Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[Dontrike]

Given Starr's investigation, there were plenty of reasons to impeach Clinton. Impeachment passed House and died in Senate, where Democrats voted on party lines and five Republicans also voted to acquit him (while five more Republicans voted against perjury charge but not full acquittal).

Difference being that Clinton made things better overall while Trump is the incarnation of pure stupidity and made everything he has touched far worse. Then of course Clinton only had perjury while Trump has potential dozens of illegal activities under his belt that proves he is not fit for the job at all.

Context, it's what's for dinner.

[Stormspellz]

Given Starr's investigation, there were plenty of reasons to impeach Clinton. Impeachment passed House and died in Senate, where Democrats voted on party lines and five Republicans also voted to acquit him (while five more Republicans voted against perjury charge but not full acquittal).

Hey, weren't you the one saying that Mueller investigations takes time and already proceeds a lot faster then previous ones?

Are you of same opinion for Clinton acquittal by Senate then?

Or is it different when Democrats do it?

Context, nuence. Lying about a blowjob even under oath, is no where in the league of everything Trump and yet. Look many of the same republicans complete 180 on the matter, in fact don't have go further then the all time great partisan shill of Lindsey Graham's own words on the matter https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses...05596810612736

[Breccia]

OH SHIT.

We don't have time, nor is there a likely candidate, who could get confirmed in my view under these current circumstances.

Yes, that's Majority Whip John Cornyn saying that firing Sessions would be a mistake, if for no other reason, because there is no way he would be replaced. That's right: the GOP just flat-out denied Trump his get-out-of-Mueller-free card, by refusing to replace Sessions with someone who would end the investigation.

Damn. That's going to leave a mark.

- - - Updated - - -

NO COLLUSION - RIGGED WITCH HUNT!

That's a 1AM tweet from a very stable genius, right there.

[PACOX]

So... what are the over/under odds that Trump will start handing out pardons right after the 2018 elections?

I can't see any without it biting him in the ass. He already has to hope the Democrats don't do well in November so the GOP doesn't abandon him.

Half the people he 'might' pardon know better than to accept it since it would nullify their ability to take the 5th when it comes to the rest of the investigation. They would become compelled to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help them God (or be held in contempt).

Trump would only strip them of the protection Mueller already gave them or doesn't have enough evidence against for his personal optics. There are state attorneys wishing every night that Trump starts signing pardons.

[Thepersona]

Yes, of course they can. States throw people in prison all the time.

As someone who's not from the states, this question is understandable. But a federal offence is one that, typically at least, affects the entire country, or more than one state. Way more people are in state prisons than federal prisons, because most crimes by volume are state crimes. If I were to cross the street and shoot my neighbor's dog, I'm going to state prison. If I go even further and rob the gas station while I try to flee, state prison. If I get to Montana and kill someone, that's still not a federal crime, and Montana and New York get to argue who gets me. By contrast, if I set up a massive fraud scheme and take millions from people in more than one state, that's federal.

There are some exceptions, things which the government finds illegal but states don't. But each state has their own crimes, a lot of them overlap, and yes, they can and do sentence people with fines, prison, or even death.

Hope that helps.

Thanks a lot. i did not know that, and was asking out of pure ignorance

[PACOX]

Yes, that's Majority Whip John Cornyn saying that firing Sessions would be a mistake, if for no other reason, because there is no way he would be replaced. That's right: the GOP just flat-out denied Trump his get-out-of-Mueller-free card, by refusing to replace Sessions with someone who would end the investigation.

I'm weak on my Watergate history but I know an echo of the past when I hear one.

[Breccia]

I'm weak on my Watergate history but I know an echo of the past when I hear one.

Technically, Nixon didn't fire Elliot Richardson. He ordered Richardson to fire the special prosecutor Archibald Cox. Richardson resigned rather than do it.

I don't think Sessions would either fire Mueller, or resign in protest. I think he's well aware Trump firing Sessions could be the last thing Trump did. Hence today's "Come at me, bro!" comments.

[Shalcker]

Difference being that Clinton made things better overall while Trump is the incarnation of pure stupidity and made everything he has touched far worse. Then of course Clinton only had perjury while Trump has potential dozens of illegal activities under his belt that proves he is not fit for the job at all.

According to several sources, even non-Republican-leaning (like Dershowitz article above), case against Trump is still far from even Clinton situation at the moment.

It's all potential.

Context, it's what's for dinner.

What, in your opinion, was justification for majority of Republicans voting for Clinton impeachment if everything was so rosy about Clinton?

- - - Updated - - -

Context, nuence. Lying about a blowjob even under oath, is no where in the league of everything Trump and yet.

That's debatable, but i don't care about that.

Look many of the same republicans complete 180 on the matter, in fact don't have go further then the all time great partisan shill of Lindsey Graham's own words on the matter https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses...05596810612736

That's exactly my point, thanks for supporting it.

They are going to be voting on partisan lines; all their rhetoric and justifications are self-serving depending on what is better "for their team".

Edit: I also asked who from Clinton impeachment times is still there, thanks for pointing at least one in Lindsey Graham.

[Flarelaine]

Yes, that's Majority Whip John Cornyn saying that firing Sessions would be a mistake, if for no other reason, because there is no way he would be replaced. That's right: the GOP just flat-out denied Trump his get-out-of-Mueller-free card, by refusing to replace Sessions with someone who would end the investigation.

Damn. That's going to leave a mark.

Like, a skidmark?

[PACOX]

Technically, Nixon didn't fire Elliot Richardson. He ordered Richardson to fire the special prosecutor Archibald Cox. Richardson resigned rather than do it.

I don't think Sessions would either fire Mueller, or resign in protest. I think he's well aware Trump firing Sessions could be the last thing Trump did. Hence today's "Come at me, bro!" comments.

Trump's route would be to have Rosenstein fired the Panuccio fire Mueller...well before Trump was become unhinged. He seems to think Session's is the route now which doesn't make a bit of sense. I like how Trump mostly keeps Rosenstein's name out of his mouth. Can't forget the conspiracy, from Nunes himself to boot Rosenstein before the midterms as a way to derail Mueller. So much for that.

If Trump watched more 'fake news' outlets rather than Fox, he'd know that Mueller is a cemented thorn in his life at this point...mostly due to Trump's own behavior.

[Stormspellz]

According to several sources, even non-Republican-leaning (like Dershowitz article above), case against Trump is still far from even Clinton situation at the moment.

It's all potential.

What, in your opinion, was justification for majority of Republicans voting for Clinton impeachment if everything was so rosy about Clinton?

- - - Updated - - -

That's debatable, but i don't care about that.

That's exactly my point, thanks for supporting it.

They are going to be voting on partisan lines; all their rhetoric and justifications are self-serving depending on what is better "for their team".

Edit: I also asked who from Clinton impeachment times is still there, thanks for pointing at least one in Lindsay Graham.

its not really debatable there huge difference between the two, even more so when you potentially have Trump lying under oath about fraud and treason (the actual definition not constitutional definition). and yes the republicans have a long history of party over country, democrats not so much.

[Breccia]

Trump's route would be to have Rosenstein fired

Yeah...I'm not buying that Sessions will fire Rosenstein, either. Trump would have to do that shit personally...and we all know how that ends.

[Shalcker]

its not really debatable there huge difference between the two, even more so when you potentially have Trump lying under oath about fraud and treason (the actual definition not constitutional definition). and yes the republicans have a long history of party over country, democrats not so much.

No two cases are going to be strictly equal.

Party over country means no Trump impeachment until the end of his first term; or until the end of his second term if he manages to get re-elected (which, in the end, means no impeachment period; might as well look for other ways to mitigate all Trump does).

[Dontrike]

According to several sources, even non-Republican-leaning (like Dershowitz article above), case against Trump is still far from even Clinton situation at the moment.

It's all potential.

Yeah, Trump only has collusion, and every single thing that it covers, money laundering, witness tampering, campaign finance laws, potential treason, and a myriad of others already, but sure it's only "potential".

What, in your opinion, was justification for majority of Republicans voting for Clinton impeachment if everything was so rosy about Clinton?

I don't care about that man, it's just whataboutism for you. I was like 7 when all that was going on. Fact is that if you think Clinton was worth impeaching over because of a blowie and lying then Trump should be a no brainer, but that wouldn't fit with your whataboutism, would it?

[Breccia]

It's tough to top Avenatti, but Stris, lawyer for the Other Other Woman (Karen McDougal) is trying. When asked for an official comment, he said "Told you so."

By the way, kudos to both lawyers keeping their clients calm. I've been saying the NDAs, once proven illegal, are unenforceable. Yet, both clients have been silent so far, probably because their lawyers actually know what the hell they're talking about.

[Dontrike]

It's tough to top Avenatti, but Stris, lawyer for the Other Other Woman (Karen McDougal) is trying. When asked for an official comment, he said "Told you so."

By the way, kudos to both lawyers keeping their clients calm. I've been saying the NDAs, once proven illegal, are unenforceable. Yet, both clients have been silent so far, probably because their lawyers actually know what the hell they're talking about.

That and their clients aren't 11 year old girls trapped in the body of a 72 year old man baby suffering from some combination of Alzheimers, dementia, and other possible afflictions.

[Stormspellz]

No two cases are going to be strictly equal.

Party over country means no Trump impeachment until the end of his first term; or until the end of his second term if he manages to get re-elected (which, in the end, means no impeachment period; might as well look for other ways to mitigate all Trump does).

we already knew republicans weren't going to impeach him no matter what

[Breccia]

we already knew republicans weren't going to impeach him no matter what

Actually, the last week has been increasingly evident they might. A lot of important GOP members just warned Trump openly about the dangers of firing Sessions, and that they would not replace him. If he does it anyhow...

- - - Updated - - -

Second National Enquirer employee granted immunity. The other one is Dylan Howard, shown here accused of sexual harassment, is the chief content editor. At the time, it would have been very useful to have as an ally.

But, um...well, Vanity Fair tells it best.

But that was before federal prosecutors investigating Cohen subpoenaed A.M.I. Pecker’s friendship with Trump now seems to be over. According to a source close to A.M.I., Pecker and Trump haven’t spoken in roughly eight months. Howard remains particularly angry at Trump, two people close to Howard told me. “There is no love lost,” one person familiar with Howard’s thinking said. Another person said Howard “hates Trump” and feels “used and abused by him.”

Hmm. And they both corroborated Cohen's story.

[PACOX]

The GOP only is only holding out to see if Trump's endorsements still work out in their favor for the midterm election and SCOTUS seats.

They'll get their seat but not Ina timely fashion. Midterms...August hasn't been a good month for the GOP.

[Shalcker]

Yeah, Trump only has collusion, and every single thing that it covers, money laundering, witness tampering, campaign finance laws, potential treason, and a myriad of others already, but sure it's only "potential".

Trump doesn't even has "collusion" yet; that is also another "potential" thing if they cannot nail him on anything more substantial.

I don't care about that man, it's just whataboutism for you. I was like 7 when all that was going on. Fact is that if you think Clinton was worth impeaching over because of a blowie and lying then Trump should be a no brainer, but that wouldn't fit with your whataboutism, would it?

Pay attention.

I said nothing about wherever i think Clinton was or wasn't worth impeaching over; i only noted opinions of those i interacted with here (that he wasn't) and contrasted them to opinions of Republicans at the time (that he was), and wanted to see how people resolve this discrepancy.

I don't have opinion either way as far as Clinton goes - or Trump, for that matter. That's highly American thing that i'm not qualified to judge.

I only note that impeachment going through looks highly unlikely, given previous precedents and overall trajectory of partisanship getting more extreme over time.

- - - Updated - - -

we already knew republicans weren't going to impeach him no matter what

I agree with you as far as i see, but check Skroe's rant - he seems to believe some Republicans will tell Democrats they'll vote for impeachment since they are going to get fed up with Trump, and then impeachment will be initiated and come through...

Oh well, intelligence is just a tool in employ of our emotions.