Is there any reason to believe Nunes could or would redact/modify the memo before sending it to Mueller's team? The impression I get is that this isn't new information they're requesting--they've had access to the thing for a while, they're just asking for the equivalent of a notarized copy.
I kind of feel like so many suspicious operators being neck deep in shit for years makes me think Mueller's investigation should be the new norm.
Like, get a new President? Okay the legal terminator department will be released to poke through all your shit, every time, as standard. Purging corruption is like cleaning your bathroom; best done regularly.
+32
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Petition to change the thread title to Too Many Crooks
If Mueller is really on his game, I would expect him to request the transcripts from the House now, and then again after the new Congress is sworn in in January, just to see if Nunes decided to edit it- which I wouldn't put past him to do.
I can has cheezburger, yes?
+1
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I need Nunes out of work and in a cell for any sense of justice to stay alive in my cold, black heart
If Mueller is really on his game, I would expect him to request the transcripts from the House now, and then again after the new Congress is sworn in in January, just to see if Nunes decided to edit it- which I wouldn't put past him to do.
I can see Schiff doing this regardless of what Mueller wants.
If Mueller is really on his game, I would expect him to request the transcripts from the House now, and then again after the new Congress is sworn in in January, just to see if Nunes decided to edit it- which I wouldn't put past him to do.
I can see Schiff doing this regardless of what Mueller wants.
I expect the incoming Congress to be working both in concert with Mueller and also independently for political hatchetry. This is one of those fun times when they can possibly do both at the same time.
The DoJ has determined that Whitaker does not have to recuse himself. Because even though he stated if he was in charge of the investigation he'd sabotage it, that doesn't mean he really meant what he said.
+4
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
The DoJ has determined that Whitaker does not have to recuse himself. Because even though he stated if he was in charge of the investigation he'd sabotage it, that doesn't mean he really meant what he said.
Is this separate from the two lawsuits against him, one for his being in DoJ at all, and the other about him not superseding Rosenstein?
The DoJ has determined that Whitaker does not have to recuse himself. Because even though he stated if he was in charge of the investigation he'd sabotage it, that doesn't mean he really meant what he said.
Is this separate from the two lawsuits against him, one for his being in DoJ at all, and the other about him not superseding Rosenstein?
MSNBC just reported that this is just from the ethics office regarding whether or not he'd have to recuse himself.
The DoJ has determined that Whitaker does not have to recuse himself. Because even though he stated if he was in charge of the investigation he'd sabotage it, that doesn't mean he really meant what he said.
Is this separate from the two lawsuits against him, one for his being in DoJ at all, and the other about him not superseding Rosenstein?
MSNBC just reported that this is just from the ethics office regarding whether or not he'd have to recuse himself.
Didn't a good portion of the ethics office resign because they were basically being ignored 100% of the time?
The DoJ has determined that Whitaker does not have to recuse himself. Because even though he stated if he was in charge of the investigation he'd sabotage it, that doesn't mean he really meant what he said.
Is this separate from the two lawsuits against him, one for his being in DoJ at all, and the other about him not superseding Rosenstein?
MSNBC just reported that this is just from the ethics office regarding whether or not he'd have to recuse himself.
Didn't a good portion of the ethics office resign because they were basically being ignored 100% of the time?
The DoJ has determined that Whitaker does not have to recuse himself. Because even though he stated if he was in charge of the investigation he'd sabotage it, that doesn't mean he really meant what he said.
Is this separate from the two lawsuits against him, one for his being in DoJ at all, and the other about him not superseding Rosenstein?
MSNBC just reported that this is just from the ethics office regarding whether or not he'd have to recuse himself.
Didn't a good portion of the ethics office resign because they were basically being ignored 100% of the time?
I know the director did
That was the White House ethics office.
Man, if you though your job was a waste of time...
It seems like a flaw in the system that the DOJ, to which Trump appoints the leadership, would get to decide whether or not it’s a conflict of another one of his appointees is in charge if an investigation into Donald Trump.
I kind of feel like so many suspicious operators being neck deep in shit for years makes me think Mueller's investigation should be the new norm.
Like, get a new President? Okay the legal terminator department will be released to poke through all your shit, every time, as standard. Purging corruption is like cleaning your bathroom; best done regularly.
While good in theory, it would effectively be used by the GOP to destroy any/every (D) government that gets elected. Hell, IIRC more than one GOP congressperson has basically implied that this is a strategy they'll actually pursue, because it's been oh-so unfair to investigate Trump like this.
This shit is not good for the country. What would be really nice is if the electorate wouldn't ignore obvious criminality/incompetence because *loud angry noises!*
It seems like a flaw in the system that the DOJ, to which Trump appoints the leadership, would get to decide whether or not it’s a conflict of another one of his appointees is in charge if an investigation into Donald Trump.
These ethics offices are not composed of political appointees, and are career civil service people. I'm not saying there's NO possibility of a conflict of interest, but they're generally politically agnostic.
Whitaker is not personally involved in any of the things being investigated at this point, so I'm not surprised he doesn't have to recuse himself. Being appointed by Trump isn't enough, as demonstrated by the fact that Rosenstein (a Trump appointee) has been overseeing it since the start.
The DoJ has determined that Whitaker does not have to recuse himself. Because even though he stated if he was in charge of the investigation he'd sabotage it, that doesn't mean he really meant what he said.
Is this separate from the two lawsuits against him, one for his being in DoJ at all, and the other about him not superseding Rosenstein?
MSNBC just reported that this is just from the ethics office regarding whether or not he'd have to recuse himself.
Didn't a good portion of the ethics office resign because they were basically being ignored 100% of the time?
I know the director did
That was the White House ethics office.
oh! lots of ethics offices around for a bunch of politicians lol
It seems like a flaw in the system that the DOJ, to which Trump appoints the leadership, would get to decide whether or not it’s a conflict of another one of his appointees is in charge if an investigation into Donald Trump.
Normally the president isn't engaged in multiple crimes before he has actually won the presidency, so I'd put this up there with "It seems like a flaw in the design of the car that it can't survive getting hit by a meteor the size of a fridge" in terms of flaws in concept.
Going forward I would absolutely support a constitutional ammendment that executive appointees have to recuse themselves from policies that directly effect the person that appointed them though.
Mueller related, from LA Times reporter. Series of tweets:
BREAKING. senior DOJ official: Whitaker has not recused from Mueller probe. After extensive review by senior officials, he did not seek formal ruling from ethics office. BUT a senior doj ethics official said it was a "close call" and he should recuse in an "abundance of caution."
In cases involving an appearance of conflict of interest -- versus a real conflict, like having once represented a defendant -- it is incumbent upon the official to seek an ethics recommendation.
Because this was a "close call," senior appointed DOJ officials recommended to whitaker he not recuse. They noted no AG has ever recused for an "appearance" issue in the past. Whitaker yesterday accepted that recommendation.
DOJ sending letter to Senate explaining Whitaker's decision.
The Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is a key part of safeguarding financial databases and etc and apparently it was most likely compromised by Russians(!!!!!)
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
The Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is a key part of safeguarding financial databases and etc and apparently it was most likely compromised by Russians(!!!!!)
That's uh....not just compromised. We, the United States Government, were giving private citizen information to a foreign hostile government.
The Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is a key part of safeguarding financial databases and etc and apparently it was most likely compromised by Russians(!!!!!)
That's uh....not just compromised. We, the United States Government, were giving private citizen information to a foreign hostile government.
That's
beyond bad
That is at least espionage right? I know we can't say the T word but Jesus Benedict Arnold.
Mueller related, from LA Times reporter. Series of tweets:
BREAKING. senior DOJ official: Whitaker has not recused from Mueller probe. After extensive review by senior officials, he did not seek formal ruling from ethics office. BUT a senior doj ethics official said it was a "close call" and he should recuse in an "abundance of caution."
In cases involving an appearance of conflict of interest -- versus a real conflict, like having once represented a defendant -- it is incumbent upon the official to seek an ethics recommendation.
Because this was a "close call," senior appointed DOJ officials recommended to whitaker he not recuse. They noted no AG has ever recused for an "appearance" issue in the past. Whitaker yesterday accepted that recommendation.
DOJ sending letter to Senate explaining Whitaker's decision.
The Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is a key part of safeguarding financial databases and etc and apparently it was most likely compromised by Russians(!!!!!)
So I need to rethink the Deripaska sanctions developments now
The Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is a key part of safeguarding financial databases and etc and apparently it was most likely compromised by Russians(!!!!!)
So I need to rethink the Deripaska sanctions developments now
Mueller related, from LA Times reporter. Series of tweets:
BREAKING. senior DOJ official: Whitaker has not recused from Mueller probe. After extensive review by senior officials, he did not seek formal ruling from ethics office. BUT a senior doj ethics official said it was a "close call" and he should recuse in an "abundance of caution."
In cases involving an appearance of conflict of interest -- versus a real conflict, like having once represented a defendant -- it is incumbent upon the official to seek an ethics recommendation.
Because this was a "close call," senior appointed DOJ officials recommended to whitaker he not recuse. They noted no AG has ever recused for an "appearance" issue in the past. Whitaker yesterday accepted that recommendation.
DOJ sending letter to Senate explaining Whitaker's decision.
Wait, was there a typo and a senior DOJ ethics official said he should or shouldn't recuse himself re:"abundance of caution"?
If I'm reading it right, it sounds like there's nothing glaringly obvious on their first glance to immediately force his recusal, but because it wasn't a "formal" review process, he's not 100% in the clear yet either. Hence they're saying he should still recuse himself to avoid the question entirely.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
0
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
Mueller related, from LA Times reporter. Series of tweets:
BREAKING. senior DOJ official: Whitaker has not recused from Mueller probe. After extensive review by senior officials, he did not seek formal ruling from ethics office. BUT a senior doj ethics official said it was a "close call" and he should recuse in an "abundance of caution."
In cases involving an appearance of conflict of interest -- versus a real conflict, like having once represented a defendant -- it is incumbent upon the official to seek an ethics recommendation.
Because this was a "close call," senior appointed DOJ officials recommended to whitaker he not recuse. They noted no AG has ever recused for an "appearance" issue in the past. Whitaker yesterday accepted that recommendation.
DOJ sending letter to Senate explaining Whitaker's decision.
Mueller related, from LA Times reporter. Series of tweets:
BREAKING. senior DOJ official: Whitaker has not recused from Mueller probe. After extensive review by senior officials, he did not seek formal ruling from ethics office. BUT a senior doj ethics official said it was a "close call" and he should recuse in an "abundance of caution."
In cases involving an appearance of conflict of interest -- versus a real conflict, like having once represented a defendant -- it is incumbent upon the official to seek an ethics recommendation.
Because this was a "close call," senior appointed DOJ officials recommended to whitaker he not recuse. They noted no AG has ever recused for an "appearance" issue in the past. Whitaker yesterday accepted that recommendation.
DOJ sending letter to Senate explaining Whitaker's decision.
The Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is a key part of safeguarding financial databases and etc and apparently it was most likely compromised by Russians(!!!!!)
Foreign policy thread I guess unless someone wants to start a thread specifically about this
Posts
The holiday coal subforum.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
Let it be known *bangs gavel*
So instead of the "no open mic in the politics thread" it'll be "only open mic in the politics thread"?
Let's move on
Like, get a new President? Okay the legal terminator department will be released to poke through all your shit, every time, as standard. Purging corruption is like cleaning your bathroom; best done regularly.
Aw, I had a Griftmas title pun all ready to suggest!
I can has cheezburger, yes?
I can see Schiff doing this regardless of what Mueller wants.
I expect the incoming Congress to be working both in concert with Mueller and also independently for political hatchetry. This is one of those fun times when they can possibly do both at the same time.
Is this separate from the two lawsuits against him, one for his being in DoJ at all, and the other about him not superseding Rosenstein?
MSNBC just reported that this is just from the ethics office regarding whether or not he'd have to recuse himself.
Didn't a good portion of the ethics office resign because they were basically being ignored 100% of the time?
I know the director did
That was the White House ethics office.
Man, if you though your job was a waste of time...
This shit is not good for the country. What would be really nice is if the electorate wouldn't ignore obvious criminality/incompetence because *loud angry noises!* These ethics offices are not composed of political appointees, and are career civil service people. I'm not saying there's NO possibility of a conflict of interest, but they're generally politically agnostic.
Whitaker is not personally involved in any of the things being investigated at this point, so I'm not surprised he doesn't have to recuse himself. Being appointed by Trump isn't enough, as demonstrated by the fact that Rosenstein (a Trump appointee) has been overseeing it since the start.
oh! lots of ethics offices around for a bunch of politicians lol
Normally the president isn't engaged in multiple crimes before he has actually won the presidency, so I'd put this up there with "It seems like a flaw in the design of the car that it can't survive getting hit by a meteor the size of a fridge" in terms of flaws in concept.
Going forward I would absolutely support a constitutional ammendment that executive appointees have to recuse themselves from policies that directly effect the person that appointed them though.
The Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is a key part of safeguarding financial databases and etc and apparently it was most likely compromised by Russians(!!!!!)
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
That's uh....not just compromised. We, the United States Government, were giving private citizen information to a foreign hostile government.
That's
beyond bad
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
That is at least espionage right? I know we can't say the T word but Jesus Benedict Arnold.
Wait, was there a typo and a senior DOJ ethics official said he should or shouldn't recuse himself re:"abundance of caution"?
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
So I need to rethink the Deripaska sanctions developments now
This was 2 yrs ago to be clear
If I'm reading it right, it sounds like there's nothing glaringly obvious on their first glance to immediately force his recusal, but because it wasn't a "formal" review process, he's not 100% in the clear yet either. Hence they're saying he should still recuse himself to avoid the question entirely.
Senior DOJ officials said shouldn't.
DOJ Ethics officials said "nobody asked us, it would be a close call, but we'd lean yes, recuse."
So basically, they called Whitaker and asked him if he thought he should recuse himself and he went "lolno"
But then they asked real people and they said "what, yes"
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Foreign policy thread I guess unless someone wants to start a thread specifically about this
It's not Mueller related
the singularity approaches.
"... like a big ball of... grifty-wifty, crimey-wimey stuff."