Jumbo

Moose & Squirrel v Boris & Natasha: what's the deal with the rooskies and trumpland?

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

If trump covers it up as you suggest, and mueller stays silent, mueller is complicit in the cover up... seems highly unlikely to me.

 

 

 

Not so much a "cover up" per se as it is just making sure the absolute bare minimum is relayed to Congress and/or that there's enough in the report to spin so that Trump can claim vindication (ie if the report has a laundry list of circumstantial but corroborated evidence that Trump knew about Russian collusion but also states "we do not have a recording of Trump saying he wants to collude so we do not have direct physical evidence" then Barr's report to Congress could say "there's no evidence of POTUS colluding" and it could technically be considered true).

 

As far as Mueller goes, I don't think we can know exactly how he'd react if his report ended up being completely neutered, but not necessarily falsified or outright lied about. He's a very by the book guy so may not see it as his place to go outside of the chain of command and make something public that the AG didn't want public. 

 

That being said, I certainly wouldn't put it past someone on Mueller's team doing an end around if Barr basically ends up taking orders from Trump and suppressing most of what's in the report. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

If trump covers it up as you suggest, and mueller stays silent, mueller is complicit in the cover up... seems highly unlikely to me.

 

 

 

 

?

 

How could Mueller be complicit in a cover-up simply by completing his job? Mueller's special counsel; not the Attorney General.

 

Mueller will release his report to Barr and Barr will summarize the report to Congress. If Trump is not indicted or Barr decides Trump can't be indicted then Barr can block anything in the report that reflects poorly on Trump.  (*This is not up to Mueller)

 

This is why Trump can just continue with his "No Collusion" regardless of how many people around him go down because he knows the report won't be made public. Or at least that's what he's banking on. 

Edited by Mooka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If there is solid evidence that a crime was committed, mueller has a duty to report that to congress, regardless of what the AG does. IF there is no crime then all these additional investigations are waste of time and are being done for political purpose.

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

If there is solid evidence that a crime was committed, mueller has a duty to report that to congress, regardless of what the AG does. IF there is no crime then all these additional investigations are waste of time and are being done for political purpose.

 

That's not how it works unfortunately:

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.8

 

§ 600.8 Notification and reports by the Special Counsel.

(a)Budget.

(1) A Special Counsel shall be provided all appropriate resources by the Department of Justice. Within the first 60 days of his or her appointment, the Special Counsel shall develop a proposed budget for the current fiscal year with the assistance of the Justice Management Division for the Attorney General's review and approval. Based on the proposal, the Attorney General shall establish a budget for the operations of the Special Counsel. The budget shall include a request for assignment of personnel, with a description of the qualifications needed.

(2) Thereafter, 90 days before the beginning of each fiscal year, the Special Counsel shall report to the Attorney General the status of the investigation, and provide a budget request for the following year. The Attorney General shall determine whether the investigation should continue and, if so, establish the budget for the next year.

(b)Notification of significant events. The Special Counsel shall notify the Attorney General of events in the course of his or her investigation in conformity with the Departmental guidelines with respect to Urgent Reports.

(c)Closing documentation. At the conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

As a practical matter if Mueller wants the report released, it will be released. i have zero doubt about that.  Even if the report is "confidential" there is nothing preventing Mueller from pointing out that the "AGs characterizations of the report are incomplete/misleading".... then you get into the whole is it politically possible to keep the report from the american public... 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/paa3BBrBK9r1iRas7zqyHTK54vk=/1484x0/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/YNUWHUQEOZBMHF7KVD45IC72II.jpg

 

Nope.  Not many republican senators are going to back trump on that one.

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

15 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

As a practical matter if Mueller wants the report released, it will be released. i have zero doubt about that.  Even if the report is "confidential" there is nothing preventing Mueller from pointing out that the "AGs characterizations of the report are incomplete/misleading".... then you get into the whole is it politically possible to keep the report from the american public... 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/paa3BBrBK9r1iRas7zqyHTK54vk=/1484x0/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/YNUWHUQEOZBMHF7KVD45IC72II.jpg

 

Nope.  Not many republican senators are going to back trump on that one.

 

I'm honestly not following you. 

 

Congress will subpoena the Attorney General to release the full report. (if he censors it) It will then be settled in court.  Congress can also call on Mueller to testify and Barr will probably try and block that somehow. Again it will settled in court. 

 

Mueller can't release the report himself if that's what you're implying. (It may be technically possible through many complicated hoops) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Mueller may not be able to technically release it but he can make sure it gets released, which for my purposes is essentially the same thing. 9th circuit not akin to trumps thinking thus far.

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Mueller may not be able to technically release it but he can make sure it gets released, which for my purposes is essentially the same thing.

 

Aight.

 

Just a side note, but I'd be weary assuming you know Mueller's intentions. There's no reason other than speculation to believe Mueller won't say, agree with the Attorney General and also agree to censor the report. 

 

I'd also be weary on having a black and white POV here. (as in Trump either committed a crime or didn't) Its quite possible the report cites evidence of crimes but Barr/Mueller choose not to indict a sitting President over them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would the White House participate in a partisan investigation after already being investigated by an independent council...

 

if mueller agrees that the report should be censored I’m satisfied we wouldn’t need additional endless investigations. 

 

If he says he found evidence of criminal activity but doesn’t/can’t indict that’s a different story...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It’s literally their job to provide oversight of the executive. That is an independent function irrelevant to Mueller and may relate to the crimes or issues they believe warrant further review.

 

The WH shouldn’t get to pick and choose which are the important reauests they are going to follow and which they are going to ignore 

Edited by Momma There Goes That Man
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With everything you have seen, with all that has come out.. if you still believe it's a partisan investigation, you simply have lost any sort of ability to see beyond your own politics.

 

But i remind myself that John Gotti had crowds cheering for him as he was tried for murder, and even as the evidence of his evil demonstrated clearly the cancer he was to his entire community, still they cheered.

 

~Bang

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, Bang said:

With everything you have seen, with all that has come out.. if you still believe it's a partisan investigation, you simply have lost any sort of ability to see beyond your own politics.

 

But it is a partisan investigation.  

 

The entire GOP contingent has unanimously decided to obstruct it.  Therefore it's partisan.  

 

It shouldn't be.  But it is.  

 

Edited by Larry
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

If there is solid evidence that a crime was committed, mueller has a duty to report that to congress, regardless of what the AG does. IF there is no crime then all these additional investigations are waste of time and are being done for political purpose.

 

So Congress should only practice oversight of the Executive branch (which is its constitutional duty) if another agency or independent counsel has already proven that a crime has been committed? 

 

That then means that I was wrong before. The original Benghazi investigation shouldn't have happened as there hadn't been proof of a crime committed before they started the investigation.

 

Ditto for....well, pretty much every single investigation by Congress ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Bang said:

With everything you have seen, with all that has come out.. if you still believe it's a partisan investigation, you simply have lost any sort of ability to see beyond your own politics.

 

 

What it are you referring to? 

2 hours ago, mistertim said:

 

So Congress should only practice oversight of the Executive branch (which is its constitutional duty) if another agency or independent counsel has already proven that a crime has been committed? 

 

Not when Its already been investigated by an independent party.

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Not when Its already been investigated by an independent party.

 

An independent party that reports to someone who is under zero obligation to reveal the full extent of the investigation's findings to anyone. So that basically amounts to "trust us". 

 

Sorry, no.

 

I'll agree with you if Mueller's full report is made public and there's nothing in there that warrants further investigation. 

Edited by mistertim
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

Not when Its already been investigated by an independent party.

 

Right the issue at this point is not the investigation anymore, rather the fact that Barr is under no obligation to release the entire, partial, or any of the report.  There is a very real scenario that once the report is submitted Barr will either limit what Congress gets to see or just outright withhold the entire thing.   When he was being questioned at his hearing for the AG job he refused to commit to releasing the report in full to congress.

 

Plus you've seen the Trump narrative change from "hoax investigation" to "there should be no Mueller report at all"  He is already planting the seeds to justify never allowing congress to see it, and his supporters, such as yourself, seem plenty willing to go along with it per usual. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and when I said obligation, I meant legal obligation.  Of course he SHOULD release the full report.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

If there is solid evidence that a crime was committed, mueller has a duty to report that to congress, regardless of what the AG does. IF there is no crime then all these additional investigations are waste of time and are being done for political purpose.

 

Solid evidence?

 

So far (and counting) 7 guilty pleas (99 months of sentences) , two guilty verdicts on the same person (7.5 years total sentence) and 34 individuals and 3 companies under charges.

 

How many smoking guns do you need to understand there was serious criminal activity within and surrounding Trump's campaign? Was any of this active collusion with Russia by Trump personally? Don't know and possibly not. But that does not wipe out the very real crimes uncovered in the process of investigating that question.

 

My personal view is he was a 'useful idiot' rather than active participant and that people with criminal intent out to enrich themselves attached themselves to his campaign working to advance the causes of foreign Gvts and entities via their access to the President. There is also though a lot of evidence of criminal behaviour by Trump in relation to his business, the Trump Foundation and tax dealings before becoming POTUS and his use of campaign funds since. 

 

At some point if you are not seeing all this you are being willfully ignorant. This is bigger than GOP versus Democrat - it's about the perversion of the democracy and Government of the United States by and for a sociopath and chancer and a cast of crooks who leached on to him - and by extension us.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The weird thing to me is that it seems like a lot of people would be ok with Trump merely being in the "useful idiot" role.  I understand being a useful idiot is not the same as willfully participating, but why would anyone be ok with someone in the white house being so idiotic and/or easily influenced by bad people (surrounding himself with traitors)?  Why would anyone be okay with that?  If anything I believe the Mueller report is going to show that Trump, even if he himself did not have direct knowledge of the shadiness going on, allowed himself to be duped by those around him to implement policy favorable to certain foreign countries because of the financial gain either for himself or those around him.  Whether or not it is a crime to be stupid when it comes to foreign policy is almost besides the point, at that point, no? 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

The weird thing to me is that it seems like a lot of people would be ok with Trump merely being in the "useful idiot" role.  I understand being a useful idiot is not the same as willfully participating, but why would anyone be ok with someone in the white house being so idiotic and/or easily influenced by bad people (surrounding himself with traitors)?  Why would anyone be okay with that?  If anything I believe the Mueller report is going to show that Trump, even if he himself did not have direct knowledge of the shadiness going on, allowed himself to be duped by those around him to implement policy favorable to certain foreign countries because of the financial gain either for himself or those around him.  Whether or not it is a crime to be stupid when it comes to foreign policy is almost besides the point, at that point, no? 

 

I think the problem is that Trump is so ludicrously incompetent, almost comically inept, and irredeemably corrupt that he has lowered the bar for the presidency to the point where a POTUS merely being an unwitting tool of a hostile foreign power as opposed to a direct and knowing collaborator is somehow considered a "win"...by BOTH sides at times.

 

2qgggr.png

Edited by mistertim
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, MartinC said:

 

Solid evidence?

 

So far (and counting) 7 guilty pleas (99 months of sentences) , two guilty verdicts on the same person (7.5 years total sentence) and 34 individuals and 3 companies under charges.

 

How many smoking guns do you need to understand there was serious criminal activity within and surrounding Trump's campaign?

 

 

That is my point. Any solid evidence of crimes will and should be reported by mueller.  As he has done, as he will do. 

 

Therefore, the additional investigations going on in congress seem like petty attempts to drag the investigation out as long as possible and aren’t related to the the cause of justice.

 

 

 

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.