noted in the Lester Holt interview? There is supplementary evidence which, while maybe not examples of attempts to impede on their own, are in support of a corrupt intent toward the investigation (calling it a witch hunt, expressing a desire to stop it, complaining about Sessions having recused himself, and numerous press reports about other activities and conversations about the Mueller investigation).
Click to expand...

At this point, I don't remember the details of the Comey firing, and not really interested in going back on that detour in this thread.

The other things are not only not overt acts, I would think one would have a real first amendment problem trying to criminalize bitching about the fuzz.
 
The Big Dog said:
At this point, I don't remember the details of the Comey firing, and not really interested in going back on that detour in this thread.

The other things are not only not overt acts, I would think one would have a real first amendment problem trying to criminalize bitching about the fuzz.
Click to expand...

So witness tampering is protected speech?
 
Paul2 said:
Do we have confirmation of Stone's claim that he has not been contacted by any investigative body? I don't mean to imply that we don't have confirmation, I'm just looking for more information.
Click to expand...

To paraphrase (I can't remember who)...

He will accept, without question, any opinions that he agrees with, or which stands Dear Leader in a good light, but will demand the most rigorous standard of proof for any opinions he disagrees with, or which could be seen as criticism of said Dear Leader.
 
acbytesla said:
I don't think he's shooting Trump in the back. No, Trump can see the bullets coming as he peers down the barrel.
Click to expand...

It's amazing given how poorly Individual One treated him, it took this long for him to turn.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom