- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

How Libtards Think Muh Russians Will Play Out
Posted on 2/2/18 at 9:58 am
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.
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 on 2/2/18 at 10:00 am to austintigerdad
Good Lord, there's Trump's wall right there...
Posted on 2/2/18 at 10:03 am to austintigerdad
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 on 2/2/18 at 10:04 am to austintigerdad
MELT
This is a Best Fiction winner here, folks.

This is a Best Fiction winner here, folks.
Posted on 2/2/18 at 10:04 am to austintigerdad
That is some very strange speculation by someone who clearly has no legal background.
Posted on 2/2/18 at 10:05 am to austintigerdad
quote:
MANY think he can bc NOWHERE does the law say he can't.
oh my
Posted on 2/2/18 at 10:05 am to austintigerdad
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 on 2/2/18 at 10:07 am to austintigerdad
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.
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 on 2/2/18 at 10:08 am to austintigerdad
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 on 2/2/18 at 10:13 am to austintigerdad
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.
I guess we'll see, though.
Posted on 2/2/18 at 10:13 am to austintigerdad
quote:The author is living a fantasy.
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.
Posted on 2/2/18 at 10:14 am to austintigerdad
quote:
How Libtards Think Muh Russians Will Play Out
Similar to the 2016 election
Posted on 2/2/18 at 10:15 am to NC_Tigah
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 on 2/2/18 at 10:24 am to TDsngumbo
quote:
Good Lord, there's Trump's wall right there...
#BuildTheWall(ofText)
Posted on 2/2/18 at 10:28 am to WorkinDawg
quote:It won't happen, but there are no "rules", there are legal opinions
1. Rules state you can't indict a sitting president. I'm not sure how I feel about that, but that is the rule.
quote:I think you're just making shite up
2. If the fake dossier had even a little to do with the FISA warrant, all of that evidence is thrown out.
Posted on 2/2/18 at 10:34 am to austintigerdad
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 on 2/2/18 at 10:34 am to JuiceTerry
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 on 2/2/18 at 10:35 am to JuiceTerry
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
Popular
Back to top


16











