WWTBAM Bored

The Justice Department named Robert Mueller, who headed the FBI for 12 years before Comey under Bush and Obama, as Special Counsel, to oversee the investigation of Trump (and associates) ties to Russia. Rod Rosenstein made the appointment, not Trump or Sessions.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/17/politics/ ... index.html

It will be interesting to see how Mueller will interact with whomever becomes the new FBI Director. Perhaps more potential candidates will step up for consideration because they won't have to deal (as much) with this sh*tstorm.

I also wonder how this will influence some Democrats pledge not to vote to confirm a new FBI Director unless a Special Prosecutor was named. Will a "special counsel" be enough? I don't know whether Mueller would break that logjam.

bazodee wrote:I also wonder how this will influence some Democrats pledge not to vote to confirm a new FBI Director unless a Special Prosecutor was named. Will a "special counsel" be enough? I don't know whether Mueller would break that logjam.

A "special counsel" is the position established by the law that's now in effect. The post-Watergate Ethics in Government law expired in 1999. Most Democrats should be satisfied with the Mueller appointment, plus the willingness of the House and Senate to investigate the scandal.

I can't wait for him to subpoena Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who appears to have material information that Paul Ryan asked him not to disclose before the election.

There was a time when we could count on politicians to put country over party. Sadly, at least for Republicans in Congress, that time appears to be a distant memory. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:I can't wait for him to subpoena Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who appears to have material information that Paul Ryan asked him not to disclose before the election.

There was a time when we could count on politicians to put country over party. Sadly, at least for Republicans in Congress, that time appears to be a distant memory. --Bob

Let the investigation begin. Not like this sort of thing hasn't happened before in our country. You may want to quit relying on the usual suspects. Don't you have Daily Kos or something to ramp up the excitement?

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:I can't wait for him to subpoena Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who appears to have material information that Paul Ryan asked him not to disclose before the election.

There was a time when we could count on politicians to put country over party. Sadly, at least for Republicans in Congress, that time appears to be a distant memory. --Bob

Let the investigation begin. Not like this sort of thing hasn't happened before in our country. You may want to quit relying on the usual suspects. Don't you have Daily Kos or something to ramp up the excitement?

The President of the United States being in the pocket of a hostile foreign government? No, I really don't think anything like that has ever happened before in our country's history. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:I can't wait for him to subpoena Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who appears to have material information that Paul Ryan asked him not to disclose before the election.

There was a time when we could count on politicians to put country over party. Sadly, at least for Republicans in Congress, that time appears to be a distant memory. --Bob

Let the investigation begin. Not like this sort of thing hasn't happened before in our country. You may want to quit relying on the usual suspects. Don't you have Daily Kos or something to ramp up the excitement?

The President of the United States being in the pocket of a hostile foreign government? No, I really don't think anything like that has ever happened before in our country's history. --Bob

You're alleging something that is unproven. I just said we all have seen investigations in the past. Perjury, etc. We'll all survive. Unless you need the hysteria to get your blood flowing.

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:
Let the investigation begin. Not like this sort of thing hasn't happened before in our country. You may want to quit relying on the usual suspects. Don't you have Daily Kos or something to ramp up the excitement?

The President of the United States being in the pocket of a hostile foreign government? No, I really don't think anything like that has ever happened before in our country's history. --Bob

You're alleging something that is unproven. I just said we all have seen investigations in the past. Perjury, etc. We'll all survive. Unless you need the hysteria to get your blood flowing.

The House Majority Leader appears to have believed it nearly a year ago. I wonder what he knows that we don't. But I have some confidence Special Counsel Mueller will find out. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:The President of the United States being in the pocket of a hostile foreign government? No, I really don't think anything like that has ever happened before in our country's history. --Bob

You're alleging something that is unproven. I just said we all have seen investigations in the past. Perjury, etc. We'll all survive. Unless you need the hysteria to get your blood flowing.

The House Majority Leader appears to have believed it nearly a year ago. I wonder what he knows that we don't. But I have some confidence Special Counsel Mueller will find out. --Bob

He probably will find out what's legitimate. What's your point? Nevermind, your point is your sjw cred. Don't worry, you're safe here.

Bob78164 wrote:The House Majority Leader appears to have believed it nearly a year ago. I wonder what he knows that we don't. But I have some confidence Special Counsel Mueller will find out. --Bob

A lot may depend on who the FBI director is. If Trump appoints some toady, the investigation could go nowhere fast, since Mueller has to rely on the FBI to do the leg work. But considering the number of leaks from the FBI lately, any attempt to drag official feet on the investigation will probably get outed very very quickly.

Plus, let's say Comey has a memo establishing Trump pressured him to lay off Flynn. Isn't he complicit in obstruction of justice then? Oopsie? Maybe a Lynch obstruction of justice, too? All sorts of fun wormholes to come up.

Beebs52 wrote:Plus, let's say Comey has a memo establishing Trump pressured him to lay off Flynn. Isn't he complicit in obstruction of justice then? Oopsie? Maybe a Lynch obstruction of justice, too? All sorts of fun wormholes to come up.

No, he's not, despite the Fox News commentary suggesting otherwise. He's not complicit because he did not, in fact, lay off Flynn. That's why he got fired. --Bob

Beebs52 wrote:Plus, let's say Comey has a memo establishing Trump pressured him to lay off Flynn. Isn't he complicit in obstruction of justice then? Oopsie? Maybe a Lynch obstruction of justice, too? All sorts of fun wormholes to come up.

There is considerable credible evidence that the President of the United States is under the control of a hostile foreign government and you're playing political games. You might want to lay off the attempt to play gotcha games. They're unbecoming.

The country needs to get to the bottom of this, and I'm glad there's a special counsel that I trust to lead the investigation. We've needed an independent inquiry for months. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:Plus, let's say Comey has a memo establishing Trump pressured him to lay off Flynn. Isn't he complicit in obstruction of justice then? Oopsie? Maybe a Lynch obstruction of justice, too? All sorts of fun wormholes to come up.

No, he's not, despite the Fox News commentary suggesting otherwise. He's not complicit because he did not, in fact, lay off Flynn. That's why he got fired. --Bob

You really need to realize that peeps follow/read other sites than Fox. It's like my jibe about Daily Kos. I don't doubt you, sss and juch have your own independent views apart from your usual feeds. And I do question your legal expertise in areas you don't practice.

Beebs52 wrote:And I do question your legal expertise in areas you don't practice.

That's a fair point, but in this case it's clear cut based on basic principles every lawyer is taught in law school.

None of the commentary I've seen on the subject suggests that the FBI Director has any criminal duty above and beyond the same duty owed by any other citizen in this context. And the law is clear that most of us have no duty whatsoever to volunteer information concerning a crime. If you see a mob hit, you don't have a duty enforceable by the criminal law to go running to the cops to report it. You just can't help them bury the body or get rid of the guns.

The commentary relies on the general federal statute for misprision of felony, 18 U.S.C. § 4. The case law interpreting this statute has consistently required four elements: “(1) the principal committed and completed the felony alleged; (2) the defendant had knowledge of the fact; (3) the defendant failed to notify the authorities; and (4) the defendant took affirmative steps to conceal the crime of the principal.” The most that can be said of former Director Comey is that he failed to broadcast to the world that Donny attempted to quash the Flynn investigation. (And since Donny himself was already the subject of an active FBI investigation, I think he had a pretty good reason not to do so while he was still Director.) There is no evidence at all that former Director Comey took any affirmative steps to conceal the obstruction. To the contrary, he contemporaneously memorialized the relevant conversation and made that memorandum available to others in the Bureau. Accordingly, he is not himself guilty of obstruction or anything else. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:Plus, let's say Comey has a memo establishing Trump pressured him to lay off Flynn. Isn't he complicit in obstruction of justice then? Oopsie? Maybe a Lynch obstruction of justice, too? All sorts of fun wormholes to come up.

There is considerable credible evidence that the President of the United States is under the control of a hostile foreign government and you're playing political games. You might want to lay off the attempt to play gotcha games. They're unbecoming.

The country needs to get to the bottom of this, and I'm glad there's a special counsel that I trust to lead the investigation. We've needed an independent inquiry for months. --Bob

You really should offer your sooper dooper legal eagle services to the government. Unbecoming? Snort. You be such a kidder.

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:Plus, let's say Comey has a memo establishing Trump pressured him to lay off Flynn. Isn't he complicit in obstruction of justice then? Oopsie? Maybe a Lynch obstruction of justice, too? All sorts of fun wormholes to come up.

There is considerable credible evidence that the President of the United States is under the control of a hostile foreign government and you're playing political games. You might want to lay off the attempt to play gotcha games. They're unbecoming.

The country needs to get to the bottom of this, and I'm glad there's a special counsel that I trust to lead the investigation. We've needed an independent inquiry for months. --Bob

You really should offer your sooper dooper legal eagle services to the government. Unbecoming? Snort. You be such a kidder.

They can't afford me. --Bob

silverscreenselect wrote:The Justice Department named Robert Mueller, who headed the FBI for 12 years before Comey under Bush and Obama, as Special Counsel, to oversee the investigation of Trump (and associates) ties to Russia. Rod Rosenstein made the appointment, not Trump or Sessions.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/17/politics/ ... index.html

I see nothing in the article saying that ("investigation of Trump"). Here is what the article says:

the federal investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, including potential collusion between President Donald Trump's campaign associates and Russian officials.

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:The Justice Department named Robert Mueller, who headed the FBI for 12 years before Comey under Bush and Obama, as Special Counsel, to oversee the investigation of Trump (and associates) ties to Russia. Rod Rosenstein made the appointment, not Trump or Sessions.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/17/politics/ ... index.html

I see nothing in the article saying that ("investigation of Trump"). Here is what the article says:

the federal investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, including potential collusion between President Donald Trump's campaign associates and Russian officials.

Do you seriously think Trump's campaign associates colluded with Russian officials on their own?

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:There is considerable credible evidence that the President of the United States is under the control of a hostile foreign government and you're playing political games. You might want to lay off the attempt to play gotcha games. They're unbecoming.

The country needs to get to the bottom of this, and I'm glad there's a special counsel that I trust to lead the investigation. We've needed an independent inquiry for months. --Bob

You really should offer your sooper dooper legal eagle services to the government. Unbecoming? Snort. You be such a kidder.

They can't afford me. --Bob

Some people just talk about love of country, and some of us put our money where our mouth is.

Public service -- its a good thing!

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:There is considerable credible evidence that the President of the United States is under the control of a hostile foreign government and you're playing political games. You might want to lay off the attempt to play gotcha games. They're unbecoming.

The country needs to get to the bottom of this, and I'm glad there's a special counsel that I trust to lead the investigation. We've needed an independent inquiry for months. --Bob

You really should offer your sooper dooper legal eagle services to the government. Unbecoming? Snort. You be such a kidder.

They can't afford me. --Bob

That's for damn sure. Something upon which we can actually all agree.

Bob#s:"That's a fair point, but in this case it's clear cut based on basic principles every lawyer is taught in law school."

Oh, you mean, like, "innocent until proven guilty?" That one is pretty basic. I didn't know part two read: ".. or until Bob#s, <et al> decides otherwise."

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:The Justice Department named Robert Mueller, who headed the FBI for 12 years before Comey under Bush and Obama, as Special Counsel, to oversee the investigation of Trump (and associates) ties to Russia. Rod Rosenstein made the appointment, not Trump or Sessions.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/17/politics/ ... index.html

I see nothing in the article saying that ("investigation of Trump"). Here is what the article says:

the federal investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, including potential collusion between President Donald Trump's campaign associates and Russian officials.

Do you seriously think Trump's campaign associates colluded with Russian officials on their own?

You're assuming I'm assuming there was collusion. I don't. Will I be surprised if there the investigation concludes there was? Maybe, but not shocked. Will I be shocked if Trump is proven complicit? Yes.

But right now, all you have are news reports of unnamed sources speculating on unverified circumstantial information.

BackInTex wrote: But right now, all you have are news reports of unnamed sources speculating on unverified circumstantial information.

And that's why, there's an investigation. And the way these investigations work is from the bottom up. The little fish sing to get the medium size fish, and the medium size fish sing to get the big fish, and the big fish sing to get the whale. And in this case, Trump is the whale.

But if the events of the last few months have shown anything, it's that people are making a huuuuuuge mistake to assume that Trump is too stupid to do something that has bad consequences for himself. We all know that's not the case. And Trump's Russia ties, specifically ties to rather unsavory types in Russia, go back years.

tlynn78 wrote:Oh, you mean, like, "innocent until proven guilty?" That one is pretty basic. I didn't know part two read: ".. or until Bob#s, <et al> decides otherwise."

Then you agree that because Secretary Clinton was exonerated by a federal investigation of criminal wrongdoing, and certainly has never been convicted of anything, that there is nothing wrong with the way she handled her e-mails?

I didn't think so. The double standard you're applying is enough to stagger the mind. Donny admitted that he gave code word classified information to the Russians. He did so without the permission of Israel, the source of the information, which at a minimum will jeopardize our ability to get similar information from Israel in the future. He shared enough information with the Russians to place at risk the life of the asset who obtained the information. And you're okay with that. I don't ever want to hear from you about Benghazi again.

And by the way, I was arguing here that former Director Comey cannot (on the reported facts) be criminally liable for obstruction of justice. In other words, I'm arguing that Comey is innocent and can't be proven guilty.

Now please excuse me. I think I need to drop some money on Rob Quist. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:Oh, you mean, like, "innocent until proven guilty?" That one is pretty basic. I didn't know part two read: ".. or until Bob#s, <et al> decides otherwise."

Then you agree that because Secretary Clinton was exonerated by a federal investigation of criminal wrongdoing, and certainly has never been convicted of anything, that there is nothing wrong with the way she handled her e-mails?

I didn't think so. The double standard you're applying is enough to stagger the mind. Donny admitted that he gave code word classified information to the Russians. He did so without the permission of Israel, the source of the information, which at a minimum will jeopardize our ability to get similar information from Israel in the future. He shared enough information with the Russians to place at risk the life of the asset who obtained the information. And you're okay with that. I don't ever want to hear from you about Benghazi again.

And by the way, I was arguing here that former Director Comey cannot (on the reported facts) be criminally liable for obstruction of justice. In other words, I'm arguing that Comey is innocent and can't be proven guilty.

Now please excuse me. I think I need to drop some money on Rob Quist. --Bob

I think most thinking individuals recognize there was a 'problem' with the way she handled her emails. Some of them on your side of the aisle even admit it. I have absolutely no problem agreeing she hasn't been found guilty. I don't spend any time at all, much less far too much time, in any effort, lame or otherwise, calling for her imprisonment. But, you do you, boo.