• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Mueller Investigation pt4

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Big Dog said:
To answer your question, because the lying to Congress did not result from his investigation. It is a subtle but very important difference.
Click to expand...

I get the difference, but surely the interpretation of the word "arise" cannot be that only crimes that result from the investigating can be further investigated. That would mean that if Mueller found evidence that someone involved with the Russian influencing of our elections killed someone in April 2016, in furtherance of the ability to influence our elections, Mueller couldn't investigate that.
 
The last few pages of this thread have generated an astonishingly large number of reports, so I am temporarily closing the thread whilst I work through the reports. Please do not move the discussion to another thread; I will reopen this thread as soon as I can.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha
 
I have now reopened the thread, so you may return to the discussion.

Will you all make much greater efforts to avoid discussing your opponents or indeed yourselves; concentrate on the topic. Further moderator attention will be stronger, so don't invite it.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha
 
Last edited:
Update on mystery company:

The unnamed company owned by a foreign country that is challenging a grand jury subpoena issued in federal court in Washington is asking the Supreme Court to step in.

This week, “Company A” lost its challenge against having to comply with a grand jury subpoena that many believe has been issued by special counsel Robert Mueller.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected the challenge by the company to quash the subpoena.

On Saturday, the company asked the Supreme Court to intervene and stay the lower courts’ decision — and has also asked that the case remain under seal.
Click to expand...

Linky.
 
Attorney General updates (from Trump thread):

President Donald Trump has at least twice in the past few weeks vented to his acting attorney general, angered by federal prosecutors who referenced the President's actions in crimes his former lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter.

Trump was frustrated, the sources said, that prosecutors Matt Whitaker oversees filed charges that made Trump look bad. None of the sources suggested that the President directed Whitaker to stop the investigation, but rather lashed out at what he felt was an unfair situation.
The first known instance took place when Trump made his displeasure clear to acting attorney general Matt Whitaker after Cohen pleaded guilty November 29 to lying to Congress about a proposed Trump Tower project in Moscow. Whitaker had only been on the job a few weeks following Trump's firing of Jeff Sessions.
Over a week later, Trump again voiced his anger at Whitaker after prosecutors in Manhattan officially implicated the President in a hush-money scheme to buy the silence of women around the 2016 campaign -- something Trump fiercely maintains isn't an illegal campaign contribution. Pointing to articles he said supported his position, Trump pressed Whitaker on why more wasn't being done to control prosecutors in New York who brought the charges in the first place, suggesting they were going rogue.
The previously unreported discussions between Trump and Whitaker described by multiple sources familiar with the matter underscore the extent to which the President firmly believes the attorney general of the United States should serve as his personal protector. The episodes also offer a glimpse into the unsettling dynamic of a sitting president talking to his attorney general about investigations he's potentially implicated in.
Whitaker and William "Bill" Barr, Trump's nominee to replace Sessions, are facing increased scrutiny this week for their criticisms of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian election meddling. Whitaker refused to recuse himself from overseeing the Mueller probe. And a memo from Barr came to light in which he wrote that Trump's decision to fire former FBI director James Comey did not amount to obstruction.
Click to expand...

Linky.
 
jimbob said:
Not state owned as far as I know.

The Turkish company that Flynn worked for, however.
Click to expand...
...is a paper company to mask shenanigans. They wouldn't comply with a subpoena, they'd just dissolve.

Deutsche Bank would be my first guess, but it only sounds government owned.

But RT very well might "comply" with a subpoena, under protest, if only to use it as another route to pass disinformation. They can't burn their bridges over one little crime, Think of all that future criming they have yet to crim.
 
Paul2 said:
It's not that Mueller has to determine that Stone lied to investigate him, he doesn't even need a suspicion that he did: Stone only need to be part of a reasonable connection to Russian interference, which he obviously is (Russia --> Wikileaks --> Stone, combined with Trump --> Stone). And Mueller can investigate Stone in order to see if something can be found out about another person who is under suspicion.
"Ordinarily referred" doesn't change Mueller's charge that enables him to investigate any crime that might arise from his investigation.
Click to expand...
Couple of things about this "scope of investigation" bull.

1. Surely, if the investigation turns up prossible other crimes, say not directly linked to the investigation, some part of the FBI can still investigate it can't they? even if it's not Mueller's team. I mean why woudn't the FBI investigate a possible crime.

2. If all TBD has is, 'er, you not allowed to go there' it is a bit pathetic. I mean, if an investigation leads to some possible criminal activity, especially by a public official, you have no moral or intellectual argument surely if your defence is 'they are not allowed to look into that line of investigation, so there!'. I mean who cares if they are or not. As long as it is investigated, surely thats what matters.
 
Last edited:
BadBoy said:
1. Surely, if the investigation turns up prossible other crimes, say not directly linked to the investigation, some part of the FBI can still investigate it can't they? even if it's not Mueller's team. I mean why woudn't the FBI investigate a possible crime.
Click to expand...
Because then the GOP would can the whole thing and respond to any further accusations with "Mueller did a 'full investigation' and didn't find anything!"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom