Mueller Report Imminent

[Stew Cook]

When you get down remember this inspirational quotation:

Success is stumbling from failure to failure with no loss of enthusiasm.

View attachment 208161

Well, if it works for you, I say..

 

[RockyTop85]

Entirely possible but how do you square that with charges against Manafort?

Manafort was also charged with lying to the FBI, right? I’d have to look at the timeline. His independent crimes weren’t detailed in the report though, right?

 

[Velo Vol]

Manafort was also charged with lying to the FBI, right? I’d have to look at the timeline. His independent crimes weren’t detailed in the report though, right?

On October 27, 2017, Manafort and Rick Gates were indicted by a federal grand jury as part of Mueller's investigation.[40][41] The twelve-count indictment charged them with conspiracy against the United States, making false statements, money laundering, and failing to register as foreign agents for Ukraine as required by the Foreign Agents Registration Act.[40] Manafort was charged with four counts of failing to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts while Gates was charged with three.[42] The charges arise from Manafort's consulting work for a pro-Russian government in Ukraine and are unrelated to the Trump campaign.[43]

Trials of Paul Manafort - Wikipedia

 

[RockyTop85]

Trials of Paul Manafort - Wikipedia

So he was charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice in the Mueller probe and eventually he was “cooperating.”

I would guess one or the other (or the hope that he would cooperate) is why special counsel kept his case.

 

[Grand Vol]

I don't know about the tax return thing, other than it seems like they'll get them. Doesn't mean they can make them public, though.

I think he's neck deep in foreign money.. Russians,. Saudis etc.. But anything short of criminal activity, such as laundering money won't be provable. That's why they want the Deutsche Bank records.

So, yeah,. I'm guessing the same thing about fearing defeat in 2020. I think a backfire could be the self-fulfilling prophecy.

What legal basis do they have to request them? It's not a requirement when one runs for President. It's not a requirement the President hands them over.

So, again, why do they want them?

 

[NEVolFan]

 

[Velo Vol]

So he was charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice in the Mueller probe and eventually he was “cooperating.”

I would guess one or the other (or the hope that he would cooperate) is why special counsel kept his case.

This is the kind of question it would be good to have Mueller explain in a hearing.

 

[newarkvol]

The longer one spends with the report, the more disturbing a document it is, despite the initial fuzziness of some of Mr. Mueller’s conclusions. The instances here make up only about 12 pages out of a report that spans hundreds. Mr. Mueller makes clear that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 election with the goal of supporting Mr. Trump; that the Trump campaign sought to benefit from that interference; and that the president worked to put to an end to the office investigating the interference effort.

Opinion | 4 Disturbing Details You May Have Missed in the Mueller Report

 

[37L1]

The longer one spends with the report, the more disturbing a document it is, despite the initial fuzziness of some of Mr. Mueller’s conclusions. The instances here make up only about 12 pages out of a report that spans hundreds. Mr. Mueller makes clear that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 election with the goal of supporting Mr. Trump; that the Trump campaign sought to benefit from that interference; and that the president worked to put to an end to the office investigating the interference effort.

Opinion | 4 Disturbing Details You May Have Missed in the Mueller Report

Then why were his conclusions so "fuzzy" and not clear?

There are also instances in this report where it is clear that things listed as evidence were cherry picked/taken out of context, with exculpatory evidence/statements left out.

People will see what they want to see but the conclusions reached by the head of the Russian Interference Investigation, Mr. Mueller himself, are clear enough to show that those who wanted Trump out of office based on this investigation are sorely disappointed to the point they are grasping at anything to change that reality.

 

[Stew Cook]

What legal basis do they have to request them? It's not a requirement when one runs for President. It's not a requirement the President hands them over.

So, again, why do they want them?

Other than the 1924 law or whenever that gives The Ways and Means Chairman access to executive branch tax returns, I'm not sure what else, other than an impeachment inquiry.

As far as the president's bank records, there doesn't seem to be any legal debate about whether Trump can ultimately prevent it. But his team is suing to block them, with lower courts rejecting their objections. Seems to be fast tracking to SCOTUS.

 

[NorthDallas40]

The longer one spends with the report, the more disturbing a document it is, despite the initial fuzziness of some of Mr. Mueller’s conclusions. The instances here make up only about 12 pages out of a report that spans hundreds. Mr. Mueller makes clear that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 election with the goal of supporting Mr. Trump; that the Trump campaign sought to benefit from that interference; and that the president worked to put to an end to the office investigating the interference effort.

Opinion | 4 Disturbing Details You May Have Missed in the Mueller Report

The underlined is false. The Trump campaign sought nothing from the Russians. In fact the Muell explicitly said the campaign rebuffed the Russian advances. Womp womp.

 

[Stew Cook]

The underlined is false. The Trump campaign sought nothing from the Russians. In fact the Muell explicitly said the campaign rebuffed the Russian advances. Womp womp.

"If it's what you say it is, I love it." - translation: get behind me, evil Russians.. literally, get behind us.

 

[Grand Vol]

Other than the 1924 law or whenever that gives The Ways and Means Chairman access to executive branch tax returns, I'm not sure what else, other than an impeachment inquiry.

As far as the president's bank records, there doesn't seem to be any legal debate about whether Trump can ultimately prevent it. But his team is suing to block them, with lower courts rejecting their objections. Seems to be fast tracking to SCOTUS.

No, that law gives the Ways and Means Chairman access to anyone's records. Anyone. And specifically anyone without a legislative or investigative purpose.

Yet, somehow, this law doesn't conflict with the basic premise of the 4th Amendment? The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So, the House Ways and Means Committee wants his tax records for what will amount to a political stunt. But only in a "closed door" session. Furthermore, if you think somehow that information will stay behind closed doors, you aren't keeping up with the "NEVER TRUMP!" movement on the DNC side of the aisle.

They have no probable cause to request those tax records as far as I'm concerned. This law enables them to request anyone's tax records they so desire and the IRS is forced to give them up. Say they wanted to request the tax records of the person running against them. They legally are allowed to see those records (provided in a closed door session) without any reason to that request. You don't see the dangers in giving the House or Senate full access to a person's tax records without sufficient reason? Right there in the 4th Amendment is mentions "papers and effect."

26 US Code SS6103 has never been tried (to my knowledge) in court. I'd be surprised if the SCOTUS doesn't side with the President and declare that section unlawful.

 

[NorthDallas40]

"If it's what you say it is, I love it." - translation: get behind me, evil Russians.. literally, get behind us.

Talk to the Muell

 

[Stew Cook]

No, that law gives the Ways and Means Chairman access to anyone's records. Anyone. And specifically anyone without a legislative or investigative purpose.

Yet, somehow, this law doesn't conflict with the basic premise of the 4th Amendment? The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So, the House Ways and Means Committee wants his tax records for what will amount to a political stunt. But only in a "closed door" session. Furthermore, if you think somehow that information will stay behind closed doors, you aren't keeping up with the "NEVER TRUMP!" movement on the DNC side of the aisle.

They have no probable cause to request those tax records as far as I'm concerned. This law enables them to request anyone's tax records they so desire and the IRS is forced to give them up. Say they wanted to request the tax records of the person running against them. They legally are allowed to see those records (provided in a closed door session) without any reason to that request. You don't see the dangers in giving the House or Senate full access to a person's tax records without sufficient reason? Right there in the 4th Amendment is mentions "papers and effect."

26 US Code SS6103 has never been tried (to my knowledge) in court. I'd be surprised if the SCOTUS doesn't side with the President and declare that section unlawful.

Political stunt was my initial assessment, when you asked earlier. So, apparently, stunt or not, if the request is made in a way that consistent with the law, it would be a legal request. I'm no SCOTUS, so don't take my word for it.

 

[Grand Vol]

Political stunt was my initial assessment, when you asked earlier. So, apparently, stunt or not, if the request is made in a way that consistent with the law, it would be a legal request. I'm no SCOTUS, so don't take my word for it.

You are correct, it is in accordance with the law. However, to my knowledge, that law has never been tried in court. A lower court may stand on the "law" and being just perfectly fine. A Circuit Court or the SCOTUS? They have to take the broader look at the Constitutional implications of allowing a branch of government access to tax filings without any, and I do mean any, accountability. And that's what that "law" allows the Committees to do. Unfettered access to any tax returns just because they ask for them.

A law enforcement agency has to have a warrant to get them. Congress just asks pretty please just because they got the urge. No investigation, no reason, just "get me these files" and the IRS is bound by law to turn them over. That's power they don't need.

 

[Stew Cook]

You are correct, it is in accordance with the law. However, to my knowledge, that law has never been tried in court. A lower court may stand on the "law" and being just perfectly fine. A Circuit Court or the SCOTUS? They have to take the broader look at the Constitutional implications of allowing a branch of government access to tax filings without any, and I do mean any, accountability. And that's what that "law" allows the Committees to do. Unfettered access to any tax returns just because they ask for them.

A law enforcement agency has to have a warrant to get them. Congress just asks pretty please just because they got the urge. No investigation, no reason, just "get me these files" and the IRS is bound by law to turn them over. That's power they don't need.

Well, I'm a little biased on this, as my whole theory about Trump being crooked has been that he is compromised financially.

I guess it'd be more palatable to have a requirement that executive branch members disclose their tax returns as part of the financial disclosure requirement, which seems reasonable to me. About zero chance that would make it through a vote presently, though.

 

[Grand Vol]

Well, I'm a little biased on this, as my whole theory about Trump being crooked has been that he is compromised financially.

I guess it'd be more palatable to have a requirement that executive branch members disclose their tax returns as part of the financial disclosure requirement, which seems reasonable to me. About zero chance that would make it through a vote presently, though.

If that's the case, why hasn't Congress opened an investigation into it and done what is required of every law enforcement agency in the nation to get tax returns?

Because they proposed and passed a law saying they are above the Constitution. (Coolidge must have signed it into law)

 

[Smokey'sHandler]

People will see what they want to see but the conclusions reached by the head of the Russian Interference Investigation, Mr. Mueller himself, are clear enough to show that those who wanted Trump out of office based on this investigation are sorely disappointed to the point they are grasping at anything to change that reality.

Mueller had 2.5 years, a whole team of lawyers and a ridiculous amount of investigative resources at his disposal. I believe this was more than enough to find a very clear picture of what was going on. There is more reason to believe there is intentional haziness in the report to justify the time spent more than anything. It's like having an audit performed at your workplace. They are being paid to find something. In the event they cannot find something they will have "potential violations" and "suggestions for improvement" because if they don't find anything there is no justification for them even coming in. The haziness and hints in the report are of the same.

 

[Smokey'sHandler]

Well, I'm a little biased on this, as my whole theory about Trump being crooked has been that he is compromised financially.

If your theory was correct and Trump somehow is in bed with Putin and the Russians why hasn't Trump pushed for anything to hand some piece of us over to Russia already? Why are we having ships almost colliding in the sea and us not allowing him to take over whatever he wants in neighboring countries?

The theories are never going to turn into theorems without some sort of action or proof.

 

[Smokey'sHandler]

If your theory was correct and Trump somehow is in bed with Putin and the Russians why hasn't Trump pushed for anything to hand some piece of us over to Russia already? Why are we having battle ships almost colliding in the sea and us not allowing him to take over whatever he wants in neighboring countries?

The theories are never going to turn into theorems without some sort of action or proof.

 

[37L1]

If your theory was correct and Trump somehow is in bed with Putin and the Russians why hasn't Trump pushed for anything to hand some piece of us over to Russia already? Why are we having battle ships almost colliding in the sea and allowing him to take over whatever he wants in neighboring countries?

The theories are never going to turn into theorems without some sort of action or proof.

Neither country has "battle ships" any more, warships, yep. The Russian one was a destroyer. Just for clarification.

 

[Stew Cook]

If your theory was correct and Trump somehow is in bed with Putin and the Russians why hasn't Trump pushed for anything to hand some piece of us over to Russia already? Why are we having battle ships almost colliding in the sea and allowing him to take over whatever he wants in neighboring countries?

The theories are never going to turn into theorems without some sort of action or proof.

Something that overt and Trump would be done overnight. He's also limited to his powers outside of an emergency declaration or some equivalent military order.

Battleship ballet doesn't mean anything if you are trying to keep up appearances.

I'll not lie, I want The House to use every legal avenue to prove, or ultimately disprove my suspicions.

 

[Smokey'sHandler]

Neither country has "battle ships" any more, warships, yep. The Russian one was a destroyer. Just for clarification.

Thanks for the edit. The issue I have with the Russian collusion conspiracy theory is why push to have a president elected without the new president doing anything to help you out in the process. In Trump's 2.5 years of being president Trump has actually been pretty hard on Putin when it has come to his neighboring areas and the European aid that is being provided for Russia's interests. Rig an election to further delay your exploits? That doesn't seem plausible. If Trump were really in it with the Russians we would be seeing some sort of actionable evidence at least by now (unless they are saving it for an Pro-Russia/Anti-America 2020) because there is no guarantees that he will get a 2nd election.

 

[Weezer]

Well, I'm a little biased on this, as my whole theory about Trump being crooked has been that he is compromised financially.

I guess it'd be more palatable to have a requirement that executive branch members disclose their tax returns as part of the financial disclosure requirement, which seems reasonable to me. About zero chance that would make it through a vote presently, though.

Ask yourself how you'd react if it was a candidate you supported? Stop thinking about it as related to Trump.