How the Mueller Investigation Could Play Out for Trump

[Spartanmack]

Are you talking about the movie where Tarantino insisted Thurman do a dangerous stunt even though it was a shot of the back of her hear and stunt drivers were available and the accident that resulted screwed up her neck and knees and gave her a concussion?


They might have already done that. I can't find any Tarantino social media accounts. Just fan stuff.

if that's the movie where she goes around doing kung fu and killing people with a samurai sword, yes but I wasn't referring to putting Uma Thurman at risk unnecessarily when I said he should get the Alex Jones treatment (sarcastically of course). I was referring to his use of gratuitous violence and the casual indifference to human life in his films that has obviously normalized violence, particularly samurai sword violence (again, I was being sarcastic).

 

[Spartanmack]

Pretty interesting that Dems, like Nunes are now starting to attack Mueller - could this be an indication they're worried his report hasn't found what they've been all but demanding it find (I'm talking about collusion w/ the Russians)?

 

[Gulo Blue]

Pretty interesting that Dems, like Nunes are now starting to attack Mueller - could this be an indication they're worried his report hasn't found what they've been all but demanding it find (I'm talking about collusion w/ the Russians)?

Nunes is not a typical Democrat relative to the investigation. He's been on the fringe of this for a while.
https://www.businessinsider.com/devin-nunes-michael-flynn-turkey-russia-2017-11

Devin Nunes attended a breakfast with Michael Flynn and Turkey's foreign minister just before the inauguration

Natasha Bertrand
Nov. 10, 2017, 2:52 PM

 

[Michchamp]

Pretty interesting that Dems, like Nunes are now starting to attack Mueller - could this be an indication they're worried his report hasn't found what they've been all but demanding it find (I'm talking about collusion w/ the Russians)?

I think they had hoped the "Russia Russia Russia" bullshit would keep enough people thinking the Pelosi/corporate Dems were actually opposing Trump and the GOP agenda without actually opposing any of it.

It's not working though. actual leftists aren't shutting up, and so maybe now Nunes and his ilk want Mueller to crank out some more headlines to push Ilham Omar, AOC, a "Green new deal" and "Medicare for all" etc. out of the public notice for a while.

 

[Spartanmack]

Nunes is not a typical Democrat relative to the investigation. He's been on the fringe of this for a while.
https://www.businessinsider.com/devin-nunes-michael-flynn-turkey-russia-2017-11

Apologies, I meant Schiff (wrong California Rep, Nunes is a Republican of course). Schiff is by no means on the fringe, otherwise he wouldn't have been made Chair of the Intel Committee. And he has plenty of company (Pelosi, Waters, etc). He's the one who has recently been critical of Mueller after being his biggest defender. That leads me to wonder if Adam isn't going to get what he wants out of the Mueller report and perhaps that's why he now believes it's urgent to investigate Trump's finances.

 

[Michchamp]

yeah, i followed your lead, Schiff not Nunes.

 

[Gulo Blue]

If they have their hearts set on collusion, I do think there's a very good chance they'll be disappointed. It takes 2 to collude. Trump might be an idiot, but Putin isn't.

 

[Michchamp]

If they have their hearts set on collusion, I do think there's a very good chance they'll be disappointed. It takes 2 to collude. Trump might be an idiot, but Putin isn't.

I think they know he's not guilty of anything like that, and they've known it all along.

If he really was a "Russian sleeper agent," or whatever absurd cloak-and-dagger fantasies they allege, instead of just being a generally sleazy, failed real estate developer desperate enough to take Russian mob money, he wouldn't have been elected president. They would've sunk him with all sorts of leaks way before November 2016.

the whole investigation was intended to keep Trump in line, and from following through on any of the populist initiatives he promised during his campaign.

notice how all his nominees more or less sailed through the approval process, even the obviously conflicted ones like DeVos, or Pruitt... both parties are okay with corporate handouts and corruption. Not okay with expanding medicare, pulling troops out of countries, or cutting the defense budget.

 

[Spartanmack]

yeah, i followed your lead, Schiff not Nunes.

I figured as much based on your response (actually hadn't seen it until I posted my correction to Gulo and the page refreshed, but it was pretty clear you knew what I meant).

 

[tigermud]

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/15/judge-hits-roger-stone-with-gag-order-1172114

Roger Stone remains free to talk about Robert Mueller and the Russia investigation, just not in and around the Washington, D.C., courthouse where the longtime Donald Trump associate is fighting the special counsel’s charges he lied to Congress and obstructed its Russia investigation.

That’s the end result from a four-page order issued Friday from a federal judge who had been considering a complete gag order on Stone in the wake of his full-on media

Instead, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that attorneys for Stone, Mueller and any witnesses in the case “must refrain from making statements to the media or in public settings that pose a substantial likelihood of material prejudice to this case.” blitz since his arrest last month in south Florida.

As for Stone, the judge said he could keep talking about the case with the caveat that she could change her mind and amend her order “if necessary.”

She also lumped Stone in with all the parties in the case and potential witnesses when they are around the D.C. courthouse. In those circumstances, Jackson cautioned that any comments must not “pose a substantial likelihood of material prejudice to this case" and cannot be "intended to influence any juror, potential juror, judge, witness or court officer or interfere with the administration of justice.”

Jackson concluded her ruling with a warning that Stone should consider that any excessive public comments may come back to bite him.

“While it is not up to the court to advise the defendant as to whether a succession of public statements would be in his best interest at this time, it notes that one factor that will be considered in the evaluation of any future request for relief based on pretrial publicity will be the extent to which the publicity was engendered by the defendant himself,” Jackson wrote.

 

[tigermud]

https://dailycaller.com/2019/02/16/roger-stone-communication-wikileaks/

 

[Gulo Blue]

So yesterday Trump called the discussion of the 25th amendment an "an illegal coup attempt".


A discussion of whether and how the Constitution applies...pretty much the exact opposite of illegal.


(FYI - I think my availability for posting is going to drop way off in the near future. External forces making me busy.)

 

[tinselwolverine]

So yesterday Trump called the discussion of the 25th amendment an "an illegal coup attempt".


A discussion of whether and how the Constitution applies...pretty much the exact opposite of illegal.

Shit is only illegal if you don?t get away with it.

 

[tigermud]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tqfzz7odWfs#action=share


I agree with Dershowitz

 

[Gulo Blue]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tqfzz7odWfs#action=share


I agree with Dershowitz

It depends on the details of the conversation. If someone said "I think he did something that's impeachable, let's invoke the 25th amendment" that would be wrong. If someone said "he doesn't appear to have the mental capacity to keep his story straight from day-to-day, remember important details, or pay attention to intelligence briefings, let's invoke the 25th amendment" that might be a good faith argument (provided the person believed those things)

 

[tigermud]

It depends on the details of the conversation. If someone said "I think he did something that's impeachable, let's invoke the 25th amendment" that would be wrong. If someone said "he doesn't appear to have the mental capacity to keep his story straight from day-to-day, remember important details, or pay attention to intelligence briefings, let's invoke the 25th amendment" that might be a good faith argument (provided the person believed those things)

Thus far i've only heard of it in the context of russia russia russia and that they didn't like that JC was fired. Hell Shills woulda fired him too! they blamed him as one of the reasons she lost too, remember. We'll see how it plays out. What if sometimes trump says really outlandish things because he already knows more than we do

 

[tinselwolverine]

It depends on the details of the conversation. If someone said "I think he did something that's impeachable, let's invoke the 25th amendment" that would be wrong. If someone said "he doesn't appear to have the mental capacity to keep his story straight from day-to-day, remember important details, or pay attention to intelligence briefings, let's invoke the 25th amendment" that might be a good faith argument (provided the person believed those things)

I did not hear McCabe himself say anything about the 25th amendment. I heard Tucker Carlson say that officials in the department of justice started considering approaching the cabinet to invoke the 25th amendment, but he didn?t say who any of them were.

I heard Dershowitz say that type of thing would be egregious and a number of other things I didn?t hear Dershowitz say anything about that being criminal.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Hell Shills woulda fired him too! they blamed him as one of the reasons she lost too, remember

Well, she wouldn?t have both fired him and blame him as one of the reasons she lost.

 

[tigermud]

I did not hear McCabe himself say anything about the 25th amendment. I heard Tucker Carlson say that officials in the department of justice started considering approaching the cabinet to invoke the 25th amendment, but he didn’t say who any of them were.

I heard Dershowitz say that type of thing would be egregious and a number of other things I didn’t hear Dershowitz say anything about that being criminal.

Sorry I really do try not to post the gay frog links since I know it upsets all of you so much and had to find something not associated with him. basically McCabe says Rod brought it up and Rod was serious about it. Rod already deined that though remember, tried to laugh it off. Trump knew though, he knew all this a long time ago. Rod plans to leave after the report from Bueller if it doesn't show anything substantial orange man will probably turn around and pardon all those it dragnet up on unrelated process items. Although i'm still not convinced it is actually ending anytime soon. I think they just string him along trying to run out the clock to the next election so they can hang it over the election and use it to help ensure he doesn't win again, that whole never trumpet movement, did it ever end after he won? hell shills NWO neocon no

Orange man bad.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I did not hear McCabe himself say anything about the 25th amendment. I heard Tucker Carlson say that officials in the department of justice started considering approaching the cabinet to invoke the 25th amendment, but he didn?t say who any of them were.

I heard Dershowitz say that type of thing would be egregious and a number of other things I didn?t hear Dershowitz say anything about that being criminal.

Yeah. I think it would be a real stretch to call it criminal. Talking about asserting part of the Constitution, and being wrong about it, is a regular part of lawyering before the Supreme Court.