• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Victoria Toensing: Why Mueller's report (no matter how much Dems clamor for it) must be kept confide

MovingPictures said:
Best case scenario: the report details Trump and his campaigns outreach to the Russians as highly unethical, and burns them with proverbial fire for their willingness to do so, but stops short of any criminal referrals.

Worst case scenario: the report lays out a criminal conspiracy to obstruct and lie to federal and Congressional investigators on the part of Trump and his circle.

I doubt collusion will get anybody, but the cover-up is so blatant, it's hard to imagine Mueller not having anything to say about it.
Click to expand...

If that's what the report does, then it's a complete travesty.

The investigation had one mission: to determine if a crime had been committed. It no crime was found, then that's all the report should convey.

It's a stain on our democratic process, if the investigation was for no other purpose than to smear a duelly elected president. Meddling by unelected bureaucrats is worse than meddling by a foreign power.
 
Chomsky said:
I actually believe we might see collusion from Trump's periphery, but there may not be enough evidence to tie it to Trump himself. I'm thinking of Manafort working with Kilimnik - giving him campaign polling data; and with Stone working with WikiLeaks under the direction of a campaign hi-level supervisor.
Click to expand...

And who exactly were the high level supervisors on the trump campaign? To my knowledge the people who were in charge of running trump’s campaign were Jarred Kushner and Donald trump jr. They were at the infamous trump tower meeting and I think it is crazy to assume that Jared and trump jr. Made any decision independently of Donald trump SR.
 
Chomsky said:
I was thinking of their asking with a subpoena.
Click to expand...

The DOJ can still refuse. the judicial branch will stay out of it as it is more of a political fight than a
law one.
 
Chomsky said:
I believe the AG must provide a report to the the CI committees, though. Obviously that's not the full report. But then again, I believe the CI committees can also subpoena relevant parts of the Mueller document relevant to their inquiries.

All in all, I think it can get pretty sticky, but it (mostly) will get out.
Click to expand...

If they do, and the AG doesn't wish to share it, then it'll be an interbranch dispute with no likely resolution if neither side wants to give.

All of this is a pretty unlikely scenario, though.
 
apdst said:
That doesn't mean Congress can force the DOJ to release the report to the republic.

It only means that certain members of Congress can read the report.

Y'all take "congressional oversight" way too literal.
Click to expand...
You are so uninformed it's hard to believe you're for real.

Congress can obtain the report, overlook it, then hold a vote to release it to the public. This has been done before with other reports.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
And who exactly were the high level supervisors on the trump campaign? To my knowledge the people who were in charge of running trump’s campaign were Jarred Kushner and Donald trump jr. They were at the infamous trump tower meeting and I think it is crazy to assume that Jared and trump jr. Made any decision independently of Donald trump SR.
Click to expand...
It could have been Manafort or Flynn. Otherwise, you're right.
 
Harshaw said:
If they do, and the AG doesn't wish to share it, then it'll be an interbranch dispute with no likely resolution if neither side wants to give.

All of this is a pretty unlikely scenario, though.
Click to expand...
At the end of the day, unless the AG is trying to cover something up, there is no reason outside of matters of national security (including classified info) that the report cannot be made public and should not be made public (which I know you are not arguing otherwise). Any attempt to hide the full report (with noted exceptions) will rightfully be viewed with suspicion.
 
Slyfox696 said:
At the end of the day, unless the AG is trying to cover something up, there is no reason outside of matters of national security (including classified info) that the report cannot be made public and should not be made public (which I know you are not arguing otherwise). Any attempt to hide the full report (with noted exceptions) will rightfully be viewed with suspicion.
Click to expand...

:shrug: Which is why none of this likely to come into play.
 
Harshaw said:
If they do, and the AG doesn't wish to share it, then it'll be an interbranch dispute with no likely resolution if neither side wants to give.

All of this is a pretty unlikely scenario, though.
Click to expand...
Well SCOTUS would step-in (eventually), but like you I believe it will get resolved politically.
 
Chomsky said:
I actually believe we might see collusion from Trump's periphery, but there may not be enough evidence to tie it to Trump himself. I'm thinking of Manafort working with Kilimnik - giving him campaign polling data; and with Stone working with WikiLeaks under the direction of a campaign hi-level supervisor.
Click to expand...
We know for a fact the three senior most members of the Trump campaign (Jr., Kushner and Manafort, aka son, son-in-law and campaign chairman) met with Russian officials to obtain information they knew had been illegally hacked.

The fact people still act like we are looking for a smoking gun on this whole thing seems silly to me. THAT is a smoking gun. The idea these three took this meeting in Trump Sr.'s own home without Trump Sr. knowing defies credibility. Whether it can be undisputedly proven Trump Sr. knew may be a different matter, but he knew.
Harshaw said:
Which is why none of this likely to come into play.
Click to expand...
While I agree with you in theory, the part of me which has seen Trump actively work to impede the investigation has me concerned Barr was only nominated based on a willingness to hide something. I hope I am wrong and I 100% acknowledge I have no evidence from Barr that he will try to keep the American people in the dark just to protect Trump. But there is still a concern, based on Trump's actions in the past.
 
Chomsky said:
I actually believe we might see collusion from Trump's periphery, but there may not be enough evidence to tie it to Trump himself. I'm thinking of Manafort working with Kilimnik - giving him campaign polling data; and with Stone working with WikiLeaks under the direction of a campaign hi-level supervisor.
Click to expand...
I actually think the most interesting nugget is the Peter Smith story and Flynn's connection to it
Mueller May Have Evidence Peter Smith Knew of Hacks | Law & Crime

Special counsel Robert Mueller continues to examine the 2016 hack of the Democratic National Committee and whether various individuals had knowledge of it before documents were dumped on WikiLeaks. These individuals include Jerome Corsi (who we have covered before), former Trump campaign advisor Roger Stone and the associates of the deceased Peter W. Smith.

According to Byron Tau of the Wall Street Journal, “Mueller has Stone’s telephone records and evidence Smith had foreknowledge of hacks” by the fictitious persona known as Guccifer 2.0.

It’s been reported for some time that Stone, Corsi and Randy Credico‘s contact with WikiLeaks was under investigation.

Although Mueller’s office did not comment, one person “familiar with the matter” said that Smith’s associates were being questioned and that investigators “have evidence” Smith “may have had advance knowledge of details about the release of emails from a top Hillary Clinton campaign official by WikiLeaks.”
Click to expand...
Keep an eye on this.

It will be interesting to know if this report is accurate, if Flynn was aware, and if the broader campaign was aware of these kind of efforts to reach to Russian intelligence - which I believe they were.

And what about old Jr? Why hasn't he been interviewed? And don't forget Corsi and the mystery SCOTUS subpoena over that government entity. It's hard to believe Mueller will leave those ends so loose.
 
Slyfox696 said:
We know for a fact the three senior most members of the Trump campaign (Jr., Kushner and Manafort, aka son, son-in-law and campaign chairman) met with Russian officials to obtain information they knew had been illegally hacked.

The fact people still act like we are looking for a smoking gun on this whole thing seems silly to me. THAT is a smoking gun. The idea these three took this meeting in Trump Sr.'s own home without Trump Sr. knowing defies credibility. Whether it can be undisputedly proven Trump Sr. knew may be a different matter, but he knew.
Click to expand...
There were many efforts by the campaign to get their hands on what they believed were stolen State Department and DNC emails, it's just matter of when they became aware the Russians were the sources, and just Papa's plea deal puts that at least two months before the DNC hack.

I suspect they reached out to the Russians even before that.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
And who exactly were the high level supervisors on the trump campaign? To my knowledge the people who were in charge of running trump’s campaign were Jarred Kushner and Donald trump jr. They were at the infamous trump tower meeting and I think it is crazy to assume that Jared and trump jr. Made any decision independently of Donald trump SR.
Click to expand...

In his indictment of Stone, Mueller does not claim that Stone worked under the direction of a high level campaign official. Mueller instead says a high level campaign official reached out to Stone asking that Stone in turn find out what Wikileaks had.
 
Chomsky said:
Well SCOTUS would step-in (eventually), but like you I believe it will get resolved politically.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. I don't think they'd want to rule and then be ignored, which, if it came to that, is likely. There wouldn't be anything they could do to enforce their ruling.
 
Slyfox696 said:
We know for a fact the three senior most members of the Trump campaign (Jr., Kushner and Manafort, aka son, son-in-law and campaign chairman) met with Russian officials to obtain information they knew had been illegally hacked.

The fact people still act like we are looking for a smoking gun on this whole thing seems silly to me. THAT is a smoking gun. The idea these three took this meeting in Trump Sr.'s own home without Trump Sr. knowing defies credibility. Whether it can be undisputedly proven Trump Sr. knew may be a different matter, but he knew.
While I agree with you in theory, the part of me which has seen Trump actively work to impede the investigation has me concerned Barr was only nominated based on a willingness to hide something. I hope I am wrong and I 100% acknowledge I have no evidence from Barr that he will try to keep the American people in the dark just to protect Trump. But there is still a concern, based on Trump's actions in the past.
Click to expand...
Another interesting tidbit is the location of Manafort's meeting with Kilimnik, to give the Russian's the Trump team polling data. Where do you think it was? In the Kushner family building!

(666 Fifth Avenue - Grand Havana Room)
 
Harshaw said:
I doubt it. I don't think they'd want to rule and then be ignored, which, if it came to that, is likely. There wouldn't be anything they could do to enforce their ruling.
Click to expand...
I dunno' 'bout that.
 
MovingPictures said:
I actually think the most interesting nugget is the Peter Smith story and Flynn's connection to it
Mueller May Have Evidence Peter Smith Knew of Hacks | Law & Crime


Keep an eye on this.

It will be interesting to know if this report is accurate, if Flynn was aware, and if the broader campaign was aware of these kind of efforts to reach to Russian intelligence - which I believe they were.

And what about old Jr? Why hasn't he been interviewed? And don't forget Corsi and the mystery SCOTUS subpoena over that government entity. It's hard to believe Mueller will leave those ends so loose.
Click to expand...
Exactly, which is why I find it hard to believe it's winding up.

Unless:

1] Everything else has been farmed-out (from the SCO).

2] There's sealed indictments.
 
Harshaw said:
They've always taken a very hands-off approach to Executive-Legislative interbranch disputes.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But if it involves a subpoena, the stakes rise a bit. But you may be right.
 
Chomsky said:
Agreed. But if it involves a subpoena, the stakes rise a bit. But you may be right.
Click to expand...

Not really. The Executive has ignored Congressional subpoenas many times.
 
Harshaw said:
Not really. The Executive has ignored Congressional subpoenas many times.
Click to expand...
You really don't think the Court will feel the political pressure? They did during Watergate.
 
Chomsky said:
Another interesting tidbit is the location of Manafort's meeting with Kilimnik, to give the Russian's the Trump team polling data. Where do you think it was? In the Kushner family building!

(666 Fifth Avenue - Grand Havana Room)
Click to expand...
666 ...

It reads like ****ing fiction.
 
Chomsky said:
Exactly, which is why I find it hard to believe it's winding up.

Unless:

1] Everything else has been farmed-out (from the SCO).

2] There's sealed indictments.
Click to expand...
I'd imagine the US attorney's office in DC will indict Corsi.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom