Sol Rosenberg

Drip Drip Drip

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Dog said:

Yeah...Congress can do it in which case it's called impeachment.

Impeachment?

Law makers are not law enforcement. Your president is practically above the law. 

 

That's fucked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

 

So a sitting president can be indicted?

There is a memo from the DOJ office if legal counsel that concludes that a President cannot be indicted while in office, because it would be too much of a distraction from his day to day responsibilities. He CAN be indicted the moment he leaves office.  That memo is the reason that Mueller did not indict Individual 1, if you believe Mueller. 

Nothing in the Constitution prevents indictment. There is no case law supporting the OLC Memo. There is a case in which a President made the “I’m too busy” argument and got smacked down by the US Supreme Court, but it was a civil case, Clinton v Jones. The Court was very emphatic about it. A good argument could be made that the OLC memo is wrong, but a by-the-book guy like Mueller would never disturb the waters by challenging that. 

Share this post


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

There is a memo from the DOJ office if legal counsel that concludes that a President cannot be indicted while in office, because it would be too much of a distraction from his day to day responsibilities. He CAN be indicted the moment he leaves office.  That memo is the reason that Mueller did not indict Individual 1, if you believe Mueller. 

Nothing in the Constitution prevents indictment. There is no case law supporting the OLC Memo. There is a case in which a President made the “I’m too busy” argument and got smacked down by the US Supreme Court, but it was a civil case, Clinton v Jones. The Court was very emphatic about it. A good argument could be made that the OLC memo is wrong, but a by-the-book guy like Mueller would never disturb the waters by challenging that. 

Really....and for what crime would he have indicted individual #1 for absent the memo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Mr. Barr made real news in that Senate hearing, and while the press didn’t notice, Democrats did. The attorney general said he’d already assigned people at the Justice Department to assist his investigation of the origins of the Trump-Russia probe. He said his review would be far-reaching—that he was obtaining details from congressional investigations, from the ongoing probe by the department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, and even from Mr. Mueller’s work. Mr. Barr said the investigation wouldn’t focus only on the fall 2016 justifications for secret surveillance warrants against Trump team members but would go back months earlier.

He also said he’d focus on the infamous “dossier” concocted by opposition-research firm Fusion GPS and British former spy Christopher Steele, on which the FBI relied so heavily in its probe. Mr. Barr acknowledged his concern that the dossier itself could be Russian disinformation, a possibility he described as not “entirely speculative.” He also revealed that the department has “multiple criminal leak investigations under way” into the disclosure of classified details about the Trump-Russia investigation.

Do not underestimate how many powerful people in Washington have something to lose from Mr. Barr’s probe. Among them: Former and current leaders of the law-enforcement and intelligence communities. The Democratic Party pooh-bahs who paid a foreign national (Mr. Steele) to collect information from Russians and deliver it to the FBI. The government officials who misused their positions to target a presidential campaign. The leakers. The media. More than reputations are at risk. Revelations could lead to lawsuits, formal disciplinary actions, lost jobs, even criminal prosecution.

The attacks on Mr. Barr are first and foremost an effort to force him out, to prevent this information from coming to light until Democrats can retake the White House in 2020. As a fallback, the coordinated campaign works as a pre-emptive smear, diminishing the credibility of his ultimate findings by priming the public to view him as a partisan".

https://www.wsj.com/articles/for-fear-of-william-barr-11556837637

Share this post


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

"Mr. Barr made real news in that Senate hearing, and while the press didn’t notice, Democrats did. The attorney general said he’d already assigned people at the Justice Department to assist his investigation of the origins of the Trump-Russia probe. He said his review would be far-reaching—that he was obtaining details from congressional investigations, from the ongoing probe by the department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, and even from Mr. Mueller’s work. Mr. Barr said the investigation wouldn’t focus only on the fall 2016 justifications for secret surveillance warrants against Trump team members but would go back months earlier.

He also said he’d focus on the infamous “dossier” concocted by opposition-research firm Fusion GPS and British former spy Christopher Steele, on which the FBI relied so heavily in its probe. Mr. Barr acknowledged his concern that the dossier itself could be Russian disinformation, a possibility he described as not “entirely speculative.” He also revealed that the department has “multiple criminal leak investigations under way” into the disclosure of classified details about the Trump-Russia investigation.

Do not underestimate how many powerful people in Washington have something to lose from Mr. Barr’s probe. Among them: Former and current leaders of the law-enforcement and intelligence communities. The Democratic Party pooh-bahs who paid a foreign national (Mr. Steele) to collect information from Russians and deliver it to the FBI. The government officials who misused their positions to target a presidential campaign. The leakers. The media. More than reputations are at risk. Revelations could lead to lawsuits, formal disciplinary actions, lost jobs, even criminal prosecution.

The attacks on Mr. Barr are first and foremost an effort to force him out, to prevent this information from coming to light until Democrats can retake the White House in 2020. As a fallback, the coordinated campaign works as a pre-emptive smear, diminishing the credibility of his ultimate findings by priming the public to view him as a partisan".

https://www.wsj.com/articles/for-fear-of-william-barr-11556837637

 

F66ABEEE-8377-4360-A768-98A071FFFB1E.jpeg

Share this post


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

Really....and for what crime would he have indicted individual #1 for absent the memo?

Sol is correct.

He has obviously read Mueller's report.

I like the part in Mueller's report where he mentions the way evidence was gathered with the expectation of future criminal prosecutions for those that are currently unable to be indicted based on current DOJ guidance.

I wonder who Mueller was referring to there.....

Share this post


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

Really....and for what crime would he have indicted individual #1 for absent the memo?

Obstruction of justice. Conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice. 

 

Share this post


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

Dude...Trump could have fired Mueller at any time and shut down the investigation. He runs the executive branch. Believing that he has that authority is not the same as believing he's above the law. Now kindly fuck off.

Yes, that’s exactly the conclusion. But you are logic challenged so you have idiocracy going for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Yes, that’s exactly the conclusion. But you are logic challenged so you have idiocracy going for you.

That is why we have a Special Counsel law in the first place. 

But that is the BS that Sean and Co are serving to the Hungry Faithful. 

Share this post


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

Obstruction of justice. Conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice. 

 

What's the statute of limitations for those crimes?

If only something to maintain my sanity if there ends up being "4 more years".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ease the sheet. said:

What's the statute of limitations for those crimes?

If only something to maintain my sanity if there ends up being "4 more years".

Sealed indictment. Unseal after he leaves office. 

 

Share this post


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

Yeah...Congress can do it in which case it's called impeachment.

Finally, you concede that Mueller was not in a position to do so and therefore all your bleating about not having done so means nothing. Well done, the Dog can be taught!

Share this post


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

“If the President is being falsely accused — and the evidence now suggests that the accusations against him were false — and he knew they were false, and he felt that this investigation was unfair, propelled by his political opponents, and was hampering his ability to govern, that is not a corrupt motive for replacing an independent counsel,” Barr testified

 

SO, based on a president’s personal version of events and “truth”, he or she can shut down investigations that interfere with their exercise of power. Based on feelings of frustration or feelings that “this is a witch hunt”, a president can quash a duly authorized judicial branch investigation.

@Dog: is this a precedent you want to be set? Should presidents be subject to investigation, or not? Are they, in fact, above the law?

the judicial branch hasn't gotten involved.  yet

(doj = eb)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:
11 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

What's the statute of limitations for those crimes?

If only something to maintain my sanity if there ends up being "4 more years".

Sealed indictment. Unseal after he leaves office.

who would issue the sealed indictment?

Share this post


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

Sealed indictment. Unseal after he leaves office. 

 

I was under the impression all Mueller's indictments were opened?

 

Of course,  that doesn't negate what you say. And we do know that other law enforcement entities are active in this space.

So back to my question. Or does the time period only start when the indictment is unsealed?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Finally, you concede that Mueller was not in a position to do so and therefore all your bleating about not having done so means nothing. Well done, the Dog can be taught!

Hoisted on his own petard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:
12 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Sealed indictment. Unseal after he leaves office. 

 

I was under the impression all Mueller's indictments were opened?

 

Of course,  that doesn't negate what you say. And we do know that other law enforcement entities are active in this space.

So back to my question. Or does the time period only start when the indictment is unsealed?

don't get your hopes up - the ag said no obstruction.

it's congress / impeachment or nothing

Share this post


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

don't get your hopes up - the ag said no obstruction.

it's congress / impeachment or nothing

So hermetic, do you also believe in the king err unitary exec theory?

Share this post


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

don't get your hopes up - the ag said no obstruction.

it's congress / impeachment or nothing

So a partisan political appointee has the "final" say?

Or does "final" not actually mean final?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Raz'r said:
12 minutes ago, hermetic said:

don't get your hopes up - the ag said no obstruction.

it's congress / impeachment or nothing

So hermetic, do you also believe in the king err unitary exec theory?

no.  I think the house should start impeachment hearings on obstruction of justice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our friends on the left can’t grasp the obvious.  The DoJ is finished with the issue of the Trump campaign colluding or conspiring with the Russians.

PERIOD.

Barr and the Senate Judiciary Committee are now focused on investigating conspiracy by the Clinton campaign and the Obama administration, including spying on the Trump campaign.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:
15 minutes ago, hermetic said:

don't get your hopes up - the ag said no obstruction.

it's congress / impeachment or nothing

So a partisan political appointee has the "final" say?

Or does "final" not actually mean final?

I doubt one of his underlings are going to file charges, and it doesn't sound as if mueller was willing to go that far - so the criminal aspect is gone.  I'd be happy to be proved wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh-Oh

 

These two sentences are Mueller “Barr-proofing” the entire obstruction case.

Barr wrongly asserted that without “collusion” there could be no obstruction cuz there would be no underlying crime.

Mueller’s report is as much a rebuttal to Barr’s whitewash as it is a rpt on Trump.

Share this post


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

Obstruction of justice. Conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice. 

 

Bullshit. Mueller did not conclude Trump had committed any crime at all.

Share this post


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

Bullshit. Mueller did not conclude Trump had committed any crime at all.

As you’ve been forced to recognize before, Mueller stated that he didn’t even consider making a conclusion one way or the other.

There is nothing in the report which ”clears” Trump of Obstruction, and a great deal of evidence that he did, along with others who lied, destroyed communications and used encrypted messaging apps in contravention of Federal rules regarding saving WH correspondence. 

Once again, since you haven’t read the document you are unqualified to talk about it, except as hearsay.

In other words, everything you write about it is bullshit.

Share this post


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

Bullshit. Mueller did not conclude Trump had committed any crime at all.

You didn’t ask what mueller concluded. You asked what the crime was. But since you seem so certain, could you cite to the page of the report where Mueller concluded as you stated?

Share this post


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

Sealed indictment. Unseal after he leaves office. 

 

Except Mueller did not issue any sealed indictments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, J28 said:

Except Mueller did not issue any sealed indictments.

Who said it would be filed by Mueller?

Share this post


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

Obstruction of justice. Conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice. 

 

What crime did Trump attempt to obstruct?  Be specific.

Share this post


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

Who said it would be filed by Mueller?

Who in the DoJ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, J28 said:

What crime did Trump attempt to obstruct?  Be specific.

There is no criminal offense for obstructing crime. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

As you’ve been forced to recognize before, Mueller stated that he didn’t even consider making a conclusion one way or the other.

There is nothing in the report which ”clears” Trump of Obstruction, and a great deal of evidence that he did, along with others who lied, destroyed communications and used encrypted messaging apps in contravention of Federal rules regarding saving WH correspondence. 

Once again, since you haven’t read the document you are unqualified to talk about it, except as hearsay.

In other words, everything you write about it is bullshit.

Try to keep up...Despite the report indicating Mueller did not conclude that Trump committed a crime Sol is saying that he in fact did. Sol even pretends to know that the crime Mueller concluded Trump committed was conspiracy to obstruct justice and that but for the memo he would have indicted. Sol is obviously trying to bullshit us and appears to be succeeding in your case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Reuters:

The U.S. State Department allowed at least seven foreign governments to rent luxury condominiums in New York's Trump World Tower in 2017 without approval from Congress, according to documents and people familiar with the leases, a potential violation of the U.S. Constitution's emoluments clause.

The 90-story Manhattan building, part of the real estate empire of Donald Trump, had housed diplomats and foreign officials before the property developer became president. But now that he is in the White House, such transactions must pass muster with federal lawmakers, some legal experts say. The emoluments clause bans U.S. officials from accepting gifts or payments from foreign governments without congressional consent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, J28 said:

Except Mueller did not issue any sealed indictments.

Of course, you wouldn't know if they were from Mueller because ... they're sealed. But there apparently are a lot of sealed indictments in the DC docket.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dozens-sealed-criminal-indictments-dc-docket-mueller/story?id=59249030

Share this post


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

Try to keep up...Despite the report indicating Mueller did not conclude that Trump committed a crime Sol is saying that he in fact did. Sol even pretends to know that the crime Mueller concluded Trump committed was conspiracy to obstruct justice and that but for the memo he would have indicted. Sol is obviously trying to bullshit us and appears to be succeeding in your case.

Have you read the report yet bullshitter? Or are we supposed to treat you politely while you lie away?

Share this post


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

From Reuters:

The U.S. State Department allowed at least seven foreign governments to rent luxury condominiums in New York's Trump World Tower in 2017 without approval from Congress, according to documents and people familiar with the leases, a potential violation of the U.S. Constitution's emoluments clause.

The 90-story Manhattan building, part of the real estate empire of Donald Trump, had housed diplomats and foreign officials before the property developer became president. But now that he is in the White House, such transactions must pass muster with federal lawmakers, some legal experts say. The emoluments clause bans U.S. officials from accepting gifts or payments from foreign governments without congressional consent.

Except as pointed out elsewhere, the Condos are privately owned, not owned by Trump himself or by his corporations.

Share this post


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

Except as pointed out elsewhere, the Condos are privately owned, not owned by Trump himself or by his corporations.

Where is this elsewhere where this was pointed out?

And why would the US State Department sign off on this and why would this have required approval from Congress (that it didn't get) if your source from elsewhere is indeed correct in saying that they were not owned by Shitstain or Shitstain's corporations?

Share this post


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

Where is this elsewhere where this was pointed out?

And why would the US State Department sign off on this and why would this have required approval from Congress (that it didn't get) if your source from elsewhere is indeed correct in saying that they were not owned by Shitstain or Shitstain's corporations?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/george-conway-offers-rare-defense-of-trump-on-emoluments-charge/ar-AAAOmT6?ocid=spartanntp

 

Share this post


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

From Reuters:

The U.S. State Department allowed at least seven foreign governments to rent luxury condominiums in New York's Trump World Tower in 2017 without approval from Congress, according to documents and people familiar with the leases, a potential violation of the U.S. Constitution's emoluments clause.

The 90-story Manhattan building, part of the real estate empire of Donald Trump, had housed diplomats and foreign officials before the property developer became president. But now that he is in the White House, such transactions must pass muster with federal lawmakers, some legal experts say. The emoluments clause bans U.S. officials from accepting gifts or payments from foreign governments without congressional consent.

 

1 hour ago, warbird said:

Except as pointed out elsewhere, the Condos are privately owned, not owned by Trump himself or by his corporations.

 

51 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Where is this elsewhere where this was pointed out?

And why would the US State Department sign off on this and why would this have required approval from Congress (that it didn't get) if your source from elsewhere is indeed correct in saying that they were not owned by Shitstain or Shitstain's corporations?

It would require approval if the State Department thought that Trump owned them.  He doesn't, congress has no authority here apparently.

 

This is just another case of the left living and breathing hate because of a grievious transgression that in fact does not exist. Pease check into the "Apology" thread and offer one up.... .Thanks:lol:

Share this post


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

Bullshit. Mueller did not conclude Trump had committed any crime at all.

dance doggy dance!!!

Share this post


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

How do you know it’s DOJ?

How do you know Barr isn't a Russian agent?

Share this post


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

There is no criminal offense for obstructing crime. 

Your posts are a crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, J28 said:

How do you know Barr isn't a Russian agent?

Please tell me that is the latest cockamamie argument by the blue junkies? 

Can evil shapeshifters from space be far behind. 

Share this post


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

That's nice but your cite didn't say these condos were privately owned, not owned by [Shitstain] himself or by his corporations. Moreover, the point that the Reuters article makes is that Shitstain manages the building and collects management fees.

Share this post


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

That's nice but your cite didn't say these condos were privately owned, not owned by [Shitstain] himself or by his corporations. Moreover, the point that the Reuters article makes is that Shitstain manages the building and collects management fees.

The State Departmwnt doesn't share your view.  The owners are the ones responsible to pay fees, not tenants.

Share this post


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

The State Departmwnt doesn't share your view.  The owners are the ones responsible to pay fees, not tenants.

No, they don't. And they won't share the leases with the House Oversight Committee either.

Share this post


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

Now who heads the state department, dolt?

 

3 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

No, they don't. And they won't share the leases with the House Oversight Committee either.

TDS?

https://www-urbandictionary-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&term=TDS&amp=true&usqp=mq331AQCCAE%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.urbandictionary.com%2Fdefine.php%3Fterm%3DTDS

Share this post


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

TDS?

Me? TDS? Not at all. Jeff hates your boy Shitstain more than I do.

Share this post


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

That's nice but your cite didn't say these condos were privately owned, not owned by [Shitstain] himself or by his corporations. Moreover, the point that the Reuters article makes is that Shitstain manages the building and collects management fees.

The tenants know full well that their presence in the building is known to the *resident.

Every NYC condo and coop has sub-leasing limitations and tenant approvals processes that must go before the board and management company.  The tRump management has clear knowledge and likely control over tenants.  And tenants pay the management fees, as a pass-through through the unit owner. 

For instance, I sub-lease my NYC apartment for $12,000 + $5,000 maintenance per month in two separate checks and the board limits lease periods to 2 years to non-family and rigorously vets each tenant - mostly for ability to pay (not skin color or such).  Current tenant bought a small unit in the building so she could continue to rent ours.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

I finally get it the Drips are Lefty tears. Aw you poor lads and lassies.

 

The dripping is the end-result of Trump's personal vietnam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

The tenants know full well that their presence in the building is known to the *resident.

Every NYC condo and coop has sub-leasing limitations and tenant approvals processes that must go before the board and management company.  The tRump management has clear knowledge and likely control over tenants.  And tenants pay the management fees, as a pass-through through the unit owner. 

For instance, I sub-lease my NYC apartment for $12,000 + $5,000 maintenance per month in two separate checks and the board limits lease periods to 2 years to non-family and rigorously vets each tenant - mostly for ability to pay (not skin color or such).  Current tenant bought a small unit in the building so she could continue to rent ours.  

You are making a stretch of being a member of a condo association as benefitting from another member engaging on nefarious action. One would think the State Dept considered this carefully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
40 minutes ago, warbird said:

One would think the State Dept considered this carefully.

hahahahahahaha

 

that's the same State Department with Hillary's emails?


HAHAHAHAHA

Share this post


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

I think it's safe to say that Emmet Flood's brilliant letter marks the shift for the Whitehouse from defense to offense.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5986068-WHSC-to-AG-4-19-19.html#document/p1

Have you read the letter Dog? It makes your talking points of this morning look stupid.  It's stupid - but nothing stops you 'tards from cheering on Trump.

And for shameless Republican homer AGITC - it makes Dog look stupid because Flood argues Mueller had no business coming to a determination of innocence or guilt at all and therefor was fundamentally flawed.

Share this post


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

Try to keep up...Despite the report indicating Mueller did not conclude that Trump committed a crime Sol is saying that he in fact did. Sol even pretends to know that the crime Mueller concluded Trump committed was conspiracy to obstruct justice and that but for the memo he would have indicted. Sol is obviously trying to bullshit us and appears to be succeeding in your case.

That's not what I said bullshitter. 

Share this post


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

That's not what I said bullshitter. 

Yes it is bullshitter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The general tone of the letter seems to be whiny. Trumps lawyers are complaining that, despite cooperation, Mueller didn’t exonerate the president.

That really pissed them off. 

They also say that, just because they cooperated during a formal investigation run by Republicans & ultimately subject to Trump’s PR maestro AG Barr (the recipient of this letter), that doesn’t mean the president plans to waive executive privilege now that Democrats are asking the questions.

Basically, Trump is pissed he didn’t listen more to McGahn before he got rid of him

This is defense & legal complaining. Trump’s a snowflake, scared of the House even before Nancy has started in earnest.

Hope she rips him a new one.

Share this post


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

Hope she rips him a new one.

Hopefully with barbed wire:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Emmet Flood seems to have gone to the Bork school of law.

 (Yale) OH! DUH! He did!

 And to think that he probably ate food off of a table that I built for the Yale Law School..... Sad....

Owen Fiss must be very, very pissed tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Navig8tor said:

Hopefully with barbed wire:D

Such a destructive response......

Share this post


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

Bullshit. Mueller did not conclude Trump had committed any crime at all.

He doesn't need to in order for Sol's answer to be valid. You're not even trying Dog. Pick up your game son.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, phillysailor said:

The general tone of the letter seems to be whiny. Trumps lawyers are complaining that, despite cooperation, Mueller didn’t exonerate the president.

That really pissed them off. 

They also say that, just because they cooperated during a formal investigation run by Republicans & ultimately subject to Trump’s PR maestro AG Barr (the recipient of this letter), that doesn’t mean the president plans to waive executive privilege now that Democrats are asking the questions.

Basically, Trump is pissed he didn’t listen more to McGahn before he got rid of him

This is defense & legal complaining. Trump’s a snowflake, scared of the House even before Nancy has started in earnest.

Hope she rips him a new one.

Did you even read it? The It most definitely is not a complaint that Mueller did not exonerate the president . It goes to some length to explain that exoneration is not even a legitimate prosecutorial function.

Share this post


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

Did you even read it? The It most definitely is not a complaint that Mueller did not exonerate the president . It goes to some length to explain that exoneration is not even a legitimate prosecutorial function.

Flood took issue specifically with the 182-page section of the report that detailed a dozen instances in which Trump might have obstructed justice. He blasted the document for laying “raw evidentiary material combined with its own inclusive observations on the arguable legal significance of the gathered content.” 

“This species of public report has no basis in the relevant regulation and no precedent in the history of special/independent counsel investigations,” Flood wrote.

He also questioned the notion suggested by “some commentators” that Mueller’s work was in effect a guide for congressional investigators with the power to impeach Trump, arguing that the special counsel in his capacity as a temporary DOJ official “should not be in the business of creating ‘road maps’ for the purpose of transmitting them” to Congress.

 

IN other words...

“I cannot believe the Special Counsel, having been tasked with finding all information relevant to whether or not Russia interfered with our election, if and which Americans helped them or conspired with them, and if other crimes were committed related to these questions actually did that!

Your boy Mueller just found evidence against the president! And included it in his report!”

If Mueller was not supposed to indict the president, then this report is exactly what his mandate required. Whining about it, requesting it be held confidential is idiotic. The letter is a farce; just another legal ploy by a fraudster who has always used them.

The DOJ does not belong to Donald Trump. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Flood took issue specifically with the 182-page section of the report that detailed a dozen instances in which Trump might have obstructed justice. He blasted the document for laying “raw evidentiary material combined with its own inclusive observations on the arguable legal significance of the gathered content.” 

“This species of public report has no basis in the relevant regulation and no precedent in the history of special/independent counsel investigations,” Flood wrote.

He also questioned the notion suggested by “some commentators” that Mueller’s work was in effect a guide for congressional investigators with the power to impeach Trump, arguing that the special counsel in his capacity as a temporary DOJ official “should not be in the business of creating ‘road maps’ for the purpose of transmitting them” to Congress.

You did pretty well up to this point then you started making things up You also completely failed to defend your assertion that the letter amounted to a complaint that Mueller did not exonerate Trump.

IN other words...

“I cannot believe the Special Counsel, having been tasked with finding all information relevant to whether or not Russia interfered with our election, if and which Americans helped them or conspired with them, and if other crimes were committed related to these questions actually did that!

Your boy Mueller just found evidence against the president! And included it in his report!”

If Mueller was not supposed to indict the president, then this report is exactly what his mandate required. Whining about it, requesting it be held confidential is idiotic. The letter is a farce; just another legal ploy by a fraudster who has always used them.

The DOJ does not belong to Donald Trump. 

 

Share this post


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

Did you even read it? The It most definitely is not a complaint that Mueller did not exonerate the president . It goes to some length to explain that exoneration is not even a legitimate prosecutorial function.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/white-collar-and-criminal-law/insight-mueller-doctrine-prevented-finding-that-trump-committed-crimes

Special Counsel Robert Mueller concluded that he was constitutionally prohibited from finding that President Trump committed a crime, regardless of evidence. Paul Weiss partner Lorin L. Reisner says based on that determination, Mueller could only exonerate the president or abstain from reaching a conclusion, which means Attorney General William Barr’s letter to Congress included serious falsehoods.

Share this post


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

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/white-collar-and-criminal-law/insight-mueller-doctrine-prevented-finding-that-trump-committed-crimes

Special Counsel Robert Mueller concluded that he was constitutionally prohibited from finding that President Trump committed a crime, regardless of evidence. Paul Weiss partner Lorin L. Reisner says based on that determination, Mueller could only exonerate the president or abstain from reaching a conclusion, which means Attorney General William Barr’s letter to Congress included serious falsehoods.

GOSH! Imagine that!?  :rolleyes:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The elk must be so pleased that their Dear Leader is so pleased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2019 at 9:50 AM, phillysailor said:

Flood took issue specifically with the 182-page section of the report that detailed a dozen instances in which Trump might have obstructed justice. He blasted the document for laying “raw evidentiary material ...    ...    ...” 

...    ...    ...

The DOJ does not belong to Donald Trump. 

Flood and a lot of other Trumpologists believe that it does, or that it should.

Destruction of Constitutional rule is at hand. The Trumpublicans signal daily that there is no place for actual truth or fact in their idoleology of governing...... that the government not only is NOT responsible to the people, that there is NO obligation on those in power to be honest or fair to those under them. They are signalling their intent to impose a raw despotism.

Even guys like John Neely Kennedy, formerly a Democrat (I don't think he is a segregationist but he certainly isn't democratic) and now a Republican Senator from Louisiana, who called Trump a bonehead on TV this morning, stated that the DOJ exists to protect Trump (and whatever other political allies need protecting) from Congress and from the law.

Mick Mulvaney called Congress "toothless" this morning, with regard to compelling AG Barr to testify, although he seemed to agree that Barr was misleading about Mueller's report; he was all but gloating that "Trump has nothing to fear" from either Congress or from future elections.

-DSK

Share this post


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

I don't understand how she believes she is entitled to the boxes but the deliberate destruction of documents under a preservation order is obstruction....sometimes.

Share this post


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

I don't understand how she believes she is entitled to the boxes but the deliberate destruction of documents under a preservation order is obstruction....sometimes.

I don't read it the same way you do.  To me, she is not concerned that she couldn't take them with her - she is concerned that information "disappeared".  I think she is pointing out how she was explicitly told to leave the boxes for investigators, and was surprised (would it really surprise anyone?) that 5 of the 7 boxes may have been destroyed.

As for your last point - it either is or it isn't.  No wiggle room.  Do try to be consistent.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good read...

"Checkmate. How President Trump’s legal team outfoxed Mueller"

"But more importantly, Trump’s legal team knew that Barr agreed with them on the meaning of § 1512(c)(2). Thus, in a perfectly lawful, legitimate manner, Barr’s confirmation would change the Department of Justice’s official view on the interpretation of § 1512(c)(2) – and thus undermine Mueller’s obstruction investigation.

DEMOCRATS SCRAMBLE

When the June 2018 Barr memorandum became public in December, many Democrats tried to weaponize it against him. But because Barr’s memo was specific to a particular statute, and was perfectly defensible legal analysis, it was hard for the Democrats to get any traction.

In hindsight, however, it’s clear that Barr was the assassin Democrats feared.

Within six weeks of his confirmation, the Mueller probe was over".

https://humanevents.com/2019/05/01/checkmate/

Share this post


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

Good read...

"Checkmate. How President Trump’s legal team outfoxed Mueller"

"But more importantly, Trump’s legal team knew that Barr agreed with them on the meaning of § 1512(c)(2). Thus, in a perfectly lawful, legitimate manner, Barr’s confirmation would change the Department of Justice’s official view on the interpretation of § 1512(c)(2) – and thus undermine Mueller’s obstruction investigation.

DEMOCRATS SCRAMBLE

When the June 2018 Barr memorandum became public in December, many Democrats tried to weaponize it against him. But because Barr’s memo was specific to a particular statute, and was perfectly defensible legal analysis, it was hard for the Democrats to get any traction.

In hindsight, however, it’s clear that Barr was the assassin Democrats feared.

Within six weeks of his confirmation, the Mueller probe was over".

https://humanevents.com/2019/05/01/checkmate/

You must be so happy.  My compliments!  

Whats in this for you?  How much are you being paid?  By whom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2019 at 9:55 AM, J28 said:

Our friends on the left can’t grasp the obvious.  The DoJ is finished with the issue of the Trump campaign colluding or conspiring with the Russians.

PERIOD.

Barr and the Senate Judiciary Committee are now focused on investigating conspiracy by the Clinton campaign and the Obama administration, including spying on the Trump campaign.  

Dream on.  There are numerous investigations being handled USA's across the country as spin-offs from the Mueller investigation.  The success already achieved by the Mueller team shows a President who lacks the moral fortitude and good judgment we should demand of all leaders.

Share this post


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

You must be so happy.  My compliments!  

Whats in this for you?  How much are you being paid?  By whom?

If Dog could read or watch anything critical of his messiah, he would have learned that Barr's analysis of permissible actions by the president is shared by only one other person in the USA, a Harvard law instructor, and is inconsistent with basic legal principles in the USA. 

 

Share this post


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

Good read...

"Checkmate. How President Trump’s legal team outfoxed Mueller"

"But more importantly, Trump’s legal team knew that Barr agreed with them on the meaning of § 1512(c)(2). Thus, in a perfectly lawful, legitimate manner, Barr’s confirmation would change the Department of Justice’s official view on the interpretation of § 1512(c)(2) – and thus undermine Mueller’s obstruction investigation.

DEMOCRATS SCRAMBLE

When the June 2018 Barr memorandum became public in December, many Democrats tried to weaponize it against him. But because Barr’s memo was specific to a particular statute, and was perfectly defensible legal analysis, it was hard for the Democrats to get any traction.

In hindsight, however, it’s clear that Barr was the assassin Democrats feared.

Within six weeks of his confirmation, the Mueller probe was over".

https://humanevents.com/2019/05/01/checkmate/

Right

Because when you are innocent, the top priority for you is to prevent any investigate of the crime you didn't commit

-DSK

Share this post


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

If Dog could read or watch anything critical of his messiah, he would have learned that Barr's analysis of permissible actions by the president is shared by only one other person in the USA, a Harvard law instructor, and is inconsistent with basic legal principles in the USA. 

 

How is it inconsistant with basic legal principles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So - this was all a deep state setup that Trump & Co masterfully evaded with a keen grasp of the law. But they can't testify to that, tell you, or explain it. You've got to go to @Dog s increasingly fringe and desperate trumpalo media to get the real scoop.

damn republicans are getting stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

So - this was all a deep state setup that Trump & Co masterfully evaded with a keen grasp of the law. But they can't testify to that, tell you, or explain it. You've got to go to @Dog s increasingly fringe and desperate trumpalo media to get the real scoop.

damn republicans are getting stupid.

Liberal dupes calling other people stupid on page 186 of the drip drip drip thread is funny.

Share this post


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

How is it inconsistant with basic legal principles?

Did you take a position with regards to the Unitary Executive yet? Would you be happy with Barr supporting a Democrat president in this way? Because he would. He’s a purist. President = Monarch

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites