Mueller Investigation pt4

Status
Not open for further replies.
It seems clear that Mueller is trying to play it way safer than others in the FBI and IC do - which is fine, since he has a narrow mandate and probably doesn't even try to target the President directly, probably gunning for Don Jr. and Kushner instead.

But none of that means that BuzzFeed is wrong in saying that the intel is there, and that others in Law Enforcement have seen in.

Knowing what we know about Trump, it is certain that he would have told Cohen to not tell Congress about Moscow, if not prevented from doing so by his lawyers.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
It seems clear that Mueller is trying to play it way safer than others in the FBI and IC do - which is fine, since he has a narrow mandate...
Click to expand...

“This investigation includes any possible links or coordination between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government, "and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation."”

From Wikipedia.

Sounds pretty broad to me.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
https://twitter.com/AaronBlake/status/1086990066826780672
Quote:
Giuliani on Cohen:

“I still believe he may have been telling the truth when he testified before Congress.”

(Via @MeetThePress)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

<sigh> Rudy . . . it's established that Trump was still talking to the Russians about the Moscow project through June 2016. If Cohen was telling the truth to Congress, then Trump lied to his own lawyer about it. And from Cohen's lawyer, we know that Trump was aware of what Cohen was going to tell Congress. You're saying that Trump didn't direct Cohen to lie to Congress; Trump tricked him into it.

Shrewd.

ETA: Are we sure Giuliani isn't working for Hillary?
 
Last edited:
Giuliani says trump isn't guilty of obstructing justice because he said 'please' and didn't threaten to kidnap Comey's kids or break his legs.

“A president firing somebody that works for him, if he does no other corrupt act other than just fire him, can’t obstruct justice,” Giuliani opined. “If, for example, a president said, ‘Leave office or I’m going to have your kids kidnapped or I’m going to break your legs.'”

“When the president said [to Comey,] ‘Please, go easy on Flynn,’ I know of no obstruction case that begins with the word ‘please,'” he continued. “It goes something like this: ‘If you don’t go easy on Flynn, I’ll break your knee caps.'”
Click to expand...

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/01/gi...stice-didnt-threaten-kidnap-james-comeys-kids
 
CapelDodger said:
Perhaps we should be watching Cohen's father-in-law to see when he appears with his legs in plaster. Or when he goes missing.
Click to expand...

As I recall Cohen's father-in-law was mentioned by Trump in regards to the money from the taxi business. It seemed clear to me that Trump was trying to squeal on whom he thought was the recipient of that money.
 
More from Guiliani about Trump coaching Cohen to lie to Congress:

"I don't know if it happened or didn't happen. It may be attorney-client privilege if it happened, where I can't acknowledge it. But I have no knowledge that he spoke to him, but I'm telling you I wasn't there then,"
Click to expand...

My takeaway is that Giuliani's making clear that Giuliani had no involvement with Cohen lying to Congress.
 
dasmiller said:
<sigh> Rudy . . . it's established that Trump was still talking to the Russians about the Moscow project through June 2016. If Cohen was telling the truth to Congress, then Trump lied to his own lawyer about it. And from Cohen's lawyer, we know that Trump was aware of what Cohen was going to tell Congress. You're saying that Trump didn't direct Cohen to lie to Congress; Trump tricked him into it.

Shrewd.

ETA: Are we sure Giuliani isn't working for Hillary?
Click to expand...


This! And its so obvious that even someone who doesn't understand US politics can see and understand it

1. If Trump DID direct Cohen to lie to Congress, then that is obstruction of justice (18 USC §73) and suborning perjury (18 USC § 1622) - both criminal acts.

2. If Trump DID NOT instruct Cohen to lie to Congress, and Cohen lied anyway, then Trump must have known he lied, and said nothing. That is misprision of felony (18 USC § 4) - a criminal act.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
“This investigation includes any possible links or coordination between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government, "and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation."”

From Wikipedia.

Sounds pretty broad to me.
Click to expand...

Ehh. Only if, say, there's a whole bunch of related criminal behavior to be discovered in relation to the investigation. So, narrow, with the possibility of expansion on need. The main reason for it becoming broad would be because Trump and his campaign are flagrant criminals.

That's a pretty safe bet, honestly, so questions of whether it's narrow or broad are probably best tossed to the wayside.
 
Last edited:
Trump often comments about the breadth of the mandate because in his fantasy all his past crimes don't count.
 
smartcooky said:
Well, regardless of all this, I think we all know what one of the questions will be when the House has Cohen testifying before them next month (that is, if Dear Leader hasn't taken out a hit on him).

"Mr Cohen. Did anyone instruct or direct you to lie last time you testified before Congress, and if so, who?"

The only uncertainty is, who will ask the question. Maybe we should run a pool on that...

My pick would be Jerry Nadler (but I'd love for AOC to ask that question).
Click to expand...

The most plausible speculation I've read is that Trump didn't personally order Cohen to lie, but made it generally clear what story he wanted told and used an intermediary to give the actual order. The question, then, would be asked by the GOP: "Did Trump HIMSELF ever PERSONALLY order you to perjure yourself?" and no matter how the "no, but" was phrased it'd give them an excuse to scream about false accusations and witch hunts.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
The most plausible speculation I've read is that Trump didn't personally order Cohen to lie, but made it generally clear what story he wanted told and used an intermediary to give the actual order. The question, then, would be asked by the GOP: "Did Trump HIMSELF ever PERSONALLY order you to perjure yourself?" and no matter how the "no, but" was phrased it'd give them an excuse to scream about false accusations and witch hunts.
Click to expand...
Depends how you ask the question. ;)

"Did Trump HIMSELF make it clear to you by any means how he wanted the answers to go? Or that you should not be truthful?"
 
Norman Alexander said:
Depends how you ask the question. ;)



"Did Trump HIMSELF make it clear to you by any means how he wanted the answers to go? Or that you should not be truthful?"
Click to expand...
Probably an objectionable question along the lines of hearsay.

Questions could be crafted about how Trump has operated on previous occasions that would go to character, but asking Cohen to clarify what Trump intended in the very instance in question is legally dubious.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
I don’t see where the mandate requires relevance. It says “any matters”, not “any related matters”.
Click to expand...

Related comes in on the practical side of things. The mandate is first and foremost to investigate in a particular direction. Things that are found by the investigation in that direction can lead to branching off, rather than directly poking around at everything illegal that Trump and his campaign been reported to be involved in.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
The most plausible speculation I've read is that Trump didn't personally order Cohen to lie, but made it generally clear what story he wanted told and used an intermediary to give the actual order. The question, then, would be asked by the GOP: "Did Trump HIMSELF ever PERSONALLY order you to perjure yourself?" and no matter how the "no, but" was phrased it'd give them an excuse to scream about false accusations and witch hunts.
Click to expand...

This "Trump" you speak of who carefully and tactfully chooses his words to achieve a particular level of ambiguity and deniability while subtly communicating his intent . . . who is he and how is he related to the President?
 
acbytesla said:
What's the difference if Trump knew the answers to be false?
Click to expand...
The intention is to remove any possibility of a technical escape based on wording. Trump is notorious for getting others to do his dirty work, and to pass on his "advice".

I'm sure any lawyer can have the answer:

"No, Trump did not speak to me directly about topic X"

to subsequently mean:

"Trump never asked me to lie about topic X".

However by encompassing all routes of communication between Cohen and Trump, that escape-hatch can be closed. But I'm also pretty sure Mueller has all that sort of thing covered. He seems pretty exacting and thorough.
 
dasmiller said:
This "Trump" you speak of who carefully and tactfully chooses his words to achieve a particular level of ambiguity and deniability while subtly communicating his intent . . . who is he and how is he related to the President?
Click to expand...
I doubt there was anything ambiguous or subtle about it, just not as direct as the Buzzfeed article attested. This is also a man who fires his subordinates via twitter because he doesn't have the balls to face them in person. He does almost everything indirectly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom