• Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation 0
    135 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Potus;52242311][media]https://twitter.com/nktpnd/status/864970070778417152[/media][/QUOTE] I knew the Bush presidency was bad but jesus
This seems hopeful, but those law partner ties are worrisome. Guess we'll find out who his agenda is aligned with shortly?
[media]https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/864977321186516993[/media] [editline]17th May 2017[/editline] [media]https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/864984433518145537[/media]
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52242349][media]https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/864977321186516993[/media] [editline]17th May 2017[/editline] [media]https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/864984433518145537[/media][/QUOTE] That was not written by Trump. I am waiting for the amusing twitter rant tomorrow.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52242349] [media]https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/864984433518145537[/media][/QUOTE] Rofl now that he can't remove the opposition, he tries to downplay it Sad!
[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;52242363]That was not written by Trump. I am waiting for the amusing twitter rant tomorrow.[/QUOTE] I think Trump has had his Twitter account access temporarily revoked by his staff. It has been complete silence since the Comey Memo leaked, excepting aide-prepared statements regarding the speeches he's been giving, like "[I]It was a great honor to welcome the President of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, to the @WhiteHouse today![/I]" If he had access to Twitter, he would undoubtedly be posting explosive rants (and incriminating himself). He's obviously burned up about this shit, because he can't seem to keep himself from slipping out how unfair and mean the press are in his speeches.
Well whaddaya know guys, Wikileaks is conveniently on the case. [media]https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/864994472492453888[/media] Guess this confirms crap has hit the fan for Trump if Wikileaks has to spread nonsense like this.
Russian government counter-intelligence operations in full effect to protect their asset in the White House.
[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;52242550]Well whaddaya know guys, Wikileaks is conveniently on the case. [media]https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/864994472492453888[/media] Guess this confirms crap has hit the fan for Trump if Wikileaks has to spread nonsense like this.[/QUOTE] This probably wasn't even his decision to make, if this is true.
The White House previously booked a Fox News interview with Kellyanne Conway, and then abruptly cancelled it at the last minute. [media]https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/864999175313870848[/media] Life comes at you fast.
[media]https://twitter.com/jessels46/status/864995384061554689[/media] :thinking:
[media]https://twitter.com/ap/status/864999184876789761[/media]
[QUOTE=Thom12255;52242020][media]https://twitter.com/PhilipRucker/status/864966049019695104[/media][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Code3Response;52242106]I would try for another one since this is obviously a conflict of interest. I mean its a damn clear [B]obvious conflict of interest[/B][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=bdd458;52242114]He resigned from that law firm according to ABC.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Fangz;52242124]Resigning doesn't make the conflict of interest go away.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=bdd458;52242133]I'd argue that it lessens it however. We'll have to wait and see how it all unfolds.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=bdd458;52242175]If he didn't work on any cases related to Trump and resigned from his position I don't see much of a conflict of interest left. I'm not sure of his case history, so I'll agree with you if it turns out that he was involved in Trump related cases. Otherwise I fail to see the issue tbh[/QUOTE] So conflicts of interest are actually a huge part of the lawyering profession (professional responsibility is its own section of the bar exam, and conflicts of interest are the most important part) so there's a few things to note here. First, this is a potential successive conflict. That is, it's a conflict between a former client and a current "client". For it to be an actual successive conflict of interest, it would have to be the same or a substantially related matter as the one handled on behalf of Ivanka & Jared, the US's interests would have to be materially adverse to Ivanka, and confidential information given [i]by Ivanka[/i] would have to be involved. It's pretty easy to wiggle out of the "materially adverse" thing and be able to avoid using confidential information. There's no reverse to that - information given to him by the US wouldn't cause a conflict (although it would still be protected). Second, government lawyers' conflicts usually revolve around government lawyers transitioning into private practice, not the other way around. However, he can't now participate in a matter he participated in personally and substantially unless the [i]government[/i] gives informed consent (not the previous client). Chances are, that consent will be given, if required at all. While I'd agree that it's worth keeping an eye on, from a [i]legal[/i] perspective, there is no conflict of interest that bars his participation.
[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;52242363]That was not written by Trump. I am waiting for the amusing twitter rant tomorrow.[/QUOTE] I hope there aren't any [BLACKMAIL ITEMS] left that I can hang over you!
:snip: late Wikileaks is getting [I]really[/I] blatant :v:
[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;52242550]Well whaddaya know guys, Wikileaks is conveniently on the case. [media]https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/864994472492453888[/media] Guess this confirms crap has hit the fan for Trump if Wikileaks has to spread nonsense like this.[/QUOTE] What, exactly, is the worst that could happen if we gave Russia some weapons-grade nukes? They already have nuclear missiles. Even if it was some ultra-shady, unauthorized deal (obviously wasn't, given "chain of custody" being mentioned and that they got special flight clearance), it's not like he was giving it to a non-nuclear power. I'd be more concerned giving uranium to Canada or Germany than to Russia - another nuclear power, even one allied with us, still weakens the philosophy of non-proliferation, while giving Russia another bomb just means there's be a minor kurfluffle the next time the SALT inspection teams go around. Hell, just by seeing that, I'm starting to suspect Putin isn't really playing eight-dimensional chess, either. Wikileaks has obviously become a Russian propaganda tool, but they seem to have little idea what is actually damaging and what isn't, they just "leak" stuff on the assumption that internal enemies will find a way to spin it damagingly. Maybe they just got lucky that it worked with Hillary?
[media]https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/865006330964090881[/media] Wew, talk about salt!
WikiLeaks is seriously shameful now. I still feel sympathetic on some level for Assange and I've tried to give the organization as a whole the benefit of the doubt, but that last Tweet is so blatant, they may as well have just posted an office selfie with their FSB handlers for fuck sake. [editline]18th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=BlindSniper17;52242719]Wew, talk about salt![/QUOTE] I love when Sean gets cranky, his face gets all puffy and he sounds even dumber when he's mad.
[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;52242719][media]https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/865006330964090881[/media] Wew, talk about salt![/QUOTE] Alex Jones hot take on this is sure to sound more sane than this
[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;52242550]Well whaddaya know guys, Wikileaks is conveniently on the case. [media]https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/864994472492453888[/media] Guess this confirms crap has hit the fan for Trump if Wikileaks has to spread nonsense like this.[/QUOTE] I wonder who bought them off
[media]https://twitter.com/jonkarl/status/864966271598821376[/media] [editline]17th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=BlindSniper17;52242719][media]https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/865006330964090881[/media] Wew, talk about salt![/QUOTE] [media]https://twitter.com/pattymo/status/865016705025798144[/media]
[QUOTE=Potus;52242814][media]https://twitter.com/jonkarl/status/864966271598821376[/media][/QUOTE] Shoe's on the other foot now, eh
[QUOTE=Mr.Goodcat;52242615][media]https://twitter.com/jessels46/status/864995384061554689[/media] :thinking:[/QUOTE] That's adorable, but even reading the excerpt in the tweet indicates that Mueller was transferring a small sample of the material for forensic analysis, a diplomatic move to give Russia a chance to defend themselves in yet another espionage scandal in which they had, very likely, been implicated.
[QUOTE=archangel125;52242835]That's adorable, but even reading the excerpt in the tweet indicates that Mueller was transferring a small sample of the material for forensic analysis, a diplomatic move to give Russia a chance to defend themselves in yet another espionage scandal in which they had, very likely, been implicated.[/QUOTE] 1.) It was nowhere near as damaging as WikiLeaks obviously made it out to be. 2.) What harm would it have caused? "Yes, we, the Russian Government, declare ourselves totally absolved of the conflict based on this evidence!" Sure, whatever.
[QUOTE=Sableye;52242291]like to everything these days; kinda. he was the fbi director under bush and obama before his term expired but he also apparently worked for the firm that represents some of trump's family businesses as pointed out above so who knows. it does seem shocking that its really fucking hard to find someone who hasn't worked for trump at some point especially since he has never been in washington and was pretty smallfish before his run[/QUOTE] Before working as the FBI director he worked in various district attorney positions appointed by every president back to Reagan and had a track record against corruption, major financial fraud, and international money laundering. Corruption is definitely relevant to this case and the other two could potentially be relevant depending on how deep the investigation ends up going. Guy seems to have a really good track record even with the potential conflict of interest and seems to be handling that conflict of interest in the best possible way as well.
[media]https://twitter.com/joncoopertweets/status/865020071932035072[/media]
[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;52243064][media]https://twitter.com/joncoopertweets/status/865020071932035072[/media][/QUOTE] Sounds good to me. Who is next down the list after them two?
[QUOTE=DogGunn;52243151]Sounds good to me. Who is next down the list after them two?[/QUOTE] Paul Ryan (who is also being implicated by recent leaks), which would afterwards leave us with President Orrin Hatch.
Would this make the next president the 45th, and assume the previous, or the 46th?
This sounds really big. Should this be moved into SH for better visibility? This is beyond political back and forth now.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.