Started By
Message
locked post

How Libtards Think Muh Russians Will Play Out

Posted on 2/2/18 at 9:58 am
Posted by austintigerdad
Llano County, TX
Member since Nov 2010
1884 posts
Posted on 2/2/18 at 9:58 am
Here's an analysis via Twitter.

tl;dr: MAGA... Mueller Ain't Goin' Anywhere. Trumpkins can bookmark for future ridicule or future tears.
quote:

POLITICO: Many legal scholars doubt a U.S. vs. Trump case is possible, but two attorneys who have dealt with special counsel Robert Mueller's team disagree

1. Again: MISLEADING headline. It's UNTRUE that most disagree. And it's presented as if only those two attorneys think Trump CAN be indicted. MANY think he can bc NOWHERE does the law say he can't. Ask @RepAdamSchiff and @tribelaw

2. But what matters here is that lawyers dealing with Mueller's team disagree, MEANING: Mueller is obviously considering indicting Trump. And THAT means he has a MOUNTAIN of evidence and witnesses corroborating it. Focus on this, bc this is HUGE news.

3. One of these lawyers expects Mueller to move as early as this spring. Which means, in two months we may have at least litigation (Scotus) to indict Trump.

4. Politico says the indictment would be for obstruction of justice, but I doubt Mueller would stop at that IF he moved to indict him. The two attorneys that spoke with Politico didn't claim to have specific knowledge of Mueller's plan.

5. One of the attorneys cited his interactions with Mueller's team to back up his claim that Mueller could, in fact, move to indict Trump.
"If I were a betting man, I'd bet against the president", one of the lawyers said.

6. Lawyer no. 2 WHO REPRESENTS A SENIOR TRUMP OFFICIAL (let's take bets: Bannon? Priebus? McGahn? Yeah, same lawyer), speculated that Mueller could try to bring an indictment against Trump if only to demonstrate the gravity of his findings.

7. This would obviously end up with "fierce procedural challenges from Trump's lawyers", but let's just think for a minute: NO law says that a sitting President can't be indicted. It's FALSE to state the opposite, so who do you think would win? Mueller would.

8. Lawyer quote "Even if the indictment is dismissed, it puts maximum pressure on Congress to treat this with the independence and intellectual honesty that it will never, ever get." KEY point here.

9. Even in the worst-case scenario, with an indictment being dismissed (and I do NOT think that would be the case, but let's suppose) Mueller would get SO much leverage bc this would all be public, that Congress would FEEL the heat BIG time.

10. Some (wrongly) speculate that bc Mueller has not the same standing as Clinton prosecutor Kenneth Starr did, he wouldn't indict Trump. Nope, the impression of these lawyers who HAVE BEEN facing the Mueller team is the exact opposite.

11. If there's one thing Mueller is, it's TOUGH. He fears nothing and he showed his team is formidable and goes for the jugular in order to obtain MAXIMUM cooperation from witnesses. Why would he act differently with Trump?

12. Key point: EVERYONE, including Trump's lawyers, declined to comment on the story. Meaning this has MAJOR legs. A denial costs nothing, especially to defense attorneys.

13. One of the two lawyers interviewed (again, who represent Trump officials in Russia probe, one of them represents SENIOR officials) said if Mueller does this, he'll do it in the spring.

14. "If he's going to do it, I think he'll do it in the spring. I don't think he wants to be accused of trying to influence the election that dramtically".

15. SEVERAL DEMOCRATS said they believe Mueller HAS the authority to file charges against Trump, but questioned whether he actually would.

16. BATMAN SCHIFF says "I think that it's far more likely if the special counsel finds evidence of criminality.... that it's presented in a report to Congress". I'm sure it would be. I don't think this excludes that he would file charges.

17. Schiff also says a fedral judge might stay any criminal proceedings until after Trump's presidency. Which is true, but not the point. Point here is the POWER move on Mueller's side.

18. The scenario "would allow everybody involved (Mueller, Rosenstein) to play the thing strictly by the book and STILL get Mueller's conclusion, if there is one, that the president committed a crime, into the hands of the only people to whom it really matters, which is Congress"

19. Now for the kicker. Philip Allen Lacovara, top counsel to the two Watergate special prosecutors, said he believes MUELLER COULD seek an indictment vs Trump, but only if the facts suggest a "SLAM DUNK" case against Trump.

20. You read that right. WATERGATE COUNSEL says "Mueller COULD go for an indictment, but only if he has a slam dunk case vs Trump". And I will add: what is PUBLIC evidence suggesting? That Mueller DOES have such a case. ??

21. Lacovara, the top counsel to the two Watergate special prosecutors, also dismissed the Clinton Justice Dept Memo's contention that an indictment would interfere with the president's official duties.

22."When an incumbent president, whether it’s Bush/Obama/Trump, spends an enormous amount of time on the golf course, it’s a little bit fanciful to say the POTUS can’t be called to account for alleged criminality because he’s got to be available 24 hours-a-day to be president".

23. The above is what's called a major BURN. Delivered to you by Pihlip Allen Lacovara, top counsel to the two Watergate special prosecutors. Rest assured Mueller is much more likely to think like him than he is to think like Congress people or others.

24. And to finish one of the Russia defense attorneys also suggested a "jujitsu move": naming Trump as an unindicted co-conspirator in a larger obstruction of justice case that targets one or more associates.

25. I believe the above has already happened. And Mueller is covering ALL his bases so that Trump has no escape. (and I think Trump lawyers KNOW that Trump is toast).

26. Lawyer concludes that Whatever Mueller and his team have planned, it is not likely to be anticlimactic.
"There's a sence of confidence I feel when I'm with them. Their level of confidence HAS GROWN, and that's a body language thing."

27. So, an attorney who is DEFENDING a Trump person is telling us all that the confidence of Mueller's team has grown (as we could infer from the amount of public evidence). That's bc they KNOW they are going to get Trump and his gang.






Posted by TDsngumbo
Member since Oct 2011
50688 posts
Posted on 2/2/18 at 10:00 am to
Good Lord, there's Trump's wall right there...
Posted by LSU Patrick
Member since Jan 2009
77891 posts
Posted on 2/2/18 at 10:01 am to
Posted by cajunangelle
Member since Oct 2012
167104 posts
Posted on 2/2/18 at 10:03 am to
quote:

POLITICO: Many legal scholars doubt a U.S. vs. Trump case is possible, but two attorneys who have dealt with special counsel Robert Mueller's team disagree

1. Again: MISLEADING headline. It's UNTRUE that most disagree. And it's presented as if only those two attorneys think Trump CAN be indicted. MANY think he can bc NOWHERE does the law say he can't. Ask @RepAdamSchiff and @tribelaw
Posted by mofungoo
Baton Rouge
Member since Nov 2012
4583 posts
Posted on 2/2/18 at 10:04 am to
MELT



This is a Best Fiction winner here, folks.
Posted by BBONDS25
Member since Mar 2008
59461 posts
Posted on 2/2/18 at 10:04 am to
That is some very strange speculation by someone who clearly has no legal background.
Posted by GEAUXT
Member since Nov 2007
30509 posts
Posted on 2/2/18 at 10:05 am to
quote:

MANY think he can bc NOWHERE does the law say he can't.


oh my
Posted by ILeaveAtHalftime
Member since Sep 2013
2889 posts
Posted on 2/2/18 at 10:05 am to
Its time to institute the death penalty for citing anonymous sources. Public flogging or something of that nature would do the trick.
This post was edited on 2/2/18 at 10:06 am
Posted by TigerBait1971
PTC GA
Member since Oct 2014
16376 posts
Posted on 2/2/18 at 10:06 am to
Posted by WorkinDawg
Atlanta
Member since Sep 2012
9341 posts
Posted on 2/2/18 at 10:07 am to
Two massive hurdles-
1. Rules state you can't indict a sitting president. I'm not sure how I feel about that, but that is the rule. Impeachment is the "justice" process allowed for POTUS.

2. If the fake dossier had even a little to do with the FISA warrant, all of that evidence is thrown out.

Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
140573 posts
Posted on 2/2/18 at 10:08 am to



The president cannot be indicted for making executive branch actions under the constitution.

Impeached by congress? Yes.

But not indicted for taking actions that he has complete constitutional authority to take.
Posted by Navytiger74
Member since Oct 2009
50458 posts
Posted on 2/2/18 at 10:13 am to
I read the politico article this morning and thought it was kind of a speculative jumble. I'm firmly on the side that a sitting president can't be indicted and imagine that Mueller feels the same way. Given what a straight stick he's known to be, I don't think he'll make any symbolic moves or try to game this just to show that he's serious.

I guess we'll see, though.
Posted by NC_Tigah
Make Orwell Fiction Again
Member since Sep 2003
138765 posts
Posted on 2/2/18 at 10:13 am to
quote:

but let's just think for a minute: NO law says that a sitting President can't be indicted. It's FALSE to state the opposite, so who do you think would win? Mueller would.
The author is living a fantasy.
Posted by Wtodd
Tampa, FL
Member since Oct 2013
68544 posts
Posted on 2/2/18 at 10:14 am to
quote:

How Libtards Think Muh Russians Will Play Out

Similar to the 2016 election
Posted by member12
Bob's Country Bunker
Member since May 2008
33142 posts
Posted on 2/2/18 at 10:15 am to
quote:

The author is living a fantasy.


....anyone that thinks Muh Russians is based on anything but partisan politics is living in a fantasy.

Nothing there.
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
95597 posts
Posted on 2/2/18 at 10:24 am to
quote:

Good Lord, there's Trump's wall right there...


#BuildTheWall(ofText)
Posted by JuiceTerry
Roond the Scheme
Member since Apr 2013
40868 posts
Posted on 2/2/18 at 10:28 am to
quote:

1. Rules state you can't indict a sitting president. I'm not sure how I feel about that, but that is the rule.
It won't happen, but there are no "rules", there are legal opinions
quote:

2. If the fake dossier had even a little to do with the FISA warrant, all of that evidence is thrown out.

I think you're just making shite up
Posted by IceTiger
Really hot place
Member since Oct 2007
26584 posts
Posted on 2/2/18 at 10:34 am to
quote:

austintigerdad


You know they are being led around by their nose, right...?

Constitutionally, it goes to Congress and the case is over.

If M indicted him, the President can legally pardon himself from all crimes and say pound sand, take it to Congress

We all know that's how it goes, right?

What's your take, ATD...
Posted by WorkinDawg
Atlanta
Member since Sep 2012
9341 posts
Posted on 2/2/18 at 10:34 am to
quote:

quote:
1. Rules state you can't indict a sitting president. I'm not sure how I feel about that, but that is the rule.
It won't happen, but there are no "rules", there are legal opinions
quote:
2. If the fake dossier had even a little to do with the FISA warrant, all of that evidence is thrown out.
I think you're just making shite up


DOJ is governed by rules and procedures. Current rules are you can't indict the POTUS. Been the case since 1999 for certain.

If you use knowingly fake information to gain a search warrant you've just created an unlawful search and seizure. It's not really that complicated.
Posted by IceTiger
Really hot place
Member since Oct 2007
26584 posts
Posted on 2/2/18 at 10:35 am to
quote:

I think you're just making shite up


Not if, and we know this to be true:

The FISA info was used to populate the Dossier...unless they were just spying on him before that?

It's the part the media is misleading everyone on...
This post was edited on 2/2/18 at 10:51 am
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram