Mueller Report Almost Done

The Special Counsel (Team Mueller) report on Russia and the Trump Campaign should be out soon.

I wonder if Donald Trump, Jr. gets a pass.

While I don't expect that his father will get indicted, I think he will receive the distinct dishonor of being the man who sits at the desk in the Oval Office with the most number of indicted aides during his time there, ever.

My next thought: I wonder if the next person to occupy the office will insist on fumigating it first, and all new furniture. I sure would.

< Smollett Indicted in Illinois | El Chapo Juror Drops a Dime on Him/Her Self and Other Jurors >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    When Junior goes down (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Feb 21, 2019 at 11:24:44 PM EST
    It's going to be a bad heir day for Donald.

    puns (none / 0) (#79)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Mar 20, 2019 at 11:26:43 PM EST
    You funny!

    Robert Mueller has been (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by KeysDan on Fri Feb 22, 2019 at 04:46:27 PM EST
    credited, if not sainted, for his tight-lipped investigation.  Save for the parsed challenge to Buzzfeed's impeachment-ready reporting that Trump directed Cohen to lie to Congress, Mueller has rarely, if ever, spoken about the almost two-year long investigation.

    I believe this to be a disservice to his charge to investigate (a) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign, (b) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation, and (c) any other matters with the scope of the regulations.  

    The charge, lastly, states that if the SC believes it is necessary and appropriate, he is authorized to prosecute federal crimes from the investigation.

    Mueller has worked with the sword of Trump over his head threatening to cut him off at the pass, without defined Congressional protection. Progress reports to the public would have been an important safeguard.

     While it may be satisfying to put the likes of Alex van der Zwaan, George Papadopoulos and other law breakers in jail (those that did not cooperate), the public should not have to rely for its information for the past two years on talking heads interpretations of sentencing recommendations or "speaking indictments."

    Americans have waited patiently, only to understand in recent weeks, that the fate of the SC report is in the hands of a Trump Attorney General--to be released to Congress or the public, in whole or in part, at his discretion. And, Barr was not coy about it being his decision. Perhaps a part of his audition for the job.  After all, Barr is likely called in to save the Republican party as he did, once before, to squelch the Iran/Contra problem.

    Maybe, to find out what is in the report, or an edited report, it will require legal fights by Congress. Yes, Mueller could be called before Congress, but his testimony should not be the way to obtain the investigative information and its results.

     This a report that Congress, too, has been relying upon--essentially out-sourcing its investigation for purposes of impeachment, or not.

    Neal Katyal, who says he had the privilege of drafting the special council regulations in 1999, warns that the report may, to some, be disappointing, but, really, it is a "road map" to House investigations and other prosecutors.  It is not the end, but the beginning.  Yes, but the term of Trump is four years, two of which are likely remaining.  And, if Trump is a Russian agent, that should not have taken two years. If false, and this information is now in the public realm, the country should be set straight. That we need to know, yesterday.

    To me, and it appears to be in the SC charge, the heart of the investigation is the Russian attack on our electoral system and whether Trump et al were/are linked to that effort. And, disturbingly, the SC take over of the counterintelligence/national security probe of Trump, himself.  Most citizens have an answer for those questions, but need the SC to give his findings.  The political stakes are greater than the criminal ones, particularly if the target, Trump, will not be indicted.

    Perhaps, Mueller did not want to be a Ken Starr with his morning briefings while taking his black plastic garbage bags out.  But, he should find a balance between providing information and a black-out.

    Did you ever read Lawrence Walsh's book? (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 22, 2019 at 06:12:22 PM EST
    When asked to comment about then-Attorney Gen. William Barr's orchestration of lame-duck pardons for six high-level Iran-Contra defendants, including former Defense Sec. Caspar Weinberger, granted in the lingering twilight of President George H.W. Bush's tenure in December 1992, Walsh noted ruefully, "It demonstrates that powerful people with powerful allies can commit serious crimes in high office, deliberately abusing the public trust without consequences."

    At some point, the Republican Party needs to be called to account for its increasingly reckless political behavior over the decades. Sabotaging the Paris peace talks in 1968 ensured that another 25,000 Americans would die in the Indochina quagmire that was the Vietnam War. The damage Richard Nixon inflicted upon the U.S. body politic in the Watergate scandal is still reverberating to this day. Iran-Contra was a truly harebrained scheme that should have revealed to us the truly frightful proliferation of outright crackpots within the upper echelons of the GOP's ranks.

    But the Trump-Russia scandal represents a profound betrayal of our country's principles and ideals by Republicans, who are so focused upon retention of power that they've blinded themselves to the potentially adverse consequences of their actions.

    Trump's unholy alliance with Vladimir Putin is everyone's concern. And because of that, we need to insist that Mueller's report in its entirety be released to the public. Attorney Gen. Barr should not be allowed to treat its contents as though it were some mere personnel matter that's not subject to public scrutiny.



    Yes, "Firewall--Conspiracy and Coverup," (none / 0) (#35)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 23, 2019 at 10:46:04 AM EST
    by Lawrence Walsh, details the independent counsel's frustration, if not anger, over the destruction of the Iran/Contra probe by pardoning Weinberger and five others indicted or convicted. And, the pardons were in consultation with then (and now) AG William Barr.  

    The indictment of Weinberger revealed that President HW Bush had been lying for years with the claim that he had been "out-of-the-loop".   Walsh also discovered that Bush had withheld his own notes about the Iran/Contra affair, a discovery that elevated Bush to a possible criminal subject.


    Ridiculous doesn't begin (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Feb 23, 2019 at 12:09:14 AM EST
    ...to describe that comment.

    Ken Starr practically had a P.R person leaking every possible bit of dirt. But not as policy.

    This just in. No one ever in the history of US government investigations commented publicly and materially on the progress of the investigation, because it is a bad idea to tip people off that they are being investigated.

    (What Ken Starr was doing was not a legitimate "investigation.")


    I share your frustration (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 22, 2019 at 04:50:20 PM EST
    But the man is clearly damned if he does etc

    Think of the Burden (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Feb 24, 2019 at 09:02:40 AM EST
    Despite all the bleating from the right about no collusion has been shown, or innocent until proven guilty, or fake news, or whatever the exoneration, we here on TL and most of the world understand that Donald Trump is wholly owned by Vladimir Putin.  We know that he is a lazy, easily led dunce who kowtows to the most dangerous and evil men on the planet. The damage is unbearable to watch.

    The only "remedy, " such as it is, is impeachment.  With the GOP in solid control of the Senate, it will take powerful, public evidence to bring Donald Trump down, in the face of this seemingly overwhelming political obstacle. Two presidents have been impeached and acquitted. No one thought Nixon could fall, but when the evidence went public, even the GOP Senate crumbled. It can be done, but it's daunting.

    That burden falls to Robert Mueller III.

    He is a combat Marine, former FBI director, US Attorney, the man who brought down Gotti. His cv is the most impressive an attorney could ever assemble, and if his cases and his lifelong conduct are any indication, his moral compass points true north. He's tough, He knows right from wrong, he has seen combat, and he makes a Boy Scout look like a Hells Angel.

    It's a good thing.  Think of the burden.

    This pillar of rectitude is up against a bunch of supervillains right out of a comic book.

    In the comics, the superhero is the only person on the planet who can Save The World. He must bring powers that no one else can marshal. Now that man exists, and his name is Robert Mueller III. Mueller is Superman, and Trump is Lex Luthor. (If Lex Luthor was just as evil but was fat and had major brain damage. But just as evil.)

    Think of the burden.

    Just from what we know publicly, every member of the Trump family is compromised and betraying our country while also looting it. Mueller knows more than we do. He has every written and recorded communication of a vast, worldwide network of international supervillains. He has their bank records and their tax returns. He has high ranking members of the conspiracy needing to win favor with him to shave years off their prison sentences.

    So far, Mueller has lived up to the advance billing. He has not leaked a pencil shaving from his investigation, but he has dumped powerful evidence in filings that have accompanied multiple convictions and indictments. Despite the oft-stated threat that he could be fired at any time, he is making sure that such an event would not save anyone from him. He and his associates will not be outflanked by the team of circus performers opposing them.

    If what we know makes us angry, think how angry he is. Jim Comey scored the worst "own goal" in political history, and it rightfully cost him his job, but for the wrong political reason. Now he and Mueller have to watch this buffoon shred their beloved bureau, insult them and their friends daily, ravage our country and its institution, and they have to keep everything they feel about this to themselves.

    Think of the burden.

    Mueller is all we have right now standing between good and evil on the planet, and whether it is six days or six months from now, he will pull the trigger. But when you strike at the king, you better not miss.

    Think of the burden.

    Pure speculation here (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 24, 2019 at 09:35:12 AM EST
    It think the "leaked" stuff about the final report bring an "anticlimax" could be a kind of rope a dope.  Lull Trump and the peanut gallery into thinking `it's just a report, no one will care, we have FOX NOOZE and Douschiwitz'.

    The fact that so much of everything we have seen has been redacted, the fact that nearly everything redacted is related to Russia and conspiracy, and other stuff does not suggest we are NOT going to see a big finish. IMO

    If Mueller was going to indict DJTJ or Jared or "others" it makes total sense to me he would do it out the door.

    The reason for that seems obvious.  Trump will go into war mode.  He cant fire Mueller if he just quit.  He can issue blanket pardons.  I say make our day.


    "many indictments" (2.00 / 1) (#1)
    by thomas rogan on Thu Feb 21, 2019 at 10:39:26 AM EST
    It's easy to indict people for perjury if you get to be a special prosecutor questioning people about everything in the world.  As Bill Clinton found out.  
    As they tried to tell Hank Reardon, government makes people into criminals and gets power over them that way.
    Where's the collusion?  I guess we'll see in the Mueller report when it comes out.  

    Yep (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 21, 2019 at 11:02:02 AM EST
    those evil G-men can turn the any honest person into a liar with their anti-truth serums, hypnosis and probably pure witch-craft I suppose.

    Has anyone been indicted (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by CST on Thu Feb 21, 2019 at 11:08:22 AM EST
    For lying about what they ate for breakfast,  or has it all been related to lying about contact and discussions with Russians - you know, what this whole investigation is about.

    I don't think they've gotten anyone for lying about their sex life yet, but if they do, as long as there is nothing seriously morally wrong there (child predator, harrassment, etc...), I'll agree with you that they've probably gone too far.  Lying about the core issues of the investigation  - nah.


    well, maybe Manafort didn't lie (none / 0) (#7)
    by leap on Thu Feb 21, 2019 at 12:06:18 PM EST
    about morally reprehensible sex, because maybe they never asked him.

    Manafort (none / 0) (#8)
    by CST on Thu Feb 21, 2019 at 12:17:55 PM EST
    Has a lot bigger problems than perjury.

    That was a disturbing read. (none / 0) (#10)
    by vml68 on Thu Feb 21, 2019 at 01:26:24 PM EST

    It's easy to indict people for perjury (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Feb 21, 2019 at 11:34:20 PM EST
    If you can prove they knowing lied about a material issue, it's...

    Wait for it.


    Why are you not asking why people would choose to lie about their Russian contacts to the point where they are wiling to accept a prison sentence rather than tell the truth?

    The Russkis are dangerous, is why.


    And that's Paul Manafort in a nutshell. (none / 0) (#28)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 22, 2019 at 07:23:38 PM EST
    He pleaded guilty, and yet he was still willing to lie about his Russian links and risk imprisonment for the balance of his lifetime because -- why, exactly? Because he realizes what the Russian intelligence services can and will do, and indeed have already done, to people who cross or double-cross them, and that their retribution can also include a target's family.

    Easy? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Yman on Sat Feb 23, 2019 at 04:51:22 PM EST
    Are you under the (mis)impression that BC was indicted for perjury?

    That may (none / 0) (#40)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Feb 24, 2019 at 12:10:35 AM EST
    have been awkwardly phrased in the original post, because of course BC was impeached for a lie that wasn't perjury, but if he had been indicted, we wouldn't be talking about it now.

    Are you under the (mis)impression that BC was indicted for perjury?

    I would like some clarification from the OP also.

    BTW, helpful to me if you throw in a pull quote on your post so I know whom you are answering when the threads get long.  TY


    Ha ha (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 21, 2019 at 10:50:43 AM EST
    A tent Breaking Bad style.

    I was just listening to former FBI saying what he thought would happen is he would hand off many things to different prosecutors..  he said Muellers taste was a narrow one.  All the other stuff they found is not technically in his purview

    I do not agree with the doom and gloom scenarios

    FBI also said their WILL be more indictments.  Either by Mueller out the door or other prosecutors as evidence warrants

    Also I stand by the idea the best outcome, as ghastly as it is, is Trump being crushed at the polls.  

    Anything else is playing with fire.

    Coast Guard lieutenant Christopher Paul Hasson is accused of plotting a terrorist attack as a white nationalist

    I really believe if Trum is impeached there will be blood in the streets.

    Seriously, let's just humiliate him.

    ANYONE ANYONE Can beat him at the polls.

    Op Ed in today's NYT by (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2019 at 12:35:02 PM EST
    By Neal K. Katyal
    Mr. Katyal was an acting solicitor general under President Barack Obama.

    I Suppose... (none / 0) (#18)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 22, 2019 at 02:27:36 PM EST
    ...after a 3 year hiatus this is as good as any place to jump back in fire.

    I agree with most of this, but I don't know that I wouldn't want a little blood in the streets to clean up the rif-raf like Mr Hasson.  I think it's coming either way, let's just get it over with and finally close this chapter of our misbegotten history.  IMO the reason Trump exists is because Obama gave GWB a pass, to hell with that anymore, no more passes on bad behavior because there might be fallout.

    And the reason I picked this particular comment to comment on is that ANYONE can beat Trump in the polls, are you positive ?  I feel like if anyone could name a name it would be the Mr Howdy.


    Welcome (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by KeysDan on Fri Feb 22, 2019 at 02:43:40 PM EST
    back, Scott. Missed your thinking.  A good week. Both you and Kdog---although he presents cameos from time to time.

    Thanks... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 22, 2019 at 03:03:12 PM EST
    ...its really weird that I have been gone 3 years and I recognize every commenter.  Thought there would be some fresh faces, maybe I just picked a slow day.

    Nice to see that the neighbor remains mostly intact.


    Hey, Scott, welcome back. (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by caseyOR on Fri Feb 22, 2019 at 08:16:08 PM EST
    Nice to see you here again.

    Welcome back, (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Zorba on Sat Feb 23, 2019 at 12:23:41 PM EST

    Ha (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 22, 2019 at 04:29:03 PM EST
    It's like ya never left!

    Names, ok.

    I like Amy.  I'm ok with Harris.  Even Warren.  I fear it wil another Bernie OR year.  None of the guys strike me as having enough juice.  Yet.

    So I've been trying to keep an open mind on the "or"


    It's Like I never Left... (none / 0) (#52)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 25, 2019 at 12:29:54 PM EST
    ...except maybe my humor isn't as sharp, but I was referring to the person who actually did lose to Trump since you know, TL folks ran me out of town for not jumping on that band wagon.

    That was then (none / 0) (#53)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 25, 2019 at 12:30:36 PM EST
    And I Bet... (none / 0) (#54)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 25, 2019 at 12:35:05 PM EST
    ...the line of folks who didn't learn any lessons is a hell of a lot longer that the line of folks who did.

    The next couple of weeks are going to be a real show both with Trump and the D candidates reactions.

    Let's just hope some of them are in the short line.


    Hope (none / 0) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 25, 2019 at 04:06:57 PM EST
    But probably not.

    I have no memory about what I may have said.  Sorry it it was harsh or unfair.


    Scott, I am glad to see you back. (none / 0) (#55)
    by vml68 on Mon Feb 25, 2019 at 02:12:50 PM EST
    You were on my mind a lot during Hurricane Harvey.

    TL folks ran me out of town for not jumping on that band wagon.

    I know I disagreed with you about Bernie Sanders back in 2016, so when I read your comment above, I checked your comment history to see whom you were referring to. The last time you commented was when I brought up Bernie's taxes. I really hope it was nothing I said that made you feel you were "run out of town".

    For the record, my views on the need for Bernie to make his tax returns public has not changed. If anything, I think it is imperative considering we are hammering Tr*mp on the non disclosure of his taxes.


    Funny You Should Ask... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 25, 2019 at 04:01:38 PM EST
    ... about both.  

    Harvey, I was camping in Kimberling City Missouri when Harvey hit.  We went up to catch the solar eclipse, which was fricken awesome.  I only knew about Harvey because work sent out text messages and I was grocery shopping and my phone went bananas with texts saying work was cancelled.  Water was about 6 inches from going into my home, but I never even lost power at home.  My 10 day camping trip turned into about 20, which was cool because we were on a beautiful lake.  But after a while, even a nice lake and camping couldn't hold down the stress of what was going on back home.  

    Leaving TL.  I just got sick of arguing with everyone and hearing how great HRC was.  It had nothing to do with you, more like a snowball that kept getting bigger and I just decided it wasn't worth the effort.  For the most part TL was a group of like minded folks and some republicans.  But not in 2016, it was HRC or die and I really felt disenfranchised from  my community.  After the election I was not only mad as hell, I didn't want to come back and be that guy as I think even the HRC crew didn't need anyone telling them what time of day it was.

    In case it's not clear vml68 you are not one of the folks who contributed to me leaving, if anything it was folks like you that kept me around longer than I should have.


    I don't want to go back (none / 0) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 25, 2019 at 05:15:41 PM EST
    And look for it but sometime during the republican primary when I was predicting Trump could win and no one believed me I said something like "if, and only if, Trump is the nominee Bernie might really be a better candidate than Hillary'

    I still think if it had been any other candidate Hillary was a winner.  But yes, Bernie would probably probably have beaten Trump.  

    That said, the whole Russian thing......

    Who knows.


    The (none / 0) (#59)
    by FlJoe on Mon Feb 25, 2019 at 05:25:10 PM EST
    media would have turned on him, the Russians possibly have kompromat on him, minority voters
    and hard core Hillaryites would have stayed home.

    We will never know.


    Case (none / 0) (#60)
    by FlJoe on Mon Feb 25, 2019 at 06:02:21 PM EST
    in point
    When 30-year-old footage of Vermont's independent senator, Bernie Sanders, singing drunk and shirtless in a sauna complex in the Soviet Union emerged on Twitter Monday, folks had a field day with it. Some found it endearing and amusing, but others were enraged by him palin' around with Russians.
    I know, Sputnik but who knows what else they have on tape. I have done amazingly stupid stuff when I was drunk and shirtless...just saying.

    Hmmm... Not Trying to Stir the Pot... (none / 0) (#61)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 26, 2019 at 09:23:13 AM EST
    ... but I do not miss you pulling muscles patting yourself on the back while simultaneously claiming you have no memory about what you may have said, while paraphrasing what you said(wrote).

    I don't need to go back and review, I was never a Sander fan, but I was strongly against HCR, which around here was blasphemy.

    Moving forward, please. I hate seeing Sanders out there, while I really like his ideas, I am not down with his most loyal supporters and a lot of crap they pulled.  His ideas are out of the bag, he's not the only one wrangling to be a socialist democrat.  Warren, why is she still around, she lied about her ethnicity, please go away.  The rest, nothing jumps out as above the fray.  

    I am a liberal first and when I see D's downplaying Ocasio I just want to throw a brick at the TV.  Idiots, she is the future of the party and anyone that can't see that is going to lose.  I know it's early, but I don't think anyone is ready to go up against Trump, much less beat him.  If this is the crop we have to choose from, we had better start hoping Trump decides the job is too hard or he gets impeached/indicted.  

    Pence has been playing it pretty damn smart as well.  


    I (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by FlJoe on Tue Feb 26, 2019 at 09:41:55 AM EST
    see, you seem to be condemning EVERY Democrat except OSC while praising Pence, sounds a bit trollish to me.

    disagree (none / 0) (#78)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 03, 2019 at 07:29:56 PM EST
    He's criticizing the old guard and praising the new young more liberal Dems. Not trollish at all. Personally, I haven't decided if O is the future of the party. I think she should slow down some, and sell her ideas to the American people before demanding change in Congress. While she has good ideas (as did Bernie even though I objected to his claiming credit for a "revolution" or that his ideas were original), the country isn't ready to vote for these ideas yet. O needs to put some elbow grease behind her ideas and not just rely on 140 word messages on social media or voters in the Bronx or voters under 30.

    I am actually glad you are back (none / 0) (#63)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 26, 2019 at 10:14:19 AM EST
    2016 was a rough time.  When I sai I don't remember what I said to you it's true.  I do not remember who's side you were on but thought from comments it might have been Bernie

    I do wonder if you were not for either, who.  Please tell me it was not Stein.

    Whatever, water under the bridge and over the damn.

    My intention believe it or not was not to pat myself on the back but to find common ground assuming you like others thought Bernie could win.  

    And I remember that because to remember taking a fair amount of shi+ for it at the time.

    I'm glad to hear you are not a Bernista.  I am convinced sans Sanders and the damage he helped cause Trump would not have gotten those 70,000 votes over three states that made him president.

    And while my own opinion of Hillary has evolved considerably there is one undeniable fact.  With Hillary we would not have Gorduch or Kavanaugh.

    Any case, I hope detente is possible because you are a smart guy and you can contribute here.  Not enough of those


    Also (none / 0) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 26, 2019 at 10:24:58 AM EST
    Some others have appeared like sj.

    I think this is great.

    We are entering a brave new world.  If you thought the last two years was nuts, wait for the next two.

    We all need each other.

    The country needs us.  Together.

    As hammy as that sounds I think it's abdolutely true.


    Captain, (none / 0) (#65)
    by KeysDan on Tue Feb 26, 2019 at 12:50:15 PM EST
    unsurprisingly, I agree with you.  But, fully, fully agree with his comment.  With Trump, the country faces an existential threat.  Not sure we could recover from a second, four-year term of Trump. It is a tragedy that so many Republicans and others continue to be supporters.  

    As always, Scott makes good, although not always diplomatic points--which is part of his charm.   Glad, too, to see sj back--a really good thinker. Hope MOBlue-- and Anne, return, as prickly as she could sometimes be. Just part of the package.

    Most blogs are on to the invasion of the Ivans, and TL has a good response protocol...recipes.  


    There Were a Lot of People... (none / 0) (#66)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 26, 2019 at 12:51:44 PM EST
     ... pointing out the fact that a lot of people really did not like HRC and while much of it wasn't her fault, she was despised by R's and they were going to make sure she did not win.  Don't get me wrong, I was in shock like everyone else Wednesday morning, it's one thing to say she can't win, it's quite another to realize your rhetoric is all of a sudden truth.  Like a really bad joke.

    She was never a good candidate, she after the S Show of 2012, she should not have even been on the primary ballot, but, and I am going to get fried for this, a lot of people wanted a woman, and a lot of tunnel vision developed because of that want/need.

    I like water under the bridge and over the damn.  What does it really matter at this point, if it wasn't Trump it will be some other Smuckatelli the right elects in hopes of making the word a republican paradise.  For me, I just keep thinking of the day, like when Obama won, and how great it was to come from a deep dark place and for that light to shine bright.  I just hope to hell that happens sooner than later.  Like 4 years sooner.  

    Trump has not started an unwinnable war for an unknown reason and he has not blew up the stock market, the rest is gravy.  He is better than GWB, so far, and let's be honest, we are all addicted to the non-stop shi*tery that is the Donald Trump White House with the possibility of a real live impeachment of an idiot.


    I dunno (none / 0) (#71)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 26, 2019 at 06:17:49 PM EST
    W was pretty bad but I think Trump is way worse.  

    Like different league worse.
    At least in the sense of wanting to put a civilized face on their agenda.  Is that better or worse?  

    As far as the unwinnable war, I think that could be as basic as Ws advisors wanted a war and got one.  Trumps, at least for most of the first two years, seem to have not wanted one.

    With both preznits pretty feckless in the whole thing.


    I expressed my trepidation with HRC here. (none / 0) (#72)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 11:18:02 AM EST
    I agree it was not a popular opinion. I did vote for her. And I actually found things about her I did support by that time. But, she was, without a doubt, one lousy candidate. And she did inspire gargantuan hate from the right. I never understood it, but it was a fact that motivated many to vote for Bone Spurs.

    You have (none / 0) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 02:08:17 PM EST
    to realize the level of misogyny in this country first of all. Second of all, none of our candidates running have positive numbers so far with Harris' being the best with a big fat goose egg when it comes to "liability" and Sanders and Warren being the worst. I expect 2020 is going to be repeat of same siderism where nobody "likes" either candidate.

    The future (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 26, 2019 at 03:42:03 PM EST
    of the party is not AOC. The future is someone like Sharice Davids that can flip a district not someone who only can win in a deep blue district. Sharice has already passed legislation while AOC embarrassed herself. AOC should have just kept her head down and got to work like all the other freshmen and she probably would have a future but she unfortunately keeps shooting herself in the foot but she's a Bernie apostle and that is what they tend to do.

    The future of the party (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by CST on Tue Feb 26, 2019 at 04:19:09 PM EST
    Isn't here yet.  You're judging them based on the present party.

    That is a Problem.... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 01:29:45 PM EST
    ... when exactly is the future of the party arriving, before election, before the end of the decade, I mean seriously, was it here in 2016 when everyone was on their knees paying homage to the queen?  I am judging them on two elections, many polls, and the present, which is a pretty damn good data set.

    The future is in here, if the D's want to claim they are too extreme or un-electable the party is going to lose them.  The future won't be held back by people who think compromise with lunatics is the key to victory.

    And for another comment, I don't care that she won in a blue or red district, that's the problem right now, everyone wants to win then figure out what actions will give them the best ability to win next time.  Trump proved this is non-sense, say what you want and let the damn chips fall where they may.  Quit playing Hillary and running a campaign based on completely on polls, too afraid to take a stand that might upset some.

    I like the words coming out of her mouth and I don't care if it not polished enough to win in red or blue districts, I love the message.  Full blown liberalism with no damn apologies for wanting to make people's lives better.  


    Huh? (none / 0) (#75)
    by CST on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 02:18:35 PM EST
    I agree with you entirely about AOC and was making the same case a few days ago when the Amazon situation came up.

    I think you've misread this.   Essentially I was saying moderates winning in Kansas might be where the current party is at but it's definitely not where the future is.

    I get that you have some residual anger about 2016.   I took about a year off myself and frankly still struggle with controlling my own rage at times.   But I think you're barking up the wrong tree here.


    Nobody (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 03:00:28 PM EST
    is advocating for dealing with lunatics and I have a long record on opposing that sort of thing. However just opposing is not enough. You need to learn to be effective. If you're blowing up your own legislation then how are you being effective?

    Your post really does nothing to further your own cause.


    Yes, Great Plan... (none / 0) (#77)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 01, 2019 at 09:10:15 AM EST
    ...so long as we ignore the idiot in the WH and all the damage he is doing.

    See my comment above lessons learned, because this is exactly what I was referring to.


    You Say Tomato, I Say Tomato... (none / 0) (#68)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 26, 2019 at 04:04:40 PM EST
    ...you say shooting herself in the foot and I say having the temerity to walk the walk.  Everyone said Bernie was a dreamer, that his ideas would never transfer to legislation, which was true.  But look where we are today, and if wasn't for liberals pushing the envelope with things like health care & education, they would still be taboo socialist policies rather than the center of campaigns.

    If there is one lesson I learned form Trump, this country can elect someone extreme.  Yeah sucks right now, but I am done hoping wishy washy democrats are going to push legislation that the majority of Americans want & need.

    Nice to your comments again, smiley face.


    If your point (none / 0) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 26, 2019 at 05:26:34 PM EST
    is she's there to push the envelope then you're making a different argument than I was. I'm seeing people saying they won't vote D because they don't want a socialist country. We're now having a debate about communism because Bernie is in the race. I would rather not have that and focus on policies instead of handing out shovels to the opposition to dig our graves with. So far Pelosi seems to be doing a fine job with legislation that is popular across the board.

    FOX News talking head (none / 0) (#5)
    by ragebot on Thu Feb 21, 2019 at 11:58:51 AM EST
    made the point that any SC report (what ever) would go to the prez/his lawyer first before being released; or at least that is the theory.  The talking heads went on to say so far Rudy has not been advised there is any report ready for him to review.

    I get it that the AG does not have to give the prez a heads up but I would bet a nickel that he will.  And as soon as Rudy gets the report he will probably get a week or so to prepare for the release.

    Another consideration is that next week Trump will be in the RVN to talk with Rocket Man and I doubt the AG would release anything while the prez is out of the country.

    I will (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 21, 2019 at 12:00:31 PM EST
    Take that bet

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 21, 2019 at 02:38:06 PM EST
    Mueller can be called by the house to testify to what he found. He can sit there under oath and refute everything crazy Rudy says. Anything Rudy says just plays with the brainwashed Fox News crowd anyway. Think about the other 60+% of the country? I know they don't matter to conservatives but watch out 'cause they vote and they will take down the apologists.

    There is no force in the universe (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Feb 21, 2019 at 11:29:44 PM EST
    Strong enough to keep the lid on that report.

    Just so we are all on the same page (none / 0) (#12)
    by ragebot on Thu Feb 21, 2019 at 07:31:55 PM EST
    The first thing Mueller does, by law, when he is finished is report to the AG.  The AG then has the option to make a report or not.  Given how close Muller and Barr seem to be it is not likely Mueller would go behind Barr's back and leak to Congress or the press.

    Barr has made it clear he will follow the law in terms of what is, or is not, released.  On the other hand Rudy seems to leak like a sieve.  It is likely Rudy will get a heads up and have some time to craft a response before Barr releases anything.

    Not to mention that Clapper joined several other talking heads saying anything that is released will be less than most folks are expecting and a real disappointment in terms of what we learn from it.


    It has to hold more than you and I know (none / 0) (#14)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Feb 21, 2019 at 11:28:26 PM EST
    And what we know just on the basis of public knowledge is that Trump answers to Putin.

    When he accepted the Putin version of international events while rejecting the advice of a dozen career intel professionals, it couldn't be any more obvious.

    And that's just what WE know.  Mueller knows a lot more than that, so it's hard to imagine any good news for the president.


    C&L (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 22, 2019 at 11:17:09 AM EST
    Just being (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 22, 2019 at 03:18:49 PM EST
    reported that there will be no Mueller report next week as previously reported. I wonder who put out the nonsense about next week.

    Could just be this (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 22, 2019 at 04:49:36 PM EST
    Next week is already slated to be a busy week in Washington, with former longtime Trump lawyer Michael Cohen appearing for testimony on Capitol Hill and several other major hearings and votes set to take place.

    Cohen (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 22, 2019 at 05:08:49 PM EST
    Testifying makes me wish I was retired.

    Manafort sentencing memo (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 22, 2019 at 07:32:22 PM EST
    Due any minute

    The deadline was today (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 22, 2019 at 09:40:40 PM EST

    It was said earlier it might be something that requires a lot of redactions so we wouldn't see it today.


    Prosecutors' sentencing memo on Manafort (none / 0) (#38)
    by Peter G on Sat Feb 23, 2019 at 02:58:58 PM EST
    released Saturday. Total filing of 800 pages.  Suggests that the applicable sentencing Guidelines range for the D.C. case is 210-262 months (17.5 to 21.8 yrs). But that does not reflect how the Guidlelines suggest that a judge in one case should coordinate the sentence with sentencing in another case.

    That the sentencing memo arrives on ... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 22, 2019 at 07:45:52 PM EST
    ... National Margarita Day is wholly appropriate, because the sunset's almost over the yardarm and I'll have something with which to toast the occasion.

    Bad news day for Paulie Walnuts (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 22, 2019 at 08:09:13 PM EST
    New York Has Prepared Paul Manafort Charges If Trump Pardons Him

    New York state prosecutors have put together a criminal case against Paul Manafort that they could file quickly if the former chairman of Donald Trump's 2016 campaign receives a presidential pardon.

    New York County District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. is ready to file an array of tax and other charges against Manafort, according to two people familiar with the matter, something seen as an insurance policy should the president exercise his power to free the former aide. Skirting laws that protect defendants from being charged twice for the same offense has been one of Vance's challenges.

    Manafort was convicted of eight felonies, pleaded guilty to two more and is scheduled to be sentenced next month for those federal crimes. Prosecutors working for Special Counsel Robert Mueller have recommended as long as 24 years, a virtual life sentence, for the 69-year-old political consultant.

    Can some smart lawyer (none / 0) (#37)
    by ragebot on Sat Feb 23, 2019 at 02:39:41 PM EST
    explain just what parameters constrain a SC's "report", if that is the right word.

    My understanding is it is not really a report in the sense I understand.  It simply describes why someone is charged (e.g. Manafort is charged because he broke tax laws along with several other things) and to a less extent why a few peeps are not charged.

    The thing is there a huge number of people who will not be charged; me for one as an example.  I also suspect there are some folks Mueller investigated for a short period of time and found a dead end.

    Given a some what widely accepted assumption (with notable exceptions) that a sitting prez can not be indicted it is possible Mueller simply did not investigate him.  Not saying this is the case just a possibility.

    There have been many posts on the topic of Comey's blabbing about Clinton's missteps but not bringing charges against her.  Most folks think this was a mistake that threw dirt on Clinton but did little else.

    In any case what I am asking is if a SC investigates someone and for what ever reason doesn't, or can't, indict how is the decision made to include that in a report.

    I don't think you have been listening (none / 0) (#41)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Feb 24, 2019 at 12:27:24 AM EST
    I also suspect there are some folks Mueller investigated for a short period of time and found a dead end.

    I would bet the other extreme.  I would bet that every lead Mueller investigated was not a blind alley, but a can of worms.  When you open a can of worms, the only thing to do is find a bigger can.

    Mueller knows everything. If just the public facts show that they are all criminals, what must the actual evidence show?  Mueller now has every written and recorded communication of a vast, global conspiracy of literal comic book villains against all that is right.

    Think of the moral burden.  In the superhero comics and in the movies, the hero is always the one person who can Save the World.  Mueller is that guy. Combat veteran.  FBI chief. Most courageous man and pillar of rectitude in the world today.

    There may be people who are not charged, but they are all dirty, if they are in any authority. You don't play with those guys without the same ethics they have.  That ethic, is straight, pure, unadulterated grift, steal everything you can.

    And Mueller knows.


    Tell me again about (none / 0) (#42)
    by ragebot on Sun Feb 24, 2019 at 08:39:38 AM EST
    Carter Page who may be the first guy a FISA warrant was issued for.  No way Mueller was not investigating him yet no charges and I have not seen anyone claim he did anything criminal.

    So far the Greek guy and the Dutch guy got a slap on the wrist from Mueller for process crimes after what I would describe as failure to cooperate.  Gates and Manafort are guilty as sin on charges related to tax evasion and money laundering; big crimes for sure but nothing to do with Trump's election.

    No one doubts the Russians were setting up fake accounts and posting for and against both sides.  But charging a bunch of peeps who will never see a trial in the US may be more of a feel good act than anything else.  What we have not seen so far is evidence a court would accept connecting that to Trump.

    Not to dis Mueller but his performance in the Jewell case and the Enron case are not shining examples of superior legal work.

    Bottom line is I am still looking for an answer to my question about what Mueller is required by law to do in terms or reporting his findings to Barr.


    As I understand it (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 24, 2019 at 08:50:43 AM EST
    Barr is not required to report anything to congress except things like if the AG or the temporary fake AG over ruled any action by Mueller.  Beyond that and other process stuff he isn't "required" to tell congress much.

    Do I think that will happen, no.  I do not.
    If it did happen do I think it would stand, I absolutely do not.

    I love this part

    No one doubts the Russians were setting up fake accounts and posting for and against both sides.  


    No one doubts that.


    Well (none / 0) (#44)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Feb 24, 2019 at 08:51:41 AM EST
    I am still looking for an answer to my question about what Mueller is required by law to do in terms or reporting his findings to Barr.

    I hope that is causing you to lose a lot of sleep, because that is a rhetorical question of the sort that you do not deserve an answer to. If Google works where you live, you could look up his appointment and read it yourself, but clearly you would rather complain to people who do not have a copy of it, that you don't either.

    Mr. Mueller answers to the people, not to your person.

    You sound very spoiled about not getting your way.  Tell me I have misinterpreted your petulance.


    My point is (none / 0) (#47)
    by ragebot on Sun Feb 24, 2019 at 10:08:57 AM EST
    a whole lot of posts in this thread ignore the fact that Mueller is not required by law to produce a report; he is only required to say this person was charged for these reasons.

    More importantly he is not required to explain why a person was not charged.  Since DOJ policy is that a sitting prez can not be charged it is not likely any Muller report will contain details about any investigation of Trump.

    There have been lots of talking heads, including Clapper, who have said the Muller report will be a real letdown for anyone expecting a bomb shell.


    Found your mistake (none / 0) (#48)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Feb 24, 2019 at 10:53:02 AM EST
    There have been lots of talking heads, including Clapper, who have said the Muller report will be a real letdown for anyone expecting a bomb shell.

    "Talking heads" are paid to fill otherwise dead air, and as we have seen,  being RIGHT about anything is so rare among pundits as to be nonexistent.

    These people are saying that everything we know about the last 50 years of Bob Mueller's life, his patriotism and his ethical standards are lies.

    I don't believe THEM.


    There are lots of problems with (none / 0) (#49)
    by ragebot on Sun Feb 24, 2019 at 06:23:20 PM EST
    Mueller's history; Jewell and Enron being the two most obvious.  Largest pay out by the feds to Jewsll for Muller falsely accusing him and a rare 9-0 SC overturning of some of the Enron convictions.

    Gotta take the bad with the good.


    So desperate it's funny (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by Yman on Sun Feb 24, 2019 at 06:54:50 PM EST
    Mueller's history; Jewell and Enron being the two most obvious.  Largest pay out by the feds to Jewsll for Muller falsely accusing him and a rare 9-0 SC overturning of some of the Enron convictions.

    Gotta take the bad with the good.

    True, but what you don't have to do is take the good with the wingnut lies.

    You want to back up your (false) claim that Mueller falsely accused Jewell, or just admit that it's a winger lie?  Same goes for the "largest payout by the feds" nonsense.

    Not even sure what you're talking about by trying to blame Mueller for the SC overturning "some" of the Enron convictions.  Are you talking about the Arthur Andersen case?  Because, if so ... that's hilarious.  The SC unanimously overturned the conviction because the jury was given faulty jury instructions.

    You guys are so desperate to defend the Liar-in-Chief by attacking Mueller you can't even get your facts halfway straight.


    Out of curiosity (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Feb 25, 2019 at 11:38:18 AM EST
    Are you rooting for Mueller or for Putin?