Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)

So DoJ is arguing that Whitaker's appointment is legal because an Acting AG is an inferior officer not a principal.

The courts affirming Mueller's appointment have based the legality of this appointment on the fact that Mueller is an inferior officer reporting to a principal (Rosenstein).

For Mueller's appointment to remain legal, he must report to a principal.

There raises a number of possibilities

1) Trump is brilliant. By making Mueller report to an inferior officer (Whitaker)he undercuts the legality of the special counsel's office.
2) The problem involved in the DoJ interpretation that Whitaker is not a principal will be resolved by having Mueller report directly to Trump.
3) The problem is resolved by having Mueller continue to report to Rosenstein.
4) Other? Possibly to be decided by the courts? Any legal eagles care to chime in?
 
"These are Angry People, including the highly conflicted Robert Mueller, who worked for Obama for 8 years. They won't even look at all of the bad acts and crimes on the other side. A TOTAL WITCH HUNT LIKE NO OTHER IN AMERICAN HISTORY!"

--Caligula's Horse in the White House
 
nsacpi said:
"These are Angry People, including the highly conflicted Robert Mueller, who worked for Obama for 8 years. They won't even look at all of the bad acts and crimes on the other side. A TOTAL WITCH HUNT LIKE NO OTHER IN AMERICAN HISTORY!"

--Caligula's Horse in the White House
Click to expand...

I have a photo of the statement being read!

alan-young_640x480_41463828277.jpg
 
It will be interesting to see what Assange is charged with. Simply charging him with publishing or disseminating stolen material would set a dangerous precedent with respect to freedom of the press issues. I would guess that the charge might be along the lines of engaging in a conspiracy with others (Russian intelligence, Trump campaign) to interfere in the election. The conspiracy would presumably involve some form of coordination regarding timing of the release of the stolen emails, sharing of information regarding what would be released, and other forms of strategic coordination.

It is important distinction. For example, imagine a scenario where the NY Times gets a hold of something embarrassing about the Nixon White House in October 1972. I think it would be dicy to charge them for publishing it even if the person providing them the information stole it. But if the Times shared this with the McGovern campaign before publishing it or tipped off the McGovern campaign as to the timing of the publication, that's an entirely different matter. And it would be even worse if it allowed the McGovern campaign to advise it regarding what to publish and when, in effect coordinating with the McGovern campaign to weaponize stolen material. And it would be even more problematic if the person who stole the material worked for the McGovern campaign or was paid by the McGovern campaign.
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
It will be interesting to see what Assange is charged with. Simply charging him with publishing or disseminating stolen material would set a dangerous precedent with respect to freedom of the press issues. I would guess that the charge might be along the lines of engaging in a conspiracy with others (Russian intelligence, Trump campaign) to interfere in the election. The conspiracy would presumably involve some form of coordination regarding timing of the release of the stolen emails, sharing of information regarding what would be released, and other forms of strategic coordination.

It is important distinction. For example, imagine a scenario where the NY Times gets a hold of something embarrassing about the Nixon White House in October 1972. I think it would be dicy to charge them for publishing it even if the person providing them the information stole it. But if the Times shared this with the McGovern campaign before publishing it or tipped off the McGovern campaign as to the timing of the publication, that's an entirely different matter. And it would be even worse if it allowed the McGovern campaign to advise it regarding what to publish and when, in effect coordinating with the McGovern campaign to weaponize stolen material. And it would be even more problematic if the person who stole the material worked for the McGovern campaign or was paid by the McGovern campaign.
Click to expand...

They may just turn him over to the Swedes unless he cooperates - name's names
 
Assange has been proven right again now that we know there is a sealed indictment against him by the US and if he surrendered to answer the charges in sweden he would have been handed over to the US. Any trial would be intetesting as the government gets to choose which judge resides over the case. I imagine the judge will not allow Assange's lawyers to make any defense like they did to the Bundy's in Oregon.
 
A person familiar with the talks said that the prosecutors had presented Mr. Corsi with evidence that he had not been truthful when investigators asked him whether he knew beforehand that WikiLeaks was going to publish emails stolen from Democratic computers during the campaign.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/23/us/politics/jerome-corsi-plea.html

Seems like Mueller is building a case that there was a conspiracy involving Corsi, Stone, Wikileaks, GRU and the Trump campaign to weaponize stolen information for the purposes of influencing the 2016 presidential elections.
 
nsacpi said:
It will be interesting to see what Assange is charged with. Simply charging him with publishing or disseminating stolen material would set a dangerous precedent with respect to freedom of the press issues. I would guess that the charge might be along the lines of engaging in a conspiracy with others (Russian intelligence, Trump campaign) to interfere in the election. The conspiracy would presumably involve some form of coordination regarding timing of the release of the stolen emails, sharing of information regarding what would be released, and other forms of strategic coordination.

It is important distinction. For example, imagine a scenario where the NY Times gets a hold of something embarrassing about the Nixon White House in October 1972. I think it would be dicy to charge them for publishing it even if the person providing them the information stole it. But if the Times shared this with the McGovern campaign before publishing it or tipped off the McGovern campaign as to the timing of the publication, that's an entirely different matter. And it would be even worse if it allowed the McGovern campaign to advise it regarding what to publish and when, in effect coordinating with the McGovern campaign to weaponize stolen material. And it would be even more problematic if the person who stole the material worked for the McGovern campaign or was paid by the McGovern campaign.
Click to expand...

I think there is a distinction in what Assange releases from what would be considered private conversations conducted by a political campaign (which is a non-governmental entity) and from leaked government documents deemed to be public (even if classified, but that's another argument). You bring up an interesting scenario, but if a government employee became a paid operative of a political campaign, that would violate the law in and of itself (both by the campaign and the individual performing the work). Anyone who cares about individual privacy should be watching this unfold with interest.

For the record, I have little opinion on Assange one way or the other.
 
50PoundHead;552954 said:
I think there is a distinction in what Assange releases from what would be considered

private conversations conducted by a political campaign (which is a non-governmental entity)

and from leaked government documents deemed to be public

(even if classified, but that's another argument). You bring up an interesting scenario,

but if a government employee became a paid operative of a political campaign, that would

violate the law in and of itself (both by the campaign and the individual performing the work).

Anyone who cares about individual privacy should be watching this unfold with interest.

For the record, I have little opinion on Assange one way or the other.
Click to expand...

I have been trying to put this into words for over 2 years.
On point
 
50PoundHead said:
You bring up an interesting scenario, but if a government employee became a paid operative of a political campaign, that would violate the law in and of itself (both by the campaign and the individual performing the work). Anyone who cares about individual privacy should be watching this unfold with interest.
Click to expand...

And of course if that government employee was the employee of a foreign government that would bring into play a whole new set of issues and laws.
 
nsacpi said:
And of course if that government employee was the employee of a foreign government that would bring into play a whole new set of issues and laws.
Click to expand...

Very true. There is a lot of overlap between campaigns and lobbying (which borders on the quasi-governmental). Plenty of gray area to commit shenanigans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top