Pecker Problems (Mueller+ Investigation Thread v. 21)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Will Mueller subpoena Trump? Move carries risks for both sides

The months-long dance between President Trump’s lawyers and Robert Mueller over a voluntary presidential interview has yet to bear fruit, raising the question of whether the special counsel will subpoena the president to testify as part of his Russia probe.

Those who know Mueller professionally say he would not hesitate to compel Trump to testify under oath before a grand jury if he considered it critical that his investigation include testimony from the commander in chief.

Still, such a move would carry risks for both sides, agitating tensions between the White House and the special counsel’s office and potentially triggering a legal battle that could lead all the way to the Supreme Court.
Stephen Vladeck, a University of Texas law professor who has been closely watching the investigation, said that Mueller would subpoena Trump only if he “believes he has exhausted all other options and if he really thinks it is necessary.”

“Before you subpoena the president you want to make sure you have every single duck in a row,” Vladeck said.

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...poena-trump-move-carries-risks-for-both-sides
 
Please see my response to @ChainFlow.
Your reply is horseshit, much like quoting the dailycaller which is also horseshit.

POTUS can obstruct justice. This has been proven by the Nixon articles of impeachment. POTUS can also obstruct through a refusal to comply with subpoenas. As we saw from US v Nixon which forced Nixon to turn the tapes over.
Nixon's own lawyer argued that because it is a dispute within the executive branch it was not necessary for a judicial review. Guess which side SCOTUS landed on?

The Court's opinion found that the courts could indeed intervene on the matter and that Special Counsel Jaworski had proven a "sufficient likelihood that each of the tapes contains conversations relevant to the offenses charged in the indictment". While the Court acknowledged that the principle of executive privilege did exist, the Court would also directly reject President Nixon's claim to an "absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances."

Got any other god awful arguments you want to make?
PAPADOPOULOS TOLD FBI HE DID NOT INFORM TRUMP CAMPAIGN OF CLINTON ‘DIRT’


George Papadopoulos told federal investigators he did not inform anyone on the Trump campaign about a mysterious professor’s claim in April 2016 that Russians had “thousands” of Hillary Clinton emails, according to court documents submitted on Friday night.

That’s just one of several new details that Papadopoulos’s lawyers revealed in the filing, which seeks probation for the former Trump campaign aide for lying about his contacts with Russians.

The lawyers also said that Papadpoulos claims that during a March 31, 2016, meeting of the Trump campaign’s national security team, then presidential candidate Donald Trump “approved” of Papadopoulos’ suggestion of a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Jeff Sessions, who now serves as attorney general, “appeared to like the idea and stated that the campaign should look into it.”

Other attendees at the meeting, including former Pentagon spokesman J.D. Gordon, have said that Sessions shut down Papadopoulos’ suggestion.


Papadopoulos, 30, pleaded guilty in the special counsel’s investigation on Oct. 5, 2017. He faces sentencing on Sept. 7.

Special counsel Robert Mueller, who is seeking up to six months in jail for Papadopoulos, has argued that the Trump aide’s lies to the FBI hampered the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, but Papadopoulos’s lawyers argued that their client’s lies did not harm the investigation. They also asserted that he “misled investigators to save his professional aspirations and preserve a perhaps misguided loyalty to his master.”

“In his hesitation, George lied, minimized, and omitted material facts. Out of loyalty to the new president and his desire to be part of the administration, he hoisted himself upon his own petard.”

One question looming over the Papadopoulos case has been whether he told anyone on the Trump campaign about comments made by a Maltese professor named Joseph Mifsud regarding Clinton’s emails.

Papadopoulos told FBI agents during his Jan. 27, 2017, interview that Mifsud told him during an April 26, 2016, meeting in London that he had learned that the Russian government had “dirt” on Clinton in the form of thousands of her emails.

While Papadopoulos told the FBI details of his conversations with Mifsud, he lied to the FBI by claiming that the contacts occurred before he joined the Trump campaign.

Papadopoulos told federal investigators that he did not relay the Mifsud claim to anyone else on the Trump campaign.

“He told the agents he was unaware of anyone in the campaign knowing of the stolen Hillary Clinton emails prior to the emails being publicly released,” Papadopoulos’ lawyers wrote.

Papadopoulos also denied to FBI agents that he told anyone on the Trump campaign about the emails. But in interviews with prosecutors months later, “George reiterated that he does not recall ever passing the information along to the campaign.”

While Papadopoulos claims he did not tell anyone on the Trump campaign about Clinton emails, he did inform a Greek diplomat of Mifsud’s claims about Clinton dirt.

Papadopoulos’s lawyers say that he told FBI agents about a meeting in late May 2016 “where he revealed to the Greek Foreign Minister that the Russians had ‘dirt’ on Hillary Clinton. He explained that this meeting took place days before President Vladimir Putin traveled to Greece to meet with Greek officials.”

Papadopoulos also told Australian diplomat Alexander Downer during a May 10, 2016, meeting in London that Russia had derogatory information on Clinton. The FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign on July 31, 2016, based on Downer’s claims about his conversation with Papadopoulos.

Friday’s filing also reveals new details about the FBI’s initial interview with Papadopoulos. According to Papadopoulos’s lawyers, FBI agents showed up to interview Papadopoulos at his mother’s house in Chicago.

The agents asked Papadopoulos to accompany them to their office to answer “a couple questions” about “a guy in New York that you might know[,] [t]hat has recently been in the news.”

Papadopoulos believed that the agents wanted to ask him about Sergei Millian, a Belarus American businessman who is alleged to be a major source in the Steele dossier. Millian approached Papadopoulos in July 2016 and the pair met several times during the presidential campaign.

Papadopoulos’s lawyers asserted that the FBI agents “assured George that the topic of discussion was Mr. Millian who had been trending in the national media.”

During a car ride to the FBI’s offices, Papadopoulos expressed concern about how getting caught up in the investigation might harm his chances of getting a job in the Trump administration.

Papadopoulos “told the agents he had no knowledge of anyone on the campaign colluding with the Russians and it would not have been in anyone’s interest to undermine the democratic process.”

https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/01/george-papadopoulos-probation/

In support of sentencing, Papadopulous and his lawyers filed this:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4808119-Sentencing-Memorandum.html

Last paragraph on page 5 bleeding into page 6.

It'd help if you actually read shit that takes place in a court room and not these whackass right wing nutjob sites and listening to these extremist "lawyers" who almost no sound legal mind agrees with.

But you keep on shilling and I'll keep on destroying your pathetic excuse for trolljobs
 
POTUS can obstruct justice.
I never disagreed with this.
This has been proven by the Nixon articles of impeachment.
Nixon was not impeached, and impeachment is not the same as conviction. Anyway, I agree that the president can commit obstruction of justice. Nixon did.

Got any other god awful arguments you want to make?

Good sir: when you construe my arguments to be something they are not, I'm sure they do appear "god awful".
 
The content on the last paragraph of page 5 bleeding into page 6 is faithfully represented in the Daily Caller article I posted. I recommend that you read it.
Which is a hack job site. I recommend not reading it.
 
Under what statute? 1505 is off the table. May I suggest 1510?



I am aware of that. However, firing Cox was a constitutionally protected act. It was also a politically foolish act. Neither you nor I know if Article I would have passed the Judiciary Committee in the absence of the other eight parts. That's a political question anyway. I assume we both recognize that Congress voting to impeach a president is not proof that a bona fide impeachable act was committed. President Johnson was impeached for violating an unconstitutional law. President Clinton was impeached for crimes that fall short of "high crimes and misdemeanors".
How does perjury fall short of high crimes and misdemeanors?
 
Which is a hack job site. I recommend not reading it.
That's a fine opinion to have, but you claimed that the Daily Caller article omitted key information. You should admit fault. I believe you are honorable enough to do so.
 
...
"Proof" is a sacred word to those like me who have written thousands of genuine proofs. Please do not confuse the word "proof" with the word "evidence". Cohen's guilty plea is evidence that Cohen committed crimes. An independent finding of guilt by a jury (better, multiple juries) of fellow citizens usually represents a higher evidentiary standard than a guilty plea under the cloud of a potential cooperation agreement...
I'll entertain continuing with you if you can cite some statistics or facts to back that up and show it is not just some bullshit thing you made up.

There is no reason I can see to say that someone denying their guilt in a trial and as they go to jail is more likely to be IN FACT guilty than someone who admits their crimes. Quite the opposite and as you cited above we have enough examples of CONVICTED people being vindicated later to suggest otherwise.

So please substantiate your statement with some facts or as Kong suggested I will be ignoring you as the troll you seem to be outing yourself as being.
 
Nixon was not impeached, and impeachment is not the same as conviction. Anyway, I agree that the president can commit obstruction f justice. Nixon did.

That is misleading. The House already passed articles of impeachment and Goldwater told Nixon that he had only 15 votes for acquittal in the Senate. Well, short of 33 needed to stay in office. So, Goldwater basically told Nixon you are fucked and there is no way of stopping this mess or any foreseeable way of you gaining enough support to stay in office. This was more serious than the pony show put on by republicians against Clinton, which had no chance of ever amounting to Clinton leaving office by resignation or removal. The impeachment process was well under way with Nixon and he resigned before its completion, likely to avoid criminal charges with a pardon from Ford. Nixon had impeachment procedings against him but it never completed for him to be impeached.
 
Last edited:
Nor should you be willing to. There are many reasons why one might want to pay off an alleged mistress. Edwards argued he did it to conceal the affair+baby from his wife. There's no question it benefitted his campaign, but you can't seriously argue that it was purely intended to benefit the campaign unless you have multiple lines of direct evidence to that effect.

Of course it was purely intended to benefit the campaign, the affairs occurred almost a decade before the payoffs, and only became relevant because Trump was running for POTUS. The payoffs were in response to the Access Hollywood video and audio release, plain and simple, out of fear of more bad press before election day. Trump supporters can pretend that all of this was a chivalrous attempt to protect Melania's image of her husband as a family man, but it's not like Trump wasn't known in mainstream media as a serial adulterer for decades. Trump's lawyers can be pedants and try to find some way to obscure this legally, but let's be honest here please.
 
  • Not disputing a point should not be taken as good evidence of support for that point
  • Bitching about leaks is something most administrations do. Obama's administration prosecuted more leakers than any other.
  • There was no need to equivocate on the Holt interview. Trump's performance was fine there even though neither of us believe his explanation.

That's not what I remember. Your use of "the" as in "the reason" implies that the administration said Trump fired Comey for only one reason. Can you link me to a source?

This is speculative pop psychology. To be clear: I totally agree with it. However, it shouldn't be good enough for the New York Times and it certainly doesn't meet any legal standards of evidence.

For starters, my point about them bitching about the leak was that it was all they did. Leaking, verses making things up to make Trump look like he has an inappropriate with Russia are different, no? You honestly think Trump not standing up to the reports that he said that to two Russians, of that level of importance, in the White House, is not good evidence that he said it? What, he was too busy standing up to Jimmy Fallon and Lebron James that day?;)

And I still disagree with you that Trump's performance was fine in the Holt interview, he was undisciplined and revealed his true motivation (which was confirmed by the leaks from the meeting with Lavrov and Kislyak), which contradicted what his press team, and Pence, were selling up to that point. I said it was "the" reason because none of the reasons Trump offered hold water.

As for the pop psychology thing, I am not an attorney, and do not argue from that education, so street smarts (or what psychologists now call "emotional intelligence") is what I am working with. It is what helps me not buy insurance policy features that I don't need, have auto repairs I don't need, etc., when I recognize someone is trying to sell me some bullshit. Now I'm nothing special (I am not a Trump University grad or anything:D), but I don't think one needs to be in order to recognize that Trump is cheap hustler, and to call out his obvious intentions and strategies that anyone of normal intelligence can see him telegraphing. The legality issue is ultimately up to Mueller's team, but the media should report on what Trump is saying and doing, and not allow Trump's team to dictate its own terms, facts, and realities to try to undermine the confidence people have in their recognition of Trump's bullshit.

th
th
 
Your reply is horseshit, much like quoting the dailycaller which is also horseshit.

POTUS can obstruct justice. This has been proven by the Nixon articles of impeachment. POTUS can also obstruct through a refusal to comply with subpoenas. As we saw from US v Nixon which forced Nixon to turn the tapes over.
Nixon's own lawyer argued that because it is a dispute within the executive branch it was not necessary for a judicial review. Guess which side SCOTUS landed on?

The Court's opinion found that the courts could indeed intervene on the matter and that Special Counsel Jaworski had proven a "sufficient likelihood that each of the tapes contains conversations relevant to the offenses charged in the indictment". While the Court acknowledged that the principle of executive privilege did exist, the Court would also directly reject President Nixon's claim to an "absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances."

Got any other god awful arguments you want to make?


In support of sentencing, Papadopulous and his lawyers filed this:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4808119-Sentencing-Memorandum.html

Last paragraph on page 5 bleeding into page 6.

It'd help if you actually read shit that takes place in a court room and not these whackass right wing nutjob sites and listening to these extremist "lawyers" who almost no sound legal mind agrees with.

But you keep on shilling and I'll keep on destroying your pathetic excuse for trolljobs
Isn't it awesome how he doesn't have a side yet his sources are the Daily Caller, Faux News, and Breitbart?
 
For starters, my point about them bitching about the leak was that it was all they did. Leaking, verses making things up to make Trump look like he has an inappropriate with Russia are different, no? You honestly think Trump not standing up to the reports that he said that to two Russians, of that level of importance, in the White House, is not good evidence that he said it? What, he was too busy standing up to Jimmy Fallon and Lebron James that day?;)

And I still disagree with you that Trump's performance was fine in the Holt interview, he was undisciplined and revealed his true motivation (which was confirmed by the leaks from the meeting with Lavrov and Kislyak), which contradicted what his press team, and Pence, were selling up to that point. I said it was "the" reason because none of the reasons Trump offered hold water.

As for the pop psychology thing, I am not an attorney, and do not argue from that education, so street smarts (or what psychologists now call "emotional intelligence") is what I am working with. It is what helps me not buy insurance policy features that I don't need, have auto repairs I don't need, etc., when I recognize someone is trying to sell me some bullshit. Now I'm nothing special (I am not a Trump University grad or anything:D), but I don't think one needs to be in order to recognize that Trump is cheap hustler, and to call out his obvious intentions and strategies that anyone of normal intelligence can see him telegraphing. The legality issue is ultimately up to Mueller's team, but the media should report on what Trump is saying and doing, and not allow Trump's team to dictate its own terms, facts, and realities to try to undermine the confidence people have in their recognition of Trump's bullshit.

th
th
YT0dM5Rh.jpg
 
Totally bro those anonymous sources man they'll get you...



Oops my bad dear leader

Here's a hint for you, no one gives a flying fuck that you don't accept that as a campaign contribution as it would implicate your dear leader in a criminal conspiracy with Cohen . Only one that matters is the judge who made an independent finding of fact based on the complaint that Cohen was guilty


redherring.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top