‘Sleeper’ case could torpedo Mueller report

[NightHawkeye]

He was given a matter to investigate and if he thought it was necessary to prosecute crimes arising from his investigation. That's how investigations work.

LOL ... which is why Mueller has focused on indicting Russian troll farms.

 

[Arcangl86]

LOL ... which is why Mueller has focused on indicting Russian troll farms.

What should he have done when he thought he had enough evidence of wrong doing to get an indictment? Just ignore it?

 

[TLK Valentine]

The executive branch then.

OK. So the president can fire Mueller. Thanks for your insightful response.

And why hasn't he?

 

[NightHawkeye]

And why hasn't he?

Why do you think he hasn't?

 

[Tanj]

From the "Karma", files: ‘Sleeper’ case could torpedo Mueller report

It might even keep the special counsel from sending a report to Congress, shaking Democrats’ hopes that such a document could provide the impetus for impeachment proceedings.

A little-noticed court case stemming from the apparent murder of a Columbia University professor six decades ago could keep special counsel Robert Mueller from publishing any information about the Trump campaign and Russia that he obtains through a Washington grand jury.
...
It’s if Republicans keep the House — and there’s no such subpoena — that the McKeever decision could take on added importance. At issue is a federal court rule that governs grand jury secrecy and lays out several exceptions permitting disclosures. There is no exemption in the rule that explicitly authorizes a report to the public or to Congress for potential use in impeachment proceedings.

The law used to appoint independent counsels in the 1980s and 1990s had a provision for such a report to Congress and was the mechanism used for the 1998 report that led to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.

However, that law expired in 1999. Mueller was appointed under Justice Department regulations that are similar to the earlier statute, but there’s no provision in those rules that ensures secret grand jury testimony can be made public, as there was under the old independent counsel law.​

When one operates outside prescribed law ... one is likely to encounter roadblocks. Who'd have guessed it?

A special counsel is appointed by a republican DOJ, you find precedent suggesting presidential malfeasance cannot be presented to congress, and your conclusion is that the special counsel "operates outside prescribed law".

Wow. At least we agree that is appropriate.

Joining those dots leads to some serious non euclidean geometry...wait...are you actually cthulhu??

 

[theQuincunx5]

From the "Karma", files: ‘Sleeper’ case could torpedo Mueller report

It might even keep the special counsel from sending a report to Congress, shaking Democrats’ hopes that such a document could provide the impetus for impeachment proceedings.

A little-noticed court case stemming from the apparent murder of a Columbia University professor six decades ago could keep special counsel Robert Mueller from publishing any information about the Trump campaign and Russia that he obtains through a Washington grand jury.
...
It’s if Republicans keep the House — and there’s no such subpoena — that the McKeever decision could take on added importance. At issue is a federal court rule that governs grand jury secrecy and lays out several exceptions permitting disclosures. There is no exemption in the rule that explicitly authorizes a report to the public or to Congress for potential use in impeachment proceedings.

The law used to appoint independent counsels in the 1980s and 1990s had a provision for such a report to Congress and was the mechanism used for the 1998 report that led to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.

However, that law expired in 1999. Mueller was appointed under Justice Department regulations that are similar to the earlier statute, but there’s no provision in those rules that ensures secret grand jury testimony can be made public, as there was under the old independent counsel law.​

When one operates outside prescribed law ... one is likely to encounter roadblocks. Who'd have guessed it?

Why are you Trump Supporters so afraid of the findings coming out?

LOL!

We on the Left had to accept that our guy, Slick Willy, had done wrong. Why does Mueller scare you guys so much?

You guys too weak to accept the findings of an investigation?

LOL.

Pathetic

 

[NightHawkeye]

Why are you Trump Supporters so afraid of the findings coming out?

LOL!

We on the Left had to accept that our guy, Slick Willy, had done wrong. Why does Mueller scare you guys so much?

You guys too weak to accept the findings of an investigation?

LOL.

Pathetic

As I pointed out earlier the article in the OP comes from the left website Politico. Perhaps you should take your complaints up with them.

 

[theQuincunx5]

As I pointed out earlier the article in the OP comes from the left website Politico. Perhaps you should take your complaints up with them.

No, YOU posted it. You post ALL this stuff that sure looks like you just can't wait to see Trump Triumphant.

So I will ask you: why are you so scared of Trump facing the results of an investigation?

It's clear you like Trump a lot. I know you'll say you don't, but you seem to.

So queue up the disavowals. And hide from the topic. Play coy all you want...but we all know.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Why do you think he hasn't?

Tsk, tsk... I asked you first.

 

[KCfromNC]

I do appreciate how the RNC/RT spin has moved from "no collusion" to "7 legal loopholes which might save this presidency. You won't believe #3". That's obviously a sign that Trump is totally innocent.

 

[NightHawkeye]

No, YOU posted it. You post ALL this stuff that sure looks like you just can't wait to see Trump Triumphant.

I enjoy the show.

So I will ask you: why are you so scared of Trump facing the results of an investigation?

Why is he not innocent until PROVEN guilty?

The unlimited resources of the federal government have been thrown at him for nearly two years now ... and it appears that there is no there there.

It's clear you like Trump a lot. I know you'll say you don't, but you seem to.

I would simply distinguish between the man and his policies.

I generally like what he's done in office. Life is good.

So queue up the disavowals. And hide from the topic. Play coy all you want...but we all know.

LOL, it seems that what you know is that you hate Trump. Go ahead. Disavow it all you want. We all know. It clouds your judgement and outlook regarding his actions in office.

 

[whatbogsends]

Why is he not innocent until PROVEN guilty?

The unlimited resources of the federal government have been thrown at him for nearly two years now ... and it appears that there is no there there.

Presumption of innocence doesn't mean "you can't investigate someone until they've been proven guilty.

No one is suggesting he isn't innocent until proven guilty. What we are suggesting is that we let the investigation play out and have Mueller present his evidence. We'll know if there's a "there there" when the investigation concludes.

So far, the investigation has indicted and convicted several criminals. People who support law and order should be cheering this investigation, instead, we have sycophants of Trump calling for the investigation to stop.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Presumption of innocence doesn't mean "you can't investigate someone until they've been proven guilty.

No one is suggesting he isn't innocent until proven guilty. What we are suggesting is that we let the investigation play out and have Mueller present his evidence. We'll know if there's a "there there" when the investigation concludes.

... and when will the investigation conclude?

So far, the investigation has indicted and convicted several criminals.

Your claim is without basis in fact. Manafort was under investigation already. The big question should be why Manafort wasn't charged under the previous administration. As for Cohen, the question is similar. Why wasn't Cohen charged earlier? Cohen's obviously been doing shady stuff for years.

People who support law and order should be cheering this investigation, instead, we have sycophants of Trump calling for the investigation to stop.

People who support law and order still want quite a few additional known law-breakers to be indicted.

 

[whatbogsends]

... and when will the investigation conclude?

Most investigations don't have a pre-specified end-date. You asking for one makes it seem like you don't understand much about investigations. Investigations end when they finish following the trail of evidence. As it is, Mueller's been following the trail, and catching several criminals while doing so.

Your claim is without basis in fact. Manafort was under investigation already. The big question should be why Manafort wasn't charged under the previous administration. As for Cohen, the question is similar. Why wasn't Cohen charged earlier? Cohen's obviously been doing shady stuff for years.

The claim that the Mueller investigation has indicted and convicted several criminals is grounded firmly in fact. Your refusal to acknowledge the facts speaks volumes about the way you are approaching this.

I'm sorry that I can't address your questions involving timing - Mueller doesn't keep me appraised of the actions of the investigation. For Cohen's timing, I would argue that at least part of it had to do with him making public statements about the Stormy Daniels & McDougal payments which contradicted other narratives being put forth. When there are conflicting narratives and at least some of them involve a violation of the law, it shouldn't be surprising when one is investigated for it.

People who support law and order still want quite a few additional known law-breakers to be indicted.

​

Did you have anyone in particular in mind?

 

[NightHawkeye]

Most investigations don't have a pre-specified end-date. You asking for one makes it seem like you don't understand much about investigations. Investigations end when they finish following the trail of evidence. As it is, Mueller's been following the trail, and catching several criminals while doing so.

... and indicting troll farms to make it seem like there's a Russian connection. You might recall that alleged Russian election tampering was the entire basis for Mueller's investigation.

The claim that the Mueller investigation has indicted and convicted several criminals is grounded firmly in fact. Your refusal to acknowledge the facts speaks volumes about the way you are approaching this.

I've said all along that I look forward to seeing the results of Mueller's investigation.

So far, the focus has been on troll farms and known criminals who should have been indicted years earlier, but weren't. Apparently, nobody cared too much about that criminal activity until those individuals had some association with this president.

I'm sorry that I can't address your questions involving timing - Mueller doesn't keep me appraised of the actions of the investigation. For Cohen's timing, I would argue that at least part of it had to do with him making public statements about the Stormy Daniels & McDougal payments which contradicted other narratives being put forth. When there are conflicting narratives and at least some of them involve a violation of the law, it shouldn't be surprising when one is investigated for it.

I know what you mean.

I always looked forward to learning more about Hillary's misdeeds.

Did you have anyone in particular in mind?

Those in the swamp, of course.

 

[theQuincunx5]

I enjoy the show.

Why is he not innocent until PROVEN guilty?

You mean like Hillary? Yeah, I still remember 2016 when the Trump supporters chanted "Lock her up" at a bunch of the rallies. So don't give me this.

But more to the point: the investigation has to take place. You guys who love Trump just can't bear to see that happen.

As such it is clear you don't care about who is guilty or innocent...just that nothing come out bad about Trump.

The unlimited resources of the federal government have been thrown at him for nearly two years now ... and it appears that there is no there there.

OH MY! Clutch your pearls! It took about 4 years to nail Slick Willy. Did you forget that? Hillary has been investigated by the GOP for about 24 years now (nothing found yet to convict her, but just keep working)

So you're saying Trump is TOO WEAK to stand even a FRACTION of the investigation you guys DEMANDED on the Clintons?

LOL.

LOL, it seems that what you know is that you hate Trump. Go ahead. Disavow it all you want.

Nope. I hate Trump. I hate lying racist scum who have no sense of what they are doing in the office of President. I hate the non-stop lies, I hate the regressive policies. I hate the hypocrisy.

We all know. It clouds your judgement and outlook regarding his actions in office.

LOL. You mean like his "denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula"? Or do you mean his replacement of Obamacare with a better program?

 

[NightHawkeye]

You mean like Hillary? Yeah, I still remember 2016 when the Trump supporters chanted "Lock her up" at a bunch of the rallies. So don't give me this.

But more to the point: the investigation has to take place. You guys who love Trump just can't bear to see that happen.

As such it is clear you don't care about who is guilty or innocent...just that nothing come out bad about Trump.



OH MY! Clutch your pearls! It took about 4 years to nail Slick Willy. Did you forget that? Hillary has been investigated by the GOP for about 24 years now (nothing found yet to convict her, but just keep working)

So you're saying Trump is TOO WEAK to stand even a FRACTION of the investigation you guys DEMANDED on the Clintons?

LOL.



Nope. I hate Trump. I hate lying racist scum who have no sense of what they are doing in the office of President. I hate the non-stop lies, I hate the regressive policies. I hate the hypocrisy.



LOL. You mean like his "denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula"? Or do you mean his replacement of Obamacare with a better program?

You seem angry. At least you admit your hatred for Trump though.

Not sure why you project so much of your own kind of biases on to me ... but you've done that for as long as you've been posting responses in this forum.

 

[whatbogsends]

You seem angry. At least you admit your hatred for Trump though.

Not sure why you project so much of your own kind of biases on to me ... but you've done that for as long as you've been posting responses in this forum.

Quin didn't seem any angrier than others on this forum.

He's not projecting any biases on you. You've shown your own biases and we've simply observed them.

The hypocrisy of Trump supporters on his investigation vs. Clinton's investigations ("Lock her up!" vs. "They should stop the investigation because they haven't found anything yet") is apparent for all to see.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Quin didn't seem any angrier than others on this forum.

He's not projecting any biases on you. You've shown your own biases and we've simply observed them.

The hypocrisy of Trump supporters on his investigation vs. Clinton's investigations ("Lock her up!" vs. "They should stop the investigation because they haven't found anything yet") is apparent for all to see.

Noting that Clinton's security violations alone would have landed you and me in jail had we done similarly. It's not even arguable.

 

[whatbogsends]

Noting that Clinton's security violations alone would have landed you and me in jail had we done similarly. It's not even arguable.

Noting that they would not have landed another Secretary of State in jail had they done similarly. It's not even arguable.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ate-email-accounts-classified-hillary-clinton