Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
whoknew

The Russia Investigation: Mueller - "Over the course of my career, I've seen a number of challenges to our democracy.The Russian govt's effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious."

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

This is parallel to an ongoing court fight, but today the White House challenged Congress’ constitutional authority to conduct oversight.

- This is basically a redux of the JDA that Trump used to block Mueller.

- In the court case,  today private lawyers for Trump claimed that Congress did not have authority to conduct the Watergate and Whitewater investigations.

Gun to his head, can Trump name the three branches of the government and their basic function?

  • Laughing 1
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Don't Noonan said:

Devin Nunes is suing a Twitter account called Devin Nunes' Cow. Does that sound like something that a "grown up in the room" would do?

(Before you answer, keep in mind that as a paid servant of the people, Nunes is spending taxpayer dollars and congressional resources on this effort, not to mention the time spent on this lawsuit that could otherwise be spent on service to his constituents.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Gun to his head, can Trump name the three branches of the government and their basic function?

I seriously doubt he’s ever read any part of the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

I saw this last night and I thought it odd for a guy joining Schiff in his demand for the full Mueller report. Mueller already established how the investigation began.

One weird thing is we’ve already seen the Page FISA. Another is that Papa already confessed to everything, all of it, under oath, before a judge. Another odd thing is that the dossier doesn’t really have much to say about Manafort, Gates or Flynn does it?

But Nunes sent Gowdy to see the Fisa’s for him, even though he was chairman. This is what Gowdy had to say on Hannity.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Don't Noonan said:

GOP are the grown ups in the room right now.  The Dems can't accept the results of the Mueller report and are throwing a temper tantrum.  America is thriving under Trump, enjoy it!

In a room of 6th graders a group of 7th graders are the grown ups.  

I'm not sure anyone group in Congress right now even qualifies as the 6th graders.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

I just threw up a bit in my mouth right now.  He’s every inch the partisan hack the right thinks Schiff is.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Blutarsky said:

This is darn funny

"Barr teases Pelosi, asks if she brought her handcuffs on sidelines of DC event"

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-teases-pelosi-asks-if-she-brought-her-handcuffs-on-sidelines-of-dc-event

The best part was him saying that and then just laughing while walking away from her. Ha ha ha 

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Opie said:

the show is starting!

>>Former top Obama administration officials are at odds over which of them may have pushed the infamous golden showers dossier be included in an assessment of Russian election interference – and existing email records hold the key to who is correct.<<

Don't we already know this? It was in the annexure, and not part of the analysis, and DNI coordinated this, no?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, boots11234 said:

This is going to get ugly for the FBI, CIA and possibly the Dems. Can’t wait 😊 

Care to unpack what you think is actually going to happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sho nuff said:

Care to unpack what you think is actually going to happen?

People are at minimum going to be fired, some may go to jail. Judges don’t like to be lied to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, boots11234 said:

The best part was him saying that and then just laughing while walking away from her. Ha ha ha 

>>Pelosi smiled & responded that the House sergeant at arms was present should it be necessary to arrest anyone.<<

:shrug:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, boots11234 said:

People are at minimum going to be fired, some may go to jail. Judges don’t like to be lied to. 

Who do you think that will happen to...and who do you think lied?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, boots11234 said:

People are at minimum going to be fired, some may go to jail. Judges don’t like to be lied to. 

My god, if only there was a judge they could report this to.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sho nuff said:

Who do you think that will happen to...and who do you think lied?

 

No clue. That’s his job. It’s clear that the Russian scandal was BS and now it’s time to pay the piper. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, boots11234 said:

No clue. That’s his job. It’s clear that the Russian scandal was BS and now it’s time to pay the piper. 

Trump has moved past you. He is now claiming that the Constitution does not apply to the presidency.

As a conservative, how do you feel about that?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The many problems with Trump’s legal claim that Congress can’t investigate him

Quote

 

Among them: The Justice Department has acknowledged Congress’s “investigatory powers” as a remedy for not being able to indict a sitting president.

The White House’s position on Congress’s authority to investigate President Trump, it seems, is that it has none. A federal judge practically laughed at Trump’s attorney Monday when he made that argument, but White House counsel Pat Cipollone has now doubled down.

“Congressional investigations are intended to obtain information to aid in evaluating potential legislation,” Cipollone wrote to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday, “not to harass political opponents or to pursue an unauthorized ‘do-over’ of exhaustive law enforcement investigations conducted by the Department of Justice.”

The defiant letter is the culmination of weeks of the White House saying it wouldn’t comply with basically any subpoenas from the Democratic-controlled House. You can’t do that without making some kind of legal argument as to why, of course. Apparently the White House has landed upon saying Congress can’t investigate anything the president does unless it pertains to legislation.

That kind of precedent would lead to a whole host of problems.

The first is the one federal judge Amit Mehta noted Monday. When Trump lawyer William Consovoy tried to argue that Congress had no such right, Mehta noted that this standard would render illegal the congressional Watergate and Whitewater investigations, which led to the resignation of one president and the impeachment of another.

Mehta asked whether “a president was involved in some corrupt enterprise, you mean to tell me, because he is the president of the United States, Congress would not have power to investigate?” Consovoy answered in the affirmative, if it was “not pursuant to its legislative agenda.”

So how do you hold a president accountable for illegal actions? The Justice Department has determined that it can’t indict a sitting president. Given that policy, special counsel Robert S. Mueller III decided he couldn’t even accuse Trump of the crime of obstruction of justice. The only remedy for presidential wrongdoing, then, is through impeachment, which is enshrined in the Constitution. According to Consovoy and Cippolone’s logic, though, the Justice Department can only assemble the evidence and Congress can do nothing but decide whether to impeach.

But what happens if the Justice Department, which is under the control of presidential appointees, declines to provide the evidence — either wholesale or piecemeal, as we saw in the Mueller report’s redactions? And what happens if it declines to investigate altogether? Congress would have no means to collect its own evidence to make its constitutionally protected judgment about impeachment.

And finally, the Justice Department itself seems to disagree with this argument — and it said so in the very same memo that exempts a sitting president from indictment.

In a 2000 update to the original 1973 Office of Legal Counsel opinion, a footnote reads (key part in bold):

Quote

Moreover, in the event of suspicion of serious wrongdoing by a sitting President, the media and even Congress (through its own investigatory powers) would likely pursue, collect and preserve evidence as well. These multiple mechanisms for securing and preserving evidence could mitigate somewhat the effect of a particular witness’s failed recollection or demise. By contrast, many civil litigants would lack the resources and incentives to pursue and preserve evidence in the same comprehensive manner.

So in arguing that a president is exempted from indictment, the Justice Department pretty much states as a matter of fact that Congress can conduct its own investigation — even stating flatly that it has “investigatory powers.” And the powers it’s describing clearly pertain to presidential wrongdoing, rather than some related legislative purpose.

This, of course, is only an advisory opinion, so it’s legal significance in the looming Trump court battles is up for debate. But it seems pretty telling that the Justice Department saw congressional investigations as a remedy for the lack of an ability to indict and prosecute a sitting president.

Which makes the argument that the Trump team is making all the more remarkable and audacious.

 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, boots11234 said:

No clue. That’s his job. It’s clear that the Russian scandal was BS and now it’s time to pay the piper. 

Then why post that statement?  

2Squirrels1Nut: Man that judge is going to sentence that Hollywood star who murdered all of those people to prison for a long time. :)

Other poster: OMG, what Hollywood star? 

2Squirrels1Nut: Oh I don't know that's the judge's job. 

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 2Squirrels1Nut said:

Then why post that statement?  

2Squirrels1Nut: Man that judge is going to sentence that Hollywood star who murdered all of those people to prison for a long time. :)

Other poster: OMG, what Hollywood star? 

2Squirrels1Nut: Oh I don't know that's the judge's job. 

It’s a message board. He expressed his opinion. He wasn’t condescending or snarky like so many are here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, boots11234 said:

No clue. That’s his job. It’s clear that the Russian scandal was BS and now it’s time to pay the piper. 

Mueller Time is over and it's time to pay the Barr tab

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Rove! said:

it's time to pay the Barr tab

Isn't the Durham review basically the Huber review Part II?

Like Sessions, Barr's clear of it now.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, boots11234 said:

No clue. That’s his job. It’s clear that the Russian scandal was BS and now it’s time to pay the piper. 

Oh it was?

Thats odd...that’s not clear at all from any actual facts.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Oh it was?

Thats odd...that’s not clear at all from any actual facts.

I picture you like the Home Alone kid running around the house with his arms flailing yelling...”facts...facts”

  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Commish said:

Gun to his head, can Trump name the three branches of the government and their basic function?

Of course he can: me, myself, and I. Basic function? Line my pockets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Oh it was?

Thats odd...that’s not clear at all from any actual facts.

You mean the fact that trump is still president and no charges have been brought against him. That fact?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, boots11234 said:

You mean the fact that trump is still president and no charges have been brought against him. That fact?

Oh a pivot...nice.  Let me how that relates to anything that was said.  K thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Don't Noonan said:

Is the claim that the dossier totally failed because Mueller report hardly touched it or is the argument that the Mueller report validates the dossier? Because it sure seems like this piece is claiming the latter.

>>Mueller even kept alive one of the dossier’s most obscene accusations – that Moscow had "compromising tapes" of Trump with Russian hookers – by slipping into a footnote an October 2016 text Trump lawyer Michael Cohen received from a "Russian businessman," who cryptically intimated, “Stopped flow of tapes from Russia.”<<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Oh a pivot...nice.  Let me how that relates to anything that was said.  K thanks.

He presented “facts”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Is the claim that the dossier totally failed because Mueller report hardly touched it or is the argument that the Mueller report validates the dossier? Because it sure seems like this piece is claiming the latter.

>>Mueller even kept alive one of the dossier’s most obscene accusations – that Moscow had "compromising tapes" of Trump with Russian hookers – by slipping into a footnote an October 2016 text Trump lawyer Michael Cohen received from a "Russian businessman," who cryptically intimated, “Stopped flow of tapes from Russia.”<<

Pretty alarming that Mueller may have relied on Fusion GPS or Crowdstrike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Don't Noonan said:

Pretty alarming that Mueller may have relied on Fusion GPS or Crowdstrike.

That’s not the source for that reference.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL Saints, you have the patience of.....a saint.

You quoted the source right to him and he went straight to "But Fusion GPS!!!". You'll never see a better example of the chasm between "unequivocal" and "obtuse".

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, sho nuff said:

Care to unpack what you think is actually going to happen?

Better yet....be like the typical Democrat has been for the past two years and tell us all what you KNOW is going to happen!!

Edited by Opie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mr. Pickles said:

Pretty strong Qanon vibe here. 

Also it's from the Daily Mail. Take everything with a grain of salt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Opie said:

Better yet....be like the typical Democrat has been for the past two years and tell us all what you KNOW is going to happen!!

Been pretty consistent that I doubted it would get all the way to Trump and that Manafort and Flynn were screwed.  That proving the conspiracy would be tough but it’s a pretty easy case for obstruction.

I thought Jr and Kushner would see more scrutiny. 

Though...that still doesn’t answer the actual question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Been pretty consistent that I doubted it would get all the way to Trump and that Manafort and Flynn were screwed.  That proving the conspiracy would be tough but it’s a pretty easy case for obstruction.

I thought Jr and Kushner would see more scrutiny. 

Though...that still doesn’t answer the actual question.

Wow....way to go Nostradamus.

Isn't hindsight grand?

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Opie said:

Wow....way to go Nostradamus.

Isn't hindsight grand?

Sure. Though as I said it’s been consistently what I’ve said all along.  You can try showing where I said otherwise if you’d like.  Or you can keep trying to take potshots to avoid what was being discussed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Don't Noonan said:
3 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

That’s not the source for that reference.

Sure it was.  Did you read the article?

There are three sources for the statement that a Russian businessman told Michael Cohen that he'd stopped the flow of compromising tapes of Trump rumored to be held by people in Moscow associated with hosting the 2013 Miss Universe pageant:

1. A text message, reviewed by the Special Counsel's office, from Giorgi Rtskhiladze (the Russian businessman in question) to Michael Cohen dated October 30, 2016.

2. Two interviews of Giorgi Rtskhiladze by the Special Counsel's office (April 4, 2018, and May 10, 2018).

3. An interview of Michael Cohen by the Special Counsel's office (September 12, 2018).

Fusion GPS and Crowdstrike are not mentioned as sources for that statement.

(See footnote no. 112 on pages 27-28 of Volume II of the Mueller Report.)

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 2
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

There are three sources for the statement that a Russian businessman told Michael Cohen that he'd stopped the flow of compromising tapes of Trump rumored to be held by people in Moscow associated with hosting the 2013 Miss Universe pageant:

1. A text message, reviewed by the Special Counsel's office, from Giorgi (the Russian businessman in question) to Michael Cohen dated October 30, 2016.

2. Two interviews of Giorgi Rtskhiladze by the Special Counsel's office (April 4, 2018, and May 10, 2018).

3. An interview of Michael Cohen by the Special Counsel's office (September 12, 2018).

Fusion GPS and Crowdstrike are not mentioned as sources for that statement.

(See footnote no. 112 on pages 27-28 of Volume II of the Mueller Report.)

That looks like one source, Rtskhiladze, listed 3 different ways.

1. A text from the source to the useful idiot

2. An interview of the source

3. An interview of the useful idiot

Are you of the belief that Russia does in fact have video from 2013 of Russian hoors pissing on a bed that Obama slept in at the Ritz while Trump stood in the corner "watching"?

What do you call it in legalese when a claim is made but is not verifiable?

Hearsay?

If it is repeated multiple times by the same person does that make it more likely to be true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bozeman Bruiser said:

That looks like one source, Rtskhiladze, listed 3 different ways.

1. A text from the source to the useful idiot

2. An interview of the source

3. An interview of the useful idiot

Are you of the belief that Russia does in fact have video from 2013 of Russian hoors pissing on a bed that Obama slept in at the Ritz while Trump stood in the corner "watching"?

What do you call it in legalese when a claim is made but is not verifiable?

Hearsay?

If it is repeated multiple times by the same person does that make it more likely to be true?

I'll let the lawyers peck away at your hearsay entrails, but the whole point is that the evidence came from a clean source, NOT from the dirty dossier.

Also, the investigators were not necessarily interested in whether the pee tape was verified; they were interested in whether the text message was verified. Because once you verify the validity of that text message, then you've verified a motive for obstruction. Doesn't matter if the tape exists or not -- as long as Trump thinks it exists, then he's vulnerable to extortion.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Is the claim that the dossier totally failed because Mueller report hardly touched it or is the argument that the Mueller report validates the dossier? Because it sure seems like this piece is claiming the latter.

>>Mueller even kept alive one of the dossier’s most obscene accusations – that Moscow had "compromising tapes" of Trump with Russian hookers – by slipping into a footnote an October 2016 text Trump lawyer Michael Cohen received from a "Russian businessman," who cryptically intimated, “Stopped flow of tapes from Russia.”<<

Can you list a single thing from the dossier that has been verified? (And illegal or improper, because the fact that Page gave a commencement speech in Moscow is neither)

 

"Mueller kept alive ..... pee pee tape" doesn't verify anything other than he was inept at finding Trump/Russia collusion. He interviewed one Russian who made the claim but provided zero evidence, I believe there is a legal term for that.

Pee pee tape has as much credibility as Hillary raping and eating babies in the basement of Comet Pizza.

 

The leaks that are coming out now about emails between Comey and Brennan in December 2016 with regards to including the dossier in the official intelligence report do not look good. They are pointing the finger and playing hot potato with the dossier, not what you would expect if it was anything more than unverifiable opposition research/Russian disinformation.

 

It will be interesting to see what Horowitz, Huber, Durham, Barr, and the grand jury conclude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

I'll let the lawyers peck away at your hearsay entrails, but the whole point is that the evidence came from a clean source, NOT from the dirty dossier.

Also, the investigators were not necessarily interested in whether the pee tape was verified; they were interested in whether the text message was verified. Because once you verify the validity of that text message, then you've verified a motive for obstruction. Doesn't matter if the tape exists or not -- as long as Trump thinks it exists, then he's vulnerable to extortion.

What evidence?

A single Russian who texted Cohen and was interviewed by Mueller?

That is pretty flimsy "evidence" of the existence of a pee pee tape.

 

As for obstruction, if the video doesn't exist because it (hookers pissing on the bed) never happened then Trump has no reason to be worried about extortion.

As much as you guys hate Trump deep down I am sure you are capable of understanding this very basic concept.

Edited by Bozeman Bruiser
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is anyone even still arguing about obstruction?

He did it, in public, many many times. For all of us to see and hear.

The only question is whether he gets in any trouble for it.

 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

There are three sources for the statement that a Russian businessman told Michael Cohen that he'd stopped the flow of compromising tapes of Trump rumored to be held by people in Moscow associated with hosting the 2013 Miss Universe pageant:

1. A text message, reviewed by the Special Counsel's office, from Giorgi Rtskhiladze (the Russian businessman in question) to Michael Cohen dated October 30, 2016.

2. Two interviews of Giorgi Rtskhiladze by the Special Counsel's office (April 4, 2018, and May 10, 2018).

3. An interview of Michael Cohen by the Special Counsel's office (September 12, 2018).

Fusion GPS and Crowdstrike are not mentioned as sources for that statement.

(See footnote no. 112 on pages 27-28 of Volume II of the Mueller Report.)

I wasn't talking about Saints reference, sorry for the confusion.  I am only shocked that Mueller outsourced and may have relied on ultra sketchy outfits.

Edited by Don't Noonan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.