Mueller investigation

[Jimmy Higgins]

(I still can't think say/type "President Donald Trump" without having my mind blown. How the fuck could people be this stupid????)

If you mean the election, they weren't. Hillary had 2.5 million more votes remember.

.. and the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court has just ruled that the electoral districts were illegally Gerrymandered by the GoP to give a disproportional advantage to Republican candidates.

Google "Project RedState"

But Illinois has that weird district (which actually does make sense in proper context), therefore both sides are just as guilty. Sure, blue states have a more even distribution of US House seats relative to vote totals than red states, but Illinois has that weird district. Therefore false equivalence is go!

 

[Ford]

An article on Slate pretty much assumes that McGahn himself leaked that he prevented Trump from firing Mueller. I've seen that speculated a couple other places as well. Slate goes on to speculate why he might have leaked and why he might have saved Mueller's job in the first place. One of the latter suggestions is

3. Maybe the lawyer McGahn actually appreciates the rule of law and didn’t want to go down in history as one of the men who helped bring about making it subordinate to the will of Donald Trump.

Is it really so difficult today to believe the bolded part was a primary motivation that they had to add "didn't want to go down in history" and turn it into a selfish motive? There are some career people, yes, even republicans, who are not partisan hacks who will do anything to save a corrupt president. We've seen again and again that it just takes a few honest people to keep the ball rolling. Despite what seems like a terrible delay, I'm still very pleased with the way the system has worked. The republicans attacking Mueller now are just further damaging their product and all but the most deluded 35% recognize that.

It is telling that the White House Counsel put the kibosh on firing Mueller.

The job of the White House Counsel is to basically say "why yes, Mr. President...of course that's legal" and then set about trying to make the case. Remember Bush and torture? Despite the fact that torture is clearly illegal, the White House Counsel called it "enhanced interrogation techniques" and then made a case as to why it was perfectly legal to torture people. If this report is true, then what McGahn did is wholly out of character for someone in that position.

 

[Malintent]

.. and the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court has just ruled that the electoral districts were illegally Gerrymandered by the GoP to give a disproportional advantage to Republican candidates.

Google "Project RedState"

But Illinois has that weird district (which actually does make sense in proper context), therefore both sides are just as guilty. Sure, blue states have a more even distribution of US House seats relative to vote totals than red states, but Illinois has that weird district. Therefore false equivalence is go!

The result is not only political, but legally foundational...

My hope is that new regulations are made that puts the drawing of lines into the hands of a computer system that operates based on pure mathematical distribution of census data.

As it is, this system exists, but was created to game the system, not make it fairer. That system could be used with a standard configuration to dictate where all state voting lines are to be drawn based on the spirit of law and hard data.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The Times is reporting that Hillary did something... Better not pay attention to this investigation...

IMPEACH HILLARY!

 

[Opoponax]

It is telling that the White House Counsel put the kibosh on firing Mueller.

The job of the White House Counsel is to basically say "why yes, Mr. President...of course that's legal" and then set about trying to make the case. Remember Bush and torture? Despite the fact that torture is clearly illegal, the White House Counsel called it "enhanced interrogation techniques" and then made a case as to why it was perfectly legal to torture people. If this report is true, then what McGahn did is wholly out of character for someone in that position.

Anyone who understands solicitation and the federal definition of conspiracy would have told Trump to fuck off.

Trump solicited McGahn to commit a criminal act. Here, the criminal act was Trump soliciting McGahn to obstruct the investigation (obstructing justice). McGahn knew that. For McGahn to have carried out the order would have then created a conspiracy (an agreement between two or more people to carry out a criminal endeavor with more than a mere preparatory act in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy--this part depends heavily on district, but any definition of conspiracy is applicable here). By disobeying Trump's order, McGahn insulated himself from culpability in Trump's criminal act of solicitation.

The asking and/or encouraging someone else to engage in a criminal act is a criminal act in itself provided the intent is to achieve the object of the solicitation. We have both elements of solicitation here.

That Trump was too big of a pussy to carry out the act himself is irrelevant.

Committing crimes in office: MAGA!

 

[J842P]

It is telling that the White House Counsel put the kibosh on firing Mueller.

The job of the White House Counsel is to basically say "why yes, Mr. President...of course that's legal" and then set about trying to make the case. Remember Bush and torture? Despite the fact that torture is clearly illegal, the White House Counsel called it "enhanced interrogation techniques" and then made a case as to why it was perfectly legal to torture people. If this report is true, then what McGahn did is wholly out of character for someone in that position.

Anyone who understands solicitation and the federal definition of conspiracy would have told Trump to fuck off.

Trump solicited McGahn to commit a criminal act. Here, the criminal act was Trump soliciting McGahn to obstruct the investigation (obstructing justice). McGahn knew that. For McGahn to have carried out the order would have then created a conspiracy (an agreement between two or more people to carry out a criminal endeavor with more than a mere preparatory act in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy--this part depends heavily on district, but any definition of conspiracy is applicable here). By disobeying Trump's order, McGahn insulated himself from culpability in Trump's criminal act of solicitation.

The asking and/or encouraging someone else to engage in a criminal act is a criminal act in itself provided the intent is to achieve the object of the solicitation. We have both elements of solicitation here.

That Trump was too big of a pussy to carry out the act himself is irrelevant.

Committing crimes in office: MAGA!

Yep. That explains all the convictions for torture, and conspiracy to commit torture.

 

[Opoponax]

It is telling that the White House Counsel put the kibosh on firing Mueller.

The job of the White House Counsel is to basically say "why yes, Mr. President...of course that's legal" and then set about trying to make the case. Remember Bush and torture? Despite the fact that torture is clearly illegal, the White House Counsel called it "enhanced interrogation techniques" and then made a case as to why it was perfectly legal to torture people. If this report is true, then what McGahn did is wholly out of character for someone in that position.

Anyone who understands solicitation and the federal definition of conspiracy would have told Trump to fuck off.

Trump solicited McGahn to commit a criminal act. Here, the criminal act was Trump soliciting McGahn to obstruct the investigation (obstructing justice). McGahn knew that. For McGahn to have carried out the order would have then created a conspiracy (an agreement between two or more people to carry out a criminal endeavor with more than a mere preparatory act in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy--this part depends heavily on district, but any definition of conspiracy is applicable here). By disobeying Trump's order, McGahn insulated himself from culpability in Trump's criminal act of solicitation.

The asking and/or encouraging someone else to engage in a criminal act is a criminal act in itself provided the intent is to achieve the object of the solicitation. We have both elements of solicitation here.

That Trump was too big of a pussy to carry out the act himself is irrelevant.

Committing crimes in office: MAGA!

Yep. That explains all the convictions for torture, and conspiracy to commit torture.

I don't know how all of that went down. But here, we have on good information what exactly went down.

 

[Artemus]

Trump's attorneys are looking for ways to avoid an interview. Apparently a 1997 ruling says that prosecutors must first prove that they hope to gain "important evidence" (their quote) from an interview with the POTUS that they could not obtain otherwise. So I do have to ask, what more could they expect to learn at this point? Trump has already admitted to obstruction of justice on national television. Money laundering can be proven elsewhere. Campaign collusion will be evident from other records. I'm sure that Mueller won't push for an interview in court unless he can make a very strong case for it since losing a court decision would be a PR disaster, but it's again going to be fascinating to see what else he knows.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I've seen Trump lying in interviews, but it's more than that. He deviates from handlers and when caught in a lie, he produces another one. So first I think the value of interviewing him is that he'd be under oath and the secondary value is he could perjur himself. But I think it may be too soon.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Trump's attorneys are looking for ways to avoid an interview. Apparently a 1997 ruling says that prosecutors must first prove that they hope to gain "important evidence" (their quote) from an interview with the POTUS that they could not obtain otherwise. So I do have to ask, what more could they expect to learn at this point? Trump has already admitted to obstruction of justice on national television. Money laundering can be proven elsewhere. Campaign collusion will be evident from other records. I'm sure that Mueller won't push for an interview in court unless he can make a very strong case for it since losing a court decision would be a PR disaster, but it's again going to be fascinating to see what else he knows.

I've seen Trump lying in interviews, but it's more than that. He deviates from handlers and when caught in a lie, he produces another one. So first I think the value of interviewing him is that he'd be under oath and the secondary value is he could perjur himself. But I think it may be too soon.

Exactly. And that he has shown a pattern of ignoring counsel and is likely to provide that "important evidence". Further, bear in mind, we know so little of what Mueller knows and what he may hope to gain from the Trump's mouth that guessing about whether there is anything further to gain, is about as far out on the limb of speculation as one can go.

 

[JohnG]

I've heard that Trump can be serious when he needs to be, but I dont know if that involves the ability to be truthful, and not hyperbolic and ego driven.

Given the Trump we know, I cant see a use in interviewing him. His train of thought usually just meanders around, skirting reality and is usually incoherent.

Of course he'll incriminate himself, but can the ravings of an unstable person under stress be admissable?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Can a person be both incompetent to stand trial and competent to be President?

 

[Angry Floof]

For the first time since Nov '16, I'm actually feeling optimistic that the GOP might be held accountable. Those not actually implicated in treason, misprision treason, or obstruction of justice or something else will be left adrift and some may even come over to the dark (blue) side after they learn what's been going on and see the evidence and how they've been used and abused by their ideological group.

Lots of right wing tears on the horizon.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Not me.

Unless Mueller has some smoking gun wrt Russia, I think Trump's going to get clean away with obstruction.

This campaign against the FBI is designed to paint Mueller's investigation and therefore OoJ as purely partisan, hence not worthy of impeachment.

If both houses flip in November he'll go down, but I think that's a long shot.

 

[Angry Floof]

Not me.

Unless Mueller has some smoking gun wrt Russia, I think Trump's going to get clean away with obstruction.

This campaign against the FBI is designed to paint Mueller's investigation and therefore OoJ as purely partisan, hence not worthy of impeachment.

If both houses flip in November he'll go down, but I think that's a long shot.

The law is not partisan. Regardless of what a bunch of uneducated, Fox News viewing rubes think is partisan, the people working to bring justice will continue doing their jobs in upholding the law.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Not me.

Unless Mueller has some smoking gun wrt Russia, I think Trump's going to get clean away with obstruction.

This campaign against the FBI is designed to paint Mueller's investigation and therefore OoJ as purely partisan, hence not worthy of impeachment.

If both houses flip in November he'll go down, but I think that's a long shot.

The law is not partisan. Regardless of what a bunch of uneducated, Fox News viewing rubes think is partisan, the people working to bring justice will continue doing their jobs in upholding the law.

Very noble; but impeachment is a political process. If Mueller can be portrayed as partisan, that gives cover for GOPers voting against impeachment.

Maybe criminal indictment could lead to something, but that's an uncertain route AFAIK, which isn't very far.

 

[JohnG]

Not me.

Unless Mueller has some smoking gun wrt Russia, I think Trump's going to get clean away with obstruction.

This campaign against the FBI is designed to paint Mueller's investigation and therefore OoJ as purely partisan, hence not worthy of impeachment.

If both houses flip in November he'll go down, but I think that's a long shot.

I agree that the smearing of the investigation is an attempt to discredit the outcome - which in itself indicates they are preparing for a shitstorm.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Not me.

Unless Mueller has some smoking gun wrt Russia, I think Trump's going to get clean away with obstruction.

This campaign against the FBI is designed to paint Mueller's investigation and therefore OoJ as purely partisan, hence not worthy of impeachment.

If both houses flip in November he'll go down, but I think that's a long shot.

I agree that the smearing of the investigation is an attempt to discredit the outcome - which in itself indicates they are preparing for a shitstorm.

His obstruction is pretty blatant. But not so blatant that some argue he's not guilty.

Russia, OTOH, doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Then again, much of that is secret. Consider the Dutch and Cozy Bear. Some leftie sites I follow pooh poohed RussiaGate since forever, the Deep State resisting Trump etc. Now it's crickets.

There may be other nuggets lurking out there. Mueller has been very quiet, and what we know seems to always come from those or those around whom he's investigating. But maybe there are some players in RussiaGate who need to keep their heads down. We'll see.

 

[Artemus]

I've seen Trump lying in interviews, but it's more than that. He deviates from handlers and when caught in a lie, he produces another one. So first I think the value of interviewing him is that he'd be under oath and the secondary value is he could perjur himself. But I think it may be too soon.

Exactly. And that he has shown a pattern of ignoring counsel and is likely to provide that "important evidence". Further, bear in mind, we know so little of what Mueller knows and what he may hope to gain from the Trump's mouth that guessing about whether there is anything further to gain, is about as far out on the limb of speculation as one can go.

My point is that I don't think that a judge will rule that a hope that he blurts out something that might be useful or that he perjures himself qualifies as likely to learn important evidence. There will have to be good evidence that Trump knows something that hasn't been already revealed. I'm just pondering what that might be at this stage and what will happen if Trump's attorneys use this as cause to reject the interview. (Isn't wild speculation the point of this sub-forum, at least provided that one recognizes that they are speculating? )

 

[Underseer]

Fake news!

This is all fake news generated by a secret society within the FBI that is part of a sinister plot to enforce the law! Can you imagine? How evil do you have to be to expect a law enforcement agency to investigate possible crimes? Only a very bad person would even consider such a thing! If we don't stop this terrible plot now, we could end up with the rule of law!!!!! [/conservolibertarian]