Mueller Investigation pt4

[Paul2]

That would suggest that Mueller has determined that he lied to Congress before mueller saw the testimony to Congress.

It's not that Mueller has to determine that Stone lied to investigate him, he doesn't even need a suspicion that he did: Stone only need to be part of a reasonable connection to Russian interference, which he obviously is (Russia --> Wikileaks --> Stone, combined with Trump --> Stone). And Mueller can investigate Stone in order to see if something can be found out about another person who is under suspicion.

And OF COURSE that does not answer my question about Mueller's scope particularly given the fact that lying to Congress is ordinarily referred to the USDC.

"Ordinarily referred" doesn't change Mueller's charge that enables him to investigate any crime that might arise from his investigation.

 

[The Big Dog]

"Ordinarily referred" doesn't change Mueller's charge that enables him to investigate any crime that might arise from his investigation.

Lying to Congress does not arise from his investigation.

Further, lying to Congress implicates issues of separation of powers. Therefore the proper course is Congress --> referral to DoJ---> assignment to USDC DC.

Now perhaps there was a Congress --> referral to DoJ--> recusal--> assignment to rosenstein--> delegation to Mueller. However the last time that happened he delegated it to SDNY (because Cohen was already pleading), not Mueller, you dig?

 

[Paul2]

Lying to Congress does not arise from his investigation.

Of course it might. If Mueller is pursuing a particular topic, and needs to examine someone's testimony to Congress, and discovers a lie in that testimony through that examination, then that lying to Congress arose from his investigation.

Remember, the purpose of examining someone's testimony to Congress is not necessarily to see if the person lied in that testimony.

 

[johnny karate]

Stick around, you might learn something.

Things we've learned already:

By the way, I predict that the government will ask to have those sealed AND Flynn's lawyers will go along AND that will not raise even the slightest bit of concern from the regressives.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12260081#post12260081

Your speculation about Cohen going to jail (not gonna happen, Trump will pardon)...

http://www.internationalskeptics.co...?p=10857633&highlight=prediction#post10857633

Prediction? Hillary withdraws from the race for "health" reasons. Obama pardons her on his last day in office.

My prediction: somebody's going to come forward to say Bill Clinton molested her when she was a minor.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11191389&highlight=pardon#post11191389

Lets not kid ourselves, does anyone really doubt that if a Republican* wins in November that the only way Hillary does not get indicted is through an Obama pardon.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11146406&highlight=pardon#post11146406

I've predicted that Obama's last act as President will be to pardon her like Ford/Nixon.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11574774&highlight=pardon#post11574774

Remember when you were telling us how Obama would have to pardon Hillary to keep her out of prison?

Your predictions are garbage.

Trump wins, and you can be damn sure that Obama will have to.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11189103&highlight=pardon#post11189103

In fact, If Trump wins the election there is no question in my mind that Obama will pardon Hillary (even if he really does think she is sneaky rat).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11155923&highlight=pardon#post11155923

Sorry, Shillary, felony, jail time unless Obama throws that *********** dog a pardon bone.

If and when Trump wins, Obama will be passing out pardons to the scumbags like Willy and Hilly and their sleazy staff like Arkansas cattle future traders passed out huge bribes in Little Rock

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Things we've learned already:

OOF.

 

[The Big Dog]

Remember, the purpose of examining someone's testimony to Congress is not necessarily to see if the person lied in that testimony.

Absolutely! You see, we agree, and indeed that was my ultimate point!

 

[Doubt]

Things we've learned already:


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12260081#post12260081


http://www.internationalskeptics.co...?p=10857633&highlight=prediction#post10857633




http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11191389&highlight=pardon#post11191389


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11146406&highlight=pardon#post11146406


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11574774&highlight=pardon#post11574774


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11189103&highlight=pardon#post11189103


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11155923&highlight=pardon#post11155923

That should be retained as an ongoing list for expansion and future reference.

 

[3point14]

Things we've learned already:


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12260081#post12260081


http://www.internationalskeptics.co...?p=10857633&highlight=prediction#post10857633




http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11191389&highlight=pardon#post11191389


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11146406&highlight=pardon#post11146406


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11574774&highlight=pardon#post11574774


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11189103&highlight=pardon#post11189103


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11155923&highlight=pardon#post11155923

Good god, but that's a metric ****-ton of wrong.

Is that what winning looks like, then?

 

[Doubt]

Good god, but that's a metric ****-ton of wrong.

Is that what winning looks like, then?

Also note that it is just one very narrow area and does not address Trump predictions.

 

[The Big Dog]

Now back to the facts:

Here is the letter explaining the ethics process:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...ae5d0739b6be8f2ec12/optimized/full.pdf#page=1

As I expertly discussed before, there is no actual conflict, but rather a detailed analysis under the appearance of impropriety standard, which Whitaker undertook and determined that he did not have to recuse.

Really important development.

 

[johnny karate]

That should be retained as an ongoing list for expansion and future reference.

Oh. it will be.

Also note that it is just one very narrow area and does not address Trump predictions.

Yeah, it's an incomplete list. I only had a few spare minutes to put it together.

Also, I'm concerned that the bandwidth required for a complete list of everything TBD has gotten wrong would crash the internet.

 

[johnny karate]

Now back to the facts:

Here is the letter explaining the ethics process:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...ae5d0739b6be8f2ec12/optimized/full.pdf#page=1

As I expertly discussed before, there is no actual conflict, but rather a detailed analysis under the appearance of impropriety standard, which Whitaker undertook and determined that he did not have to recuse.

Really important development.

Your expertise is truly a wonder to behold.

 

[Paul2]

Absolutely! You see, we agree, and indeed that was my ultimate point!

But if Mueller discovers someone has lied while doing that, then it is an appropriate area for him to investigate. Right?

 

[The Big Dog]

But if Mueller discovers someone has lied while doing that, then it is an appropriate area for him to investigate. Right?

Well, that wasn't the original claim, the claim was that was the purpose.

More importantly, as I have explained before, I don't think it would appropriate absent a request to do so from the person at the DoJ supervising him, which was Rosenstein, and might still be.

 

[The Big Dog]

Notable: the special counsel’s office will not be affected if there is a government shutdown, per DOJ contingency plan. Mueller’s team is funded through a “permanent indefinite appropriation.”

fortunate or unfortunate?

 

[Paul2]

Well, that wasn't the original claim, the claim was that was the purpose.

How do you square that with this:

Cool! Now, let’s walk through that. The lying to Congress did not arise out Mueller’s investigation. It allegedly happened in front of the House Intelligence Committee. So explain how that fits within the scope.

Also,

More importantly, as I have explained before, I don't think it would appropriate absent a request to do so from the person at the DoJ supervising him, which was Rosenstein, and might still be.

If investigating matters that arise from his investigations is explicitly written in Mueller's charge, why does he then need a second OK/request from Rosenstein or whoever is supervising Mueller?

 

[The Big Dog]

How do you square that with this:

Also,
If investigating matters that arise from his investigations is explicitly written in Mueller's charge, why does he then need a second OK/request from Rosenstein or whoever is supervising Mueller?

The actual original claim was in an article.

To answer your question, because the lying to Congress did not result from his investigation. It is a subtle but very important difference.

 

[acbytesla]

The actual original claim was in an article.

To answer your question, because the lying to Congress did not result from his investigation. It is a subtle but very important difference.

Of course it would. It is only through the investigation that anyone would know that Stone had lied to Congress.

What you also seem to not be able to recognize is that finding out the truth is the SCO's primary responsibility. If they find out Stone lied to Congress, they can reasonably conclude that he was/is hiding something. Then further nvestigation is needed.

If however, everything squares with what they know, further investigation may not be required.

 

[johnny karate]

And then after seeing Sullivan instead tearing into Flynn, in shock went into a rant how Sullivan had lost it, followed by saying that Sullivan was bias and should recuse himself.

He used to be such a fan:
http://www.internationalskeptics.co...hp?p=11369502&highlight=Sullivan#post11369502

http://www.internationalskeptics.co...hp?p=10831951&highlight=Sullivan#post10831951

http://www.internationalskeptics.co...hp?p=12533472&highlight=Sullivan#post12533472

http://www.internationalskeptics.co...hp?p=12533308&highlight=Sullivan#post12533308

 

[Paul2]

The actual original claim was in an article.

To answer your question, because the lying to Congress did not result from his investigation. It is a subtle but very important difference.

I wasn't asking about an original claim. I was asking about your statement that I quoted.

ETA: Oops, I didn't catch that you answered the question anyway. Moving on . . . .