Mueller Investigation pt5

Status
Not open for further replies.
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
FWIW, it's probably also a good idea not to dismiss it as "just a blowjob", given that it was all part of what was purported to be a wider pattern of sexual harassment and abuse of power re. women, and that Lewinski herself now says that due to the power imbalance involved she doesn't consider their sexual relationship to have been consensual.
Click to expand...
Not to derail too much but I don't buy that. She was grown woman who wanted to bag a president. Bill's being a serial harasser and apparently a sex addict is a separate issue (Disclaimer: I am not a mental-health practitioner). She wanted to seduce Clinton and she wanted physical proof. Maybe she saved the dress for purely sentimental reasons, but I doubt it.

The case against Clinton IMO was much clearer than the one against Trump and the Senate still didn't want to throw him out of office.

I almost don't want to hear any more about Trump in the absence of a smocking gun. He's not going to be removed from office except by a public vote or a health emergency. That doesn't mean don't investigate, but it does mean agree on a priority and pursue that. Move forward.
 
Belz... said:
It should be redacted for sensitive information, sure. But no more than required.
Click to expand...
Trump's team withheld 1,000 pages of Kavanaugh's history where Bush indicated maybe he would have removed 300. I hope the administration is in disagreement about the extent of redactions and is having arguments about it behind the scenes.
 
Bogative said:
The AG is not required to release the report to anyone according to DOJ regulations (see my post above). report-out-but-argued-against-full-transparency-after-starr-report] Link [/URL]
Click to expand...

Not being required to release a report does not equal being prevented from releasing the report, especially if some other law or practice (oversight function of Congress) needs the report.
 
Minoosh said:
Not to derail too much but I don't buy that. She was grown woman who wanted to bag a president. Bill's being a serial harasser and apparently a sex addict is a separate issue (Disclaimer: I am not a mental-health practitioner). She wanted to seduce Clinton and she wanted physical proof. Maybe she saved the dress for purely sentimental reasons, but I doubt it.

The case against Clinton IMO was much clearer than the one against Trump and the Senate still didn't want to throw him out of office.

I almost don't want to hear any more about Trump in the absence of a smocking gun. He's not going to be removed from office except by a public vote or a health emergency. That doesn't mean don't investigate, but it does mean agree on a priority and pursue that. Move forward.
Click to expand...

Unless Barr or Mueller are posting here, no one in this thread is aware of the actual case against Trump yet.
 
Well, Barr obviously thinks that more crimes were committed by those investigating Russia than Mueller uncovered during his investigation into Russian meddling.

Can we get a tally on the cost of the Counter-counter-Russia Probe?
Because the Mueller investigation paid for itself and then some.
 
Cavemonster said:
Unless Barr or Mueller are posting here, no one in this thread is aware of the actual case against Trump yet.
Click to expand...

Oh come on. By that logic nobody here could hold any opinion about anything political.

As long as we recognize the limitations on the knowledge we do have and don't pretend to know something we can't know, we're still allowed to have opinions about things.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Well, Barr obviously thinks that more crimes were committed by those investigating Russia than Mueller uncovered during his investigation into Russian meddling.

Can we get a tally on the cost of the Counter-counter-Russia Probe?
Because the Mueller investigation paid for itself and then some.
Click to expand...

Even better, I'm making a prediction. If there is an investigation into the origins of the Mueller probe as Trump and some of his supporters suggest, three things will be true.

1) No one will go to prison for anything close to what they're suggesting.

2) The net cost will be greater than the Mueller probe (that ones a gimme since Mueller turned a profit).

3) The people complaning about wasted time and money (falsely) irt the Mueller report will be largely silent on the waste of their investigation which costs more and achieves nothing.
 
Minoosh said:
Trump's team withheld 1,000 pages of Kavanaugh's history where Bush indicated maybe he would have removed 300. I hope the administration is in disagreement about the extent of redactions and is having arguments about it behind the scenes.
Click to expand...

And that is something that I have a real issue with.

When someone is up for a lifetime appointment to one of the most powerful positions in the country, NOTHING WHATSOEVER in that person's history should be redacted or withheld. Those casting the votes need to be fully informed on everything.

In this case, the public who will be voting in 2020 need to be fully informed about what the candidates have been up to. If the Mueller report throws Trump officially into a bad light, then the public must be informed.
 
smartcooky said:
And that is something that I have a real issue with.

When someone is up for a lifetime appointment to one of the most powerful positions in the country, NOTHING WHATSOEVER in that person's history should be redacted or withheld.
Click to expand...

That's not a reasonable standard. If person A was an attorney for person B, then any work product of person A for person B is rightly protected by attorney-client privilege. The rights of person B don't vanish because of person C's interest in person A.

Is the standard to be that future supreme court appointees cannot have worked as attorneys?
 
Ziggurat said:
That's not a reasonable standard. If person A was an attorney for person B, then any work product of person A for person B is rightly protected by attorney-client privilege. The rights of person B don't vanish because of person C's interest in person A.

Is the standard to be that future supreme court appointees cannot have worked as attorneys?
Click to expand...

It should be up to Congress, not the White House or the President, or the President's Lawyers as to what constitutes "A-C privileged" information. The current system as it stands is too wide open to abuse by a criminal president like the one you have at the moment. Its allows him and his Senate disciples to stack the courts with judges who might otherwise be considered unsuitable.

(I also have a problem with how you appoint judges and that fact they are lifetime appointment, but hat is an issue for another thread)
 
We have to accept a bedrock level of "We'll have to trust the voters to... like not elect a total manchild psychopath" or the whole systems falls apart.

Checks and balances were (as it looks to me) put into place to keep a... normal President from overreaching.

An engaged voter base is our check and balance on tyrants, not the other branches of government.
 
smartcooky said:
It should be up to Congress, not the White House or the President, or the President's Lawyers as to what constitutes "A-C privileged" information.
Click to expand...

That's even dumber than your previous post. Congress is an inherently political body. And the decision of what constitutes attorney-client privileged information isn't a political one. If such information needs to be reviewed (and you've provided no reason to believe it should be), then the review is properly done by the courts or an agent appointed by the courts.

The current system as it stands is too wide open to abuse by a criminal president like the one you have at the moment.
Click to expand...

But your standard as stated wasn't just about the President. It applies to any client a nominee ever had, no matter how insignificant and powerless that person is.

Its allows him and his Senate disciples to stack the courts with judges who might otherwise be considered unsuitable.
Click to expand...

This sounds suspiciously like special pleading.

(I also have a problem with how you appoint judges and that fact they are lifetime appointment, but hat is an issue for another thread)
Click to expand...

Hey, you got one right!
 
Fast Eddie B said:
I am 100%, totally and definitively NOT equating the two. I think if you go back and look at my posts, you’ll struggle to find any attempt from me to equate the two.

What I object to is the attempt by some to trivialize the crime that Clinton committed - lying under oath to a federal judge - as being “just about a blowjob”.
Click to expand...
Well then you just misunderstood my post. I didn't bother to waste the whole sentence Republicans love to shout from the rooftops: Clinton committed the horrific crime of perjury. :rolleyes:


[snipped the rest, more trying to gin up outrage]

You don't really want to get into this again, do you? Paula Jones being given a 6-figure lawyer for free to bring up a two year old accusation blah blah blah. Then there's the relentless partisan Ken Starr and all that crap. I'm outraged at the attacks on the Clintons, which I think eventually led to ignoring the PDB about Osama determined to attack.

All the undemocratic attack on our government began with that crap which has now culminated in Trump and maybe worse, we have 2 years to go. It meant McConnell stole a SCOTUS seat and he's in the process of stacking the court with Federalist Society fanatics.


Why do you feel the need to insist on pointing out Clinton told a lie? :rolleyes:

Frankly I think his abuse of his position to sexually harass women was way worse than the entrapped perjury.


Why am I supposed to care? Look at the dishonesty and attack on the Constitution the GOP is perpetrating on this country? I think we are in serious danger and I don't say that lightly.

That you feel the need to remind us about stuff we surely know says a lot about your priorities whether you are equating things or not. I wasn't being dishonest. You just assumed I was and assumed you needed to be the honesty-about-Bill police. Not that a whole slew of other people in this forum don't also feel the need to be the remind-us-about-Bill police. It's almost as bad as but-her-emails.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
We have to accept a bedrock level of "We'll have to trust the voters to... like not elect a total manchild psychopath" or the whole systems falls apart.

Checks and balances were (as it looks to me) put into place to keep a... normal President from overreaching.

An engaged voter base is our check and balance on tyrants, not the other branches of government.
Click to expand...


I suppose that true

A large proportion of US voters failed their intelligence test in November 2016. I hope they do better in November 2020... the US need to stop being a joke to the rest of the world, and start showing some leadership.
 
smartcooky said:
I suppose that true

A large proportion of US voters failed their intelligence test in November 2016. I hope they do better in November 2020... the US need to stop being a joke to the rest of the world, and start showing some leadership.
Click to expand...

Well, the underlying issue is that the nominating process produced Trump. As recently as the '70s, both party's nominees were largely selected by party elders. That's a flawed process, too, but establishment Republicans would never have let Trump through the front (or back) door.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom