Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[Crispin]

The real question is will the leftists still be pushing hoaxes 6 years from now... can CNN even survive that long at the current rate of layoffs...

Because her e-mails isnt still a thing for republicans.

[Wermys]

bagelmanman returns every page to desperately try to spin the "hoax" narrative.

He always counts on repeating a story it becomes true. But always forgets about the boy who cried wolf.

[Mahourai]

Essentially, the report was about as bad as it possibly could've been, at least in regards to Obstruction, with the rules Mueller set up for himself initially.

This is just not true. It could have been far worse. Mueller could have directly alleged that Trump "endeavored to obstruct justice".

[Dontrike]

The real question is will the leftists still be pushing hoaxes 6 years from now... can CNN even survive that long at the current rate of layoffs...

But let the lefties continue to cry as the rest of the country laughs.

Considering Republicans still cry about birth certificates, emails, Benghazi, and more and those were actual hoaxes I'm sure what are real crimes here won't be forgotten soon, but you keep trying to spin that.

[beanman12345]

He's not gonna answer ya'll with meaningful conversation, he'll just ignore and come back later in the day with "it's a hoax har har har" best to just avoid the shit poster.

[Breccia]

We talked about this idea briefly before, but apparently it's still on the table.

Fining WH officials $25,000 per day they remain in contempt.

Simply put, with the DoJ unlikely to investigate Trump's defense attorney Barr, the WH blocking testimony and subpoenas, the House is looking to hit Team Trump where it hurts: their money. If Barr were to, say, ignore a subpoena until the election, it would cost him $13 million.

"What does the law say?"

Honestly, the law says "comply with subpoenas". But past that, if the WH continues the route of denying checks and balances, the House can remind Trump it still holds the power of the purse strings. I would not be surprised if, should Team Trump continue being the least transparent administration + least successful member of the Party of Law and Order, if the House just stops paying the Executive Branch entirely, forcing another shutdown until Trump decides to comply with the letter of the law.

"That sounds like it would set up a very dangerous precedent."

So does refusing to adhere to checks and balances. And, yet, here we are.

[Gorsameth]

We talked about this idea briefly before, but apparently it's still on the table.

Fining WH officials $25,000 per day they remain in contempt.

Simply put, with the DoJ unlikely to investigate Trump's defense attorney Barr, the WH blocking testimony and subpoenas, the House is looking to hit Team Trump where it hurts: their money. If Barr were to, say, ignore a subpoena until the election, it would cost him $13 million.

"What does the law say?"

Honestly, the law says "comply with subpoenas". But past that, if the WH continues the route of denying checks and balances, the House can remind Trump it still holds the power of the purse strings. I would not be surprised if, should Team Trump continue being the least transparent administration + least successful member of the Party of Law and Order, if the House just stops paying the Executive Branch entirely, forcing another shutdown until Trump decides to comply with the letter of the law.

"That sounds like it would set up a very dangerous precedent."

So does refusing to adhere to checks and balances. And, yet, here we are.

why would Barr care about the DoJ losing 13 million?
Its not going to be his personal money.

[rda]

So does refusing to adhere to checks and balances. And, yet, here we are.

The executive branch not yielding to every stupid wish of the legislative branch immediately and unquestioningly is exactly checks and balances. I guess that's lost on some, but checks and balances work in all directions.

[Draco-Onis]

This is just not true. It could have been far worse. Mueller could have directly alleged that Trump "endeavored to obstruct justice".

No he specifically said he could not imply or allege directly that Trump committed a crime thanks to the OLC memo just clear him if the evidence suggest it but he could not do so and it was up to congress.

- - - Updated - - -

We talked about this idea briefly before, but apparently it's still on the table.

Fining WH officials $25,000 per day they remain in contempt.

Simply put, with the DoJ unlikely to investigate Trump's defense attorney Barr, the WH blocking testimony and subpoenas, the House is looking to hit Team Trump where it hurts: their money. If Barr were to, say, ignore a subpoena until the election, it would cost him $13 million.

"What does the law say?"

Honestly, the law says "comply with subpoenas". But past that, if the WH continues the route of denying checks and balances, the House can remind Trump it still holds the power of the purse strings. I would not be surprised if, should Team Trump continue being the least transparent administration + least successful member of the Party of Law and Order, if the House just stops paying the Executive Branch entirely, forcing another shutdown until Trump decides to comply with the letter of the law.

"That sounds like it would set up a very dangerous precedent."

So does refusing to adhere to checks and balances. And, yet, here we are.

But who is going to enforce making those people pay? here is the problem with Mueller and the democrats they are playing by a set of rules like the law, DOJ policy and the constitution things that Trump and his followers don't give a shit about. Democrats haven't learned a darn thing they are still doing things step by step and by the book (see Merrick Garland).

This is what they need to do go straight to the courts and expedite all proceedings, summon the capital police and make a list of people that they can arrest with no warning. These are not brave people all you need is one to make an example of someone, not one of them is going to suffer for Trump they are all looking out for themselves.

[Xyonai]

The executive branch not yielding to every stupid wish of the legislative branch immediately and unquestioningly is exactly checks and balances. I guess that's lost on some, but checks and balances work in all directions.

You shouldn't just get to just ignore a lawful subpoena because you're salty about it, no matter what your station in this country is and thinking it's okay is fucking stupid.

[Breccia]

why would Barr care about the DoJ losing 13 million?
Its not going to be his personal money.

Actually, what Schiff said was a fine, so it would be. The DoJ's money was my conjecture.

[Shalcker]

You shouldn't just get to just ignore a lawful subpoena because you're salty about it, no matter what your station in this country is and thinking it's okay is fucking stupid.

if you're allowed to assert executive privilege over requested information, you certainly can.

That's definition of executive privilege:
Executive privilege is the power of the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch of the United States Government to resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government in pursuit of information or personnel relating to confidential communications that would impair governmental functions. The power of Congress or the federal courts to obtain such information is not mentioned explicitly in the United States Constitution, nor is there any explicit mention in the Constitution of an executive privilege to resist such requests from Congress or courts.[1] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled this privilege may qualify as an element of the separation of powers doctrine, derived from the supremacy of the executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.

[Draco-Onis]

if you're allowed to assert executive privilege over requested information, you certainly can.

That's definition of executive privilege:
Executive privilege is the power of the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch of the United States Government to resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government in pursuit of information or personnel relating to confidential communications that would impair governmental functions. The power of Congress or the federal courts to obtain such information is not mentioned explicitly in the United States Constitution, nor is there any explicit mention in the Constitution of an executive privilege to resist such requests from Congress or courts.[1] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled this privilege may qualify as an element of the separation of powers doctrine, derived from the supremacy of the executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.

Correct but how do you assert executive privilege on information and people you've already cleared to be released to prosecution? that's like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube. Trump's tactic is to simply stall he has no legal basis on it because he waived his right to executive privilege early on.

[Xyonai]

Correct but how do you assert executive privilege on information and people you've already cleared to be released to prosecution? that's like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube. Trump's tactic is to simply stall he has no legal basis on it because he waived his right to executive privilege early on.

Pretty much what I was gonna say on the matter, but just worded less snydely. You don't get to use Executive Privilege to call 'Psyche!' on documents and information because handing it over to other bodies of government is inconvenient to you.

This whole goddamn farce is a charade by pricks skirting the line of 'Technically not Illegal' to hold all this information up in limbo for as long as they feasibly can until they can either figure out how to spin it, or until they can do something to make the information held within irrelevant - like, say, holding onto it until after the next election cycle.

[Grapemask]

if you're allowed to assert executive privilege over requested information, you certainly can.

That's definition of executive privilege:
Executive privilege is the power of the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch of the United States Government to resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government in pursuit of information or personnel relating to confidential communications that would impair governmental functions. The power of Congress or the federal courts to obtain such information is not mentioned explicitly in the United States Constitution, nor is there any explicit mention in the Constitution of an executive privilege to resist such requests from Congress or courts.[1] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled this privilege may qualify as an element of the separation of powers doctrine, derived from the supremacy of the executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.

This argument that because you can do something it is also therefore right to do it is logically absurd. It's also legally disproven, as the same Supreme Court you took the time to bold also has ruled against presidents who have used it to shield documents. Literally the very next paragraph describes the case in which Nixon's right to executive privilege over evidence was lost, not by a party lines court vote, but by unanimous vote.

[Dontrike]

The executive branch not yielding to every stupid wish of the legislative branch immediately and unquestioningly is exactly checks and balances. I guess that's lost on some, but checks and balances work in all directions.

No, it isn't. At all. You get subpoenaed and you show, that's it. Checks and balances isn't NOT doing something.

[Mahourai]

No he specifically said he could not imply or allege directly that Trump committed a crime thanks to the OLC memo just clear him if the evidence suggest it but he could not do so and it was up to congress.

The OLC memo is about bringing legal charges against the President - but stating that there is evidence the President "endeavored to obstruct justice" is not a legal charge or outside the bounds of the investigation (really, making such a judgment is the entire purpose of the investigation). The report could have directly advised Congress that there were grounds for impeachment proceedings to begin, just as Starr did with Clinton. Mueller chose not to do this - for a variety of reasons.

[Gorsameth]

The OLC memo is about bringing legal charges against the President - but stating that there is evidence the President "endeavored to obstruct justice" is not a legal charge or outside the bounds of the investigation (really, making such a judgment is the entire purpose of the investigation). The report could have directly advised Congress that there were grounds for impeachment proceedings to begin, just as Starr did with Clinton. Mueller chose not to do this - for a variety of reasons.

Making statements of guilt about a person without charging said person and giving them a means to defend themselves in court is also a big No no. Which Mueller explains in his report.

[Draco-Onis]

The OLC memo is about bringing legal charges against the President - but stating that there is evidence the President "endeavored to obstruct justice" is not a legal charge or outside the bounds of the investigation (really, making such a judgment is the entire purpose of the investigation). The report could have directly advised Congress that there were grounds for impeachment proceedings to begin, just as Starr did with Clinton. Mueller chose not to do this - for a variety of reasons.

He specifically said that he could not make a statement of guilt because the president would not be given the opportunity to defend himself. Kenneth Starr was an independent council he did not have to abide by DOJ policy his only oversight was the courts, the special council has very strict limitation and is not only bound by DOJ policy but by whoever is overseeing the investigations (Trump shills Rosentein & Barr).

[Cthulhu 2020]

The executive branch not yielding to every stupid wish of the legislative branch immediately and unquestioningly is exactly checks and balances. I guess that's lost on some, but checks and balances work in all directions.

I'll take "What are subpoenas?" for 500 Alex.