Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Is Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation

Yes, CNN got sent the unsealed indictment two hours before it was officially unsealed. That is an illegal leak. That CNN waited until a few minutes after Stone was arrested to send the unsealed indictment to Stone's attorney is irrelevant.

Combine that with CNN showing up several hours prior to stage their cameras, and the FBI not asking them to leave. Then when the raid is over, the FBI asks them to leave.

The press release was posted, not the unsealed indictment, which was sent separately.

 

And, as usual, reality disagrees with the deep state tin foil HATS...

 

new piece at the Federalist:

http://thefederalist.com/2019/02/14/russia-hoax-begins-unravel-gaslighting-begins/

 

I have a friend who had a friend that had this repulsive kinda vibe. I didn't like him, and I didn't want to really associate with him. He was nice and charming enough in person. But he would tell these ridiculous self-aggrandizing stories that sounded like BS, except you didn't want to call him a liar to his face for something that didn't really matter. And the stories would be self-aggrandizing but not in a way that would make you think better of a person. Like the time he got a lady fired. Or the crazy night he stabbed someone in the thigh with a big knife. Turns out he was not just a big liar but an actual fraud, with a fake name and wanted by the FBI. Roger Stone reminds me of that guy.

 

interesting argument, don't pretend to understand it all. essentially Mueller hasn't been confirmed by the Senate and Congress needs to formalize/grant the Attorney General's authority to create "inferior officers" or to appoint those officers. more an fyi.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3324631

 

Trump's Attorney general nominee Barr defends Robert Mueller's investigation

the 68-year-old nominee provided unflinching assurances, to the Senate Judiciary Committee,that he would allow Russia special counsel Robert Mueller to complete the investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.


some of the assurances include

• He likely won’t fire Mueller: Barr committed in pretty strong terms that he would not fire Mueller unless some “grave” action justified it, and he found that “unimaginable.”

• Pardons can be criminal: Barr said that if a president pardoned someone in exchange for a promise not to incriminate him, that would be a crime.

• Trump can’t intervene to protect himself or family: Finally, Barr also said that if a president were to intervene with a Justice Department investigation to protect himself, a family member, or a business associate, that “would be a breach of his obligation under the Constitution to faithfully execute the laws.”

​

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...r-senate-hearing-attorney-general/2571876002/

 

That link was directly to the indictment, not a press release. They got a press release that likely included the indictment.

Here is the link just for you:

https://www.justice.gov/file/1124706/download

 

These two former scalia clerks and federalist society members have been promoting this effort to protect trump for a while now.

http://time.com/5292170/robert-mueller-special-counsel-unconstitutional-steven-calabresi/

And then there is this article from LawFare. You may recognize the author...
The Terrible Arguments Against the Constitutionality of the Mueller Investigation
https://www.lawfareblog.com/terrible-arguments-against-constitutionality-mueller-investigation

 

doesn't mean they're wrong

terrible or not, this is why we have arguments, make arguments, and argue arguments

 

It amuses me that you guys are lining up to vouch for the veracity of professional liar and dirty trickster Roger Stone's lies and dirty tricks.

Quicksand is totally a great place to build your new house. I'm sure nothing could possibly go wrong.

 

Not saying they are necessarily wrong, but that it wasn't a new argument and that the two authors of the paper you presented might have partisan reasons. It would be interesting to learn whether they had issue with past special counsel's and investigations like kenneth starr... or, only this one? And if I were to post an article by two lawyers hired by ThinkProgress... would it be unreasonable to point that out as a possible partisan bias?

And just like the federalist society members can make their argument, mr. kellyanne conway can also present his own arguments, even those criticizing the trump defender's arguments.

 

No, no, but it is totally important to nitpick a process and not care about the obvious rot that the process uncovers.

It's like, if I ask an inspector to look at my house, and he's finding termites everywhere, I totally want to critique him online because his shirt was untucked and the wiper-blades on his van seemed to need replacing.

 

fair enough

 

Interesting. But 2017 was the year to win that argument. You win that argument in 2019 and absolute pandemonium would ensue. Too much has happened to realistically put the djinni back in the bottle.

I don't know about any of the legal merit and I don't really care either. But the third argument, that a Special Counsel appointed to investigate the president can only be empowered by an appointment by the president is just ridiculous. The implication would be that the Constitution requires the president to engage in a conflict of interests. You may as well say the DOJ cannot investigate the president.

 

So then why did Trump and his hand pick associates lie so very often? What are they hiding?

 

Hmmm.....Gaslighting by claiming opposing gaslighting. I love the constant, “You are what I am and do what I do” that comes from the right-wing side. Basically, let’s use the popular word the opponent is using and turn it against them for our followers; Propaganda tactics at their worst.

The word from Richard Burr (R-NC), head of the Senate Judiciary committee, is that based on the evidence he’s seen up until now, there is no evidence of “direct” collusion. He has mentioned this same thing periodically during the investigation. However, both Mark Warner (D-VA) and Angus King (I-ME) disagreed with Burr.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/429702-warner-burr-split-on-committee-findings-on-collusion

This has become a big deal because NBC reported on Tuesday that an unnamed Democrat on the panel agreed with Burr. The right is keying on that report to declare that the investigation is over and that it was all a “hoax.”

Problem is, this isn’t the Mueller investigation; this is the Senate’s own investigation. They also haven’t talked to all the witnesses that they need to (Cohen has had to reschedule twice) and even Burr has admitted that the investigation hasn’t concluded.