Sol Rosenberg

Drip Drip Drip

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

We need to hear that from Mueller, not from Barr's version of Mueller, which was the rough equivalent of "all clear, now is the time on Schprockets when we dance!"  

What's the political equivalent to petting the monkey, loving the monkey?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

It's about the rule of law and whether we have it or not.  When we see the Mueller report, we can decide whether we have it or not.  Until then, it has been seen by a handful of interested parties and nobody else, so we have no idea of what it says. Wanting to see the report is a bipartisan sentiment, so yeah, in that context it could very well provide unity.  Does anyone really want to have a President who is beholden to a foreign power or powers?  We need to hear that from Mueller, not from Barr's version of Mueller, which was the rough equivalent of "all clear, now is the time on Schprockets when we dance!"  

That's just silly. Mueller's reputation hangs on this report. If Barr has published anything that is a distortion of the report Mueller would call him out on it in public. 

Share this post


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

That's just silly. Mueller's reputation hangs on this report. If Barr has published anything that is a distortion of the report Mueller would call him out on it in public. 

He's bound to confidentiality.  submit the report and shut up.  The AG does what he wants with it. 

Share this post


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

He's bound to confidentiality.  submit the report and shut up.  The AG does what he wants with it. 

Leaks happen...

Share this post


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

That's just silly. Mueller's reputation hangs on this report. If Barr has published anything that is a distortion of the report Mueller would call him out on it in public. 

 

Just now, Movable Ballast said:

Leaks happen...

Oh yeah. Because Mueller is well known for how much he mouths off in public

And like I said earlier, the phrase "found NO evidence" (Barr's wording) and the phrase "did not establish" are totally identical in meaning, at least, in the minds of those who are already convinced of Trump's wonderfulness.

I'm kind of surprised Barr pushed the spin that far, frankly. If the report does indeed exonerate Trump and his campaign, why get tricky with re-wording it?

-DSK

Share this post


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

Leaks happen...

They will happen, I predict, but not from Robert Mueller.  He plays it straight and by the rules.  

Share this post


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

They will happen, I predict, but not from Robert Mueller.  He plays it straight and by the rules.  

You said the same thing about Comey... 

If Mueller felt like the summary was as out of bounds as the lunatic left here say it is, he'd find a way to make that known.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

You said the same thing about Comey... 

If Mueller felt like the summary was as out of bounds as the lunatic left here say it is, he'd find a way to make that known.

I still say the same about Comey.  His career was one of integrity, but not infallibility.  He swayed the election to Trump by discussing an ongoing investigation, and should be a hero to the Trumpists. That was a huge mistake, but there is no indication that he puts his party (GOP by the way) before the country.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

Leaks happen...

most of the leaks came from the investigated & the white house. 

right now there's no need anyways - fuckwads like you are already spinning this as a victory out of proportion to what the letter said. If you don't care what the letter said, why will the report make a difference?

Share this post


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

I still say the same about Comey.  His career was one of integrity, but not infallibility.  He swayed the election to Trump by discussing an ongoing investigation, and should be a hero to the Trumpists. That was a huge mistake, but there is no indication that he puts his party (GOP by the way) before the country.  

You are one of the good guys here so I respectfully disagree. Comey's treatment of Hillary's server was a cover up from the get go, that is now known. Strok et al reworded his summary (interesting in this light) to make it not prosecutable.  His outing of Hillary was the only way he could save face. Lot's of the GOP were and still are "never Trumpers" so using his party affiliation as a defense to his motives does not stand up. 

But back on topic, If Mueller felt like the summary was as out of bounds as the lunatic left here say it is, he'd find a way to make that known.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

most of the leaks came from the investigated & the white house. 

right now there's no need anyways - fuckwads like you are already spinning this as a victory out of proportion to what the letter said. If you don't care what the letter said, why will the report make a difference?

How did you get off my ignore list?

Must fix that.

Share this post


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

How did you get off my ignore list?

Must fix that.

Yeah - and now I had to see him/her/it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

You are one of the good guys here so I respectfully disagree. Comey's treatment of Hillary's server was a cover up from the get go, that is now known. Strok et al reworded his summary (interesting in this light) to make it not prosecutable.  His outing of Hillary was the only way he could save face. Lot's of the GOP were and still are "never Trumpers" so using his party affiliation as a defense to his motives does not stand up. 

But back on topic, If Mueller felt like the summary was as out of bounds as the lunatic left here say it is, he'd find a way to make that known.

Ken Starr does a very good explanation of the Special Counsel regulations here.  The rules are very tight.  

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/03/ken-starr-muellers-report-shouldnt-go-congress/585577/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Ken Starr does a very good explanation of the Special Counsel regulations here.  The rules are very tight.  

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/03/ken-starr-muellers-report-shouldnt-go-congress/585577/

Good read, thanks. 

So if Mueller can't indict why would all the news media be expecting such?

Off to congress it goes then? That should be interesting... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

How did you get off my ignore list?

Must fix that.

Probably because you are more concerned with virute signalling your Trumpalo friends than action?

Share this post


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

Good read, thanks. 

So if Mueller can't indict why would all the news media be expecting such?

Off to congress it goes then? That should be interesting... 

 

He can indict anyone but the President, pursuant to DOJ regulations.  There is some question about that and many people think that is not accurate in the wake of Clinton v. Jones, myself included, but Mueller is not going to be the one to test those waters.  He is by the book. The people expecting that were not paying attention or were trying to set it up so that no indictment equaled vindication.  

The interesting thing is that I don't think that Barr has to turn anything over to Congress, and I doubt that he will.  If he does, it will look very little like what he received from Mueller. He did what he was obligated to do.  It was rife with weasel words and clipped quotes, which raises suspicions, but that is his prerogative.  Congress can try to get the report but I don't see it happening.  They should sit the AG down for some hearings and get him on the record before doing the same with Mr. Mueller, who may very well just claim that confidentiality prevents him answering anything. That's pretty much what I expect to happen. 

What should happen?  We paid for the report, it should be made public. Sure, redact grand jury stuff if need be, to protect witnesses and/or pending cases and investigations. 

Share this post


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

Yup, he was part of that.  It does not effect his ability to explain a process he knows about very well, which I think it is safe to say that we do not.  

It is about integrity. He has none that I can see.  To quote him is like quoting Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

As usual your input has nothing to do with the subject at hand. 

Oh, did you get your panties in a wad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Ballast,

You my friend need to get laid.  It will take the edge off.

Hasher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, hasher said:

It is about integrity. He has none that I can see.  To quote him is like quoting Trump.

The guy has knowledge on a relevant topic about which most of us know very little.  What does he say in that article that is inaccurate?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The guy has knowledge on a relevant topic about which most of us know very little.  What does he say in that article that is inaccurate?  

Once I catch people in a lie, they are rarely ever believed again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we need all the data compiled by mueller and his team, only then can we rid the world of trump and his russian overlords

bring on pence and god

Share this post


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

The guy has knowledge on a relevant topic about which most of us know very little.  What does he say in that article that is inaccurate?  

You are asking to much of the Hash pipe  

Share this post


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

we need all the data compiled by mueller and his team, only then can we rid the world of trump and his russian overlords

bring on pence and god

I hope you were trying to be funny.

Share this post


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

You are asking to much of the Hash pipe  

No hash here.  Try again.

Share this post


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

Yup, he was part of that.  It does not effect his ability to explain a process he knows about very well, which I think it is safe to say that we do not.  

He may know that area of the law. Indeed, he should. But his ‘resume’ affects his credibility. There are other lawyers who can explain this relevant topic of which we know little.

Oliver North knows paper shredders but for some reason Staples doesn’t have any TV spots featuring him hawking their products. It’s not hard to figure out why.

You can file this under messenger attack. That’d be under S for Ken Starr, about two thirds back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

He may know that area of the law. Indeed, he should. But his ‘resume’ affects his credibility. There are other lawyers who can explain this relevant topic of which we know little.

Oliver North knows paper shredders but for some reason Staples doesn’t have any TV spots featuring him hawking their products. It’s not hard to figure out why.

I get all that and I have no love for the guy.  He sucked the gov't teat for what, seven years over the course of that investigation?  I'm willing to take his word for it on procedural issues like this, rather than digging all that crap up myself. He isn't telling us anything substantive, it is all verifiable.  

He is saying "put peanut butter and jelly on a p,b+J sammich."  That is sharing knowledge.  He isn't giving his opinion.  He isn't saying "nobody ever puts ketchup on a hotdog". That would be his opinion, shared by Harry Callahan's partner in Dirty Harry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wasn't fitzgerald the last special prosecutor?  I'm surprised no one has stuck a microphone in his face about the procedures

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, hasher said:
35 minutes ago, hermetic said:

we need all the data compiled by mueller and his team, only then can we rid the world of trump and his russian overlords

bring on pence and god

I hope you were trying to be funny.

if congress gets what they want - impeachment - I hope they've looked into the future a wee bit

Share this post


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

if congress gets what they want - impeachment - I hope they've looked into the future a wee bit

The leadership is trying to head the ship of state.  Little don not so much.

Share this post


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

if congress gets what they want - impeachment - I hope they've looked into the future a wee bit

Dear lord it'll be hilarious watching all the Republican assholes start to care about morality, ethics, and Jesus again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, hermetic said:

if congress gets what they want - impeachment - I hope they've looked into the future a wee bit

I don't think this Congress wants impeachment for a second. I think they would much rather run against his record in 2020 and provide an alternative, as they did in 2018.  It remains to be seen who will be the nominee against him, but that will be of little importance to him.  His campaign will not be against the democRAT nominee, it will be against Socialism. That may or may not work better than scary brown people at the border.  Time will tell. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Dear lord it'll be hilarious watching all the Republican assholes start to care about morality, ethics, and Jesus again.

It will be glorious. The little don finding morality? Can not get richer than this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:
15 minutes ago, hermetic said:

if congress gets what they want - impeachment - I hope they've looked into the future a wee bit

I don't think this Congress wants impeachment for a second. I think they would much rather run against his record in 2020 and provide an alternative, as they did in 2018.  It remains to be seen who will be the nominee against him, but that will be of little importance to him.  His campaign will not be against the democRAT nominee, it will be against Socialism. That may or may not work better than scary brown people at the border.  Time will tell. 

if congress continues to hammer on this, they certainly run the risk stepping all over their candidates platforms and helping trump in the 2020 ec - mr bill can explain that to them.

then horror of horrors he wins again - greatest victory ever - then bone spurs it to pence.

Share this post


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

if congress continues to hammer on this, they certainly run the risk stepping all over their candidates platforms and helping trump in the 2020 ec - mr bill can explain that to them.

then horror of horrors he wins again - greatest victory ever - then bone spurs it to pence.

Perhaps.  As our representatives, Congress must interview Barr then Mueller, if only to determine the scope of Mueller's investigation. Mueller was supposed to tell us what happened with the Russians interfering with our elections, and whether anyone in the US helped them.  While much of that is a political matter, at its heart it is a national security matter.  We, through our representatives, need to know what happened.  So if there is no answer to that from Barr and Mueller, they must look elsewhere.  That need not be an exhaustive search, as they have already had hearings and taken evidence. If we cannot hear it from Mueller, and I predict that we will not, we need to hear it from our representatives. 

The platforms will take care of themselves.  Candidates will have to be focused on bread and butter issues, not this stuff.  It looks to me like they can do both, but one thing the Barr letter surely does is take the pressure off of Nancy for the impeachment windmill.  This election may be enough to get me to register as a partisan again, so that I can participate in the primaries this time, if I see a candidate that I can support.  I'm not seeing that yet, though I would like to know how the South Bend budgets look....  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Perhaps.  As our representatives, Congress must interview Barr then Mueller, if only to determine the scope of Mueller's investigation. Mueller was supposed to tell us what happened with the Russians interfering with our elections, and whether anyone in the US helped them.  While much of that is a political matter, at its heart it is a national security matter.  We, through our representatives, need to know what happened.  So if there is no answer to that from Barr and Mueller, they must look elsewhere.  That need not be an exhaustive search, as they have already had hearings and taken evidence. If we cannot hear it from Mueller, and I predict that we will not, we need to hear it from our representatives. 

The platforms will take care of themselves.  Candidates will have to be focused on bread and butter issues, not this stuff.  It looks to me like they can do both, but one thing the Barr letter surely does is take the pressure off of Nancy for the impeachment windmill.  This election may be enough to get me to register as a partisan again, so that I can participate in the primaries this time, if I see a candidate that I can support.  I'm not seeing that yet, though I would like to know how the South Bend budgets look....  

Indeed - there should be full disclosure to the appropriate committees in Congress.  That committee should be required to deliver their own objective summary of those findings, and if the findings warrant?  Pursue additional actions.   If not?  The committee should unequivocally state that.

I suspect that as much as people don't want to hear it, that there is indeed content in Mueller's report that for many reasons is not appropriate for public disclosure.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I suspect that as much as people don't want to hear it, that there is indeed content in Mueller's report that for many reasons is not appropriate for public disclosure.   

Why does appropriate matter at this point in the Trump presidency?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Why does appropriate matter at this point in the Trump presidency?

Maybe because the proper handling of this situation has more to do with the faith we've placed in the system than it does the cult of personality surrounding one person?   You tell ME - why wouldn't it matter? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Indeed - there should be full disclosure to the appropriate committees in Congress.  That committee should be required to deliver their own objective summary of those findings, and if the findings warrant?  Pursue additional actions.   If not?  The committee should unequivocally state that.

I suspect that as much as people don't want to hear it, that there is indeed content in Mueller's report that for many reasons is not appropriate for public disclosure.   

I'm fine with sending it to the intel committees and letting our representatives have an unvarnished look at everything. That's what we send them there to do, provide oversight. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Maybe because the proper handling of this situation has more to do with the faith we've placed in the system than it does the cult of personality surrounding one person?   You tell ME - why wouldn't it matter? 

Because I'm tired of just my bitch being burnt down, I want the whole fucking thing to go. Two partys can play the nihilist game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Maybe because the proper handling of this situation has more to do with the faith we've placed in the system than it does the cult of personality surrounding one person?   You tell ME - why wouldn't it matter? 

 

Pretty good argument for a Parlimentary system idnit?

Share this post


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

Pretty good argument for a Parlimentary system idnit?

I'll meet ya in the middle w/a hybrid Presidential Parliament w/an independent Head of State that is separate and not appointed by Parliament. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Sean said:

Pretty good argument for a Parlimentary system idnit?

yeah because Australia's has worked so well... As many PMs in as many years = gridlock. 

Share this post


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

yeah because Australia's has worked so well... As many PMs in as many years = gridlock. 

That could lead to a government that only does the few things that everyone agrees it must do.

The horror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

I'm fine with sending it to the intel committees and letting our representatives have an unvarnished look at everything. That's what we send them there to do, provide oversight. 

That worked in the run up to the gulf war.   Why not try again?    With the exception of ongoing investigations that have yet to wind up in discovery in a court docket, I have no use or trust for government secrets.  Putin knows exactly what he did to us and who helped.  Why shouldn't we as well?   

Edit.   The entire report should be declassified six months before the next election.  If they haven't found enough evidence by then, they need to let the reporters have a crack at it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Movable Ballast said:

Leaks happen...

And saying Mueller would leak is criticising the man that you want to claim is a bastion of upstanding judicial investigation (now, but earlier...)

Mueller & his office are bound by confidentiality and they've been upstanding citizens up until now. Give it time, if Trump & the GOP try to bury the report then it might leak come 2020, but there is plenty of time between now and then for the report to come out legally and I expect they'd want that to be the way it is published if at all possible (regardless of their thoughts on it's contents).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Movable Ballast said:
2 hours ago, Sean said:

Pretty good argument for a Parlimentary system idnit?

yeah because Australia's has worked so well... As many PMs in as many years = gridlock. 

As often as I disagree with Mr Ballast here, he's not wrong. Parliamentary systems start to eat themselves when party members at the top put their interests ahead of the good of the country. Took us a little longer for a while for us to catch up to you guys, but we're there too and it shows. As many good things as we have about our country, the replaceable-by-majority-party head of state is not one I would recommend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
6 hours ago, Sean said:

Pretty good argument for a Parlimentary system idnit?

I'll meet ya in the middle w/a hybrid Presidential Parliament w/an independent Head of State that is separate and not appointed by Parliament. 

How about a hereditary Head of State?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

How about a hereditary Head of State?

-DSK

Jefferson reputedly said, when that was mentioned: (paraphrased from memory, I believe he was addressing Hamilton at the time) 

 "OK, but first let's run an experiment. We will establish a hereditary chair at our finest college, and when it has been demonstrated that calculus can be passed through the loins we will consider having a hereditary office of the President." 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mark K said:
18 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

How about a hereditary Head of State?

-DSK

Jefferson reputedly said, when that was mentioned: (paraphrased from memory, I believe he was addressing Hamilton at the time) 

 "OK, but first let's run an experiment. We will establish a hereditary chair at our finest college, and when it has been demonstrated that calculus can be passed through the loins we will consider having a hereditary office of the President." 

That's beautiful. Never heard that quote, thanks!

I was expecting some waggish "Been there, done that" or the like, if any replies

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Mueller grand jury 'continuing robustly,' prosecutor says

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/27/mueller-grand-jury-1238861

Excerpt -

Mueller’s office in recent days has been handing off a series of its cases to federal prosecutors across the government as it closes up shop, including the mystery subpoena fight that’s been ongoing since last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Sean said:

 

Mueller grand jury 'continuing robustly,' prosecutor says

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/27/mueller-grand-jury-1238861

Excerpt -

Mueller’s office in recent days has been handing off a series of its cases to federal prosecutors across the government as it closes up shop, including the mystery subpoena fight that’s been ongoing since last year.

well goddamit, Jerome had new new book just about ready for print.  What in the hell use as a triumphant opus if the grand jury is still in action?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

well goddamit, Jerome had new new book just about ready for print.  What in the hell use as a triumphant opus if the grand jury is still in action?  

It’s unfair. SO unfair.

Share this post


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

well goddamit, Jerome had new new book just about ready for print.  What in the hell use as a triumphant opus if the grand jury is still in action?  

I wonder just how many case files Mueller has dished to other Fed and State prosecutors. Me thinks the fun hasn’t even started yet. 

It’s been said by lots of knowledgeable people that the SDNY, Virginia Feds and NY State is where the real action will be. One could hope. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sean said:

I wonder just how many case files Mueller has dished to other Fed and State prosecutors. Me thinks the fun hasn’t even started yet. 

It’s been said by lots of knowledgeable people that the SDNY, Virginia Feds and NY State is where the real action will be. One could hope. 

And THAT consideration is something that folks clamoring for full disclouse of Mueller's report and findings oughta consider, IMHO.  Should we prejudice a potential prosecution to satisfy the public outcry for disclosure?  Some might think so - I don't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do we do if in a year Trump is fighting 15-20 cases from foundation tax fraud to graft to foreign Emoluments to violating campaign finance laws to digging up McCains corpse to have Russin hookers pee on it while chanting “Lock her up!”

At some point it would impact  his ability to govern without ever being found guilty.

Id say impeachment for maladministration would be a way out. I doubt Dems would agree to “no charges while president” because that would leave him free to run again. I doubt the GOP would ever vote to convict.

Its just gonna get worse.

Trump sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how a good prosecutor operates:  Keep your mouth shut and follow the facts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

And THAT consideration is something that folks clamoring for full disclouse of Mueller's report and findings oughta consider, IMHO.  Should we prejudice a potential prosecution to satisfy the public outcry for disclosure?  Some might think so - I don't. 

I get what you’re saying but there’s a flip side. The likely future prosecutions are, as we speak, being prejudiced by the very thin and probably selective disclosure that’s already taking place. If anything, full disclosure would temper that. That old trope “sunlight is the best disinfectant” almost always rings true. 

Share this post


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

I get what you’re saying but there’s a flip side. The likely future prosecutions are, as we speak, being prejudiced by the very thin and probably selective disclosure that’s already taking place. If anything, full disclosure would temper that. That old trope “sunlight is the best disinfectant” almost always rings true. 

IANAL - but, I think there's a real possibility that any "full disclosure" could violate due process, and prejudice the jury pool, as well as risking the exposure of people who testified, but, that weren't subjects of the investigations themselves.  So - while I understand the desire for disclosure, i'll stand by my premise that everyone who wants to doesn't have a "need to know", and aren't legally bound to be responsible stewards of what might be disclosed to them.  Given that?  I contend that the review/redaction is appropriate.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

IANAL - but, I think there's a real possibility that any "full disclosure" could violate due process, and prejudice the jury pool, as well as risking the exposure of people who testified, but, that weren't subjects of the investigations themselves.  So - while I understand the desire for disclosure, i'll stand by my premise that everyone who wants to doesn't have a "need to know", and aren't legally bound to be responsible stewards of what might be disclosed to them.  Given that?  I contend that the review/redaction is appropriate.  

Looks like we’ll have to agree to disagree. 

Edit - yes, review/redaction is probably warranted. 

Share this post


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

Looks like we’ll have to agree to disagree. 

I'm OK with that - but, I hope that the understanding of why tempers your disappointment if/when full, public disclosure doesn't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I'm OK with that - but, I hope that the understanding of why tempers your disappointment if/when full, public disclosure doesn't happen.

Bluntly - why would anyone on the left believe the right is acting in good faith, now? When they haven't since the beginning of the investigation. When they have specifically acted in bad faith. And Trump picked an AG that'll cover for him, after he was furious the first pick wouldn't be his bitch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I'm OK with that - but, I hope that the understanding of why tempers your disappointment if/when full, public disclosure doesn't happen.

I don’t share your “understanding”. Let the facts be known. 

Just to clarify, are you onboard with full disclosure after the pending cases are litigated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Bluntly - why would anyone on the left believe the right is acting in good faith, now? When they haven't since the beginning of the investigation. When they have specifically acted in bad faith. And Trump picked an AG that'll cover for him, after he was furious the first pick wouldn't be his bitch?

^ this ^ is one of the few things I agree with you

The far right are engaged in an all-out war to seize control of the US; why would one expect them to play fair? The Republican Party has sometimes played footsie with them, sometimes not, but for the past ten or so years the Republican Party is increasingly controlled by them and their money backers. I tihnk this is one reason why Trump is acceptable, he has no principles. Doesn't understand the Constitution and feels no hesitation whatever in violating it.

The >1%ers and far righties have all but won the class war and they're increasingly angry and frustrated the last little pockets of resistance are proving pretty tough, and now there is a lot more fighting back. I think we'll see the pendulum start swinging back...... maybe.

9 minutes ago, Sean said:
16 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I'm OK with that - but, I hope that the understanding of why tempers your disappointment if/when full, public disclosure doesn't happen.

I don’t share your “understanding”. Let the facts be known. 

Just to clarify, are you onboard with full disclosure after the pending cases are litigated?

There may or may not be information sensitive to national security in Mueller's  documentation, but it has to be checked before publication; and references to testimony from people who would suffer repercussions...... I think that is what Chessie is referring to.

-DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

There may or may not be information sensitive to national security in Mueller's  documentation, but it has to be checked before publication; and references to testimony from people who would suffer repercussions...... I think that is what Chessie is referring to.

Which is why I agreed with that concept in post #17576 above. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

What do we do if in a year Trump is fighting 15-20 cases from foundation tax fraud to graft to foreign Emoluments to violating campaign finance laws to digging up McCains corpse to have Russin hookers pee on it while chanting “Lock her up!”

At some point it would impact  his ability to govern without ever being found guilty.

Id say impeachment for maladministration would be a way out. I doubt Dems would agree to “no charges while president” because that would leave him free to run again. I doubt the GOP would ever vote to convict.

Its just gonna get worse.

Trump sucks.

How about just beating him in the next election?...you know, democratically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Dog said:

How about just beating him in the next election?...you know, democratically.

Impeachment is democratic, bitch. No matter how much you fucking lie, that doesn't change.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I wonder just how many case files Mueller has dished to other Fed and State prosecutors. Me thinks the fun hasn’t even started yet. 

It’s been said by lots of knowledgeable people that the SDNY, Virginia Feds and NY State is where the real action will be. One could hope. 

Hope spring eternal. You must be a glutton for disappointment.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mueller report is in, but the investigation continues.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

The Mueller report is in, but the investigation continues.....

Why is the Grand Jury still working "robustly", if everything is done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Why is the Grand Jury still working "robustly", if everything is done?

Mueller farmed out a bunch of stuff. Probably issues not falling directly under his mandate. SDNY and Virginia I’m thinking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Hope spring eternal. You must be a glutton for disappointment.  

Yes, I enjoy it immensely. How about you?

You think Trumpworld is in the clear now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Dog said:

How about just beating him in the next election?...you know, democratically.

Hence, this thread. The Ocasio-Cortez thread. The health care threads. The calls and checks to politicians. I'm onboard.

What about you? What are you doing to prevent another four years of shitstain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Hence, this thread. The Ocasio-Cortez thread. The health care threads. The calls and checks to politicians. I'm onboard.

What about you? What are you doing to prevent another four years of shitstain?

Well contriving schemes for overturning an election is unattractive. Beating this dead horse makes Democrats look bitter and will only help Trump's reelection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Dog said:

Well contriving schemes for overturning an election is unattractive. Beating this dead horse makes Democrats look bitter and will only help Trump's reelection.

That didn't answer the question. 

What about you? What are you doing to prevent another four years of shitstain?

Share this post


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

Hence, this thread. The Ocasio-Cortez thread. The health care threads. The calls and check$ to politicians. I'm onboard.

What about you? What are you doing to prevent another four years of shitstain?

Always glad to see another fan of $peech!

If check$ are OK for you, how about when corporations like NY Times Inc write check$ to $peak about politicians?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Dog said:

Well contriving schemes for overturning an election is unattractive. Beating this dead horse makes Democrats look bitter and will only help Trump's reelection.

The beatings will continue -

 

Share this post


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

The beatings will continue -

 

Pffft.  Who puts any stock in what that guy says?

Oh, President Trump does?  Or, at least did?

Funny thing, how he often flip-flops.

Share this post


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

That didn't answer the question. 

What about you? What are you doing to prevent another four years of shitstain?

Depends on the alternatives.

Share this post


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

Depends on the alternatives.

I plan to spend a little of my retirement making sure McConnell a is bad dream best forgotten.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The beatings will continue -

 

So it would seem. Time will tell if that's a winning strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites