Pages

Thursday, May 18, 2017

Democrats - Special Counsel not good enough

Some Democrats are already suggesting that a special counsel is not good enough.

  • Nancy Pelosi suggests that what we really need is an "outside independent commission". Which is to say that Pelosi wants another congressional investigation on top of the House and Senate intelligence investigations. Her argument is that Mueller will be under the chain of command of Trump and subject to "meddling".  Of course, by definition, the special counsel works outside the chain of command and would not be subject to any meddling. But when have the facts ever mattered?
  • Eric Swalwell is in favor of creating legislation (which has been tried and failed) that would create another independent commission within Congress to further grandstand investigate. Swalwell demands that there are "urgent" and "important" concerns that still require a "separate special commission". Specifically, he believes there is a strong need for what he describes as a "longer-term investigation". 

Be careful what you wish for?

I find the reaction of the Democrats  to be a little odd.  One would have expected a little more excitement from the group now that they got what they had been asking for. 

If I didn't know any better, it almost seems to me that some Democrats believed that they could have scored more political points attacking the "lack of investigations" than they will get from actually having the investigation that they have been calling for? Perhaps they never quite believed that Rosenstein would pull the trigger, and now that he has, perhaps it's not really what they wanted?

The overall buzz from both sides is that the congressional investigations are accomplishing very little. Apparently there are questions about where they go once they interview the main players (General Flynn and Paul Manafort). If these rumors are indeed true (and who knows at this point) then the conclusion may be that there really isn't much there. 

If that turns out to be true, then the worse case scenario for the Democrats would be to have the special counsel they called for to confirm the same thing. It would be nearly politically impossible for the Democrats to push back against Mueller if he doesn't deliver the goods. Their biggest talking point would be dead to everyone other than their most rabid backers. Not to mention the hit to their credibility. 

Meanwhile,  its extremely unlikely that the White House will continue to answer any questions on the subject... as technically it should all fall under the blanket of "we cannot comment on matters currently under investigation".  This should give them some breathing space to move onto more substantial subjects such as agenda and governing. 

73 comments:

James said...

politicalwire:

Trump's Worst Nightmare Comes True

Loretta Russo said...

Spam by the pedo

C.H. Truth said...

James just doesn't ever have anything remotely interesting to say on the subjects at hand. In this case, James cannot explain why Democrats are not happy with this news...

So he changes the subject and provides a link nobody will go to. It's simply an obvious lack of any ability to think on his own.

But then we already knew that, didn't we?

Loretta Russo said...

Yep.

wphamilton said...

Personally I don't have a problem with it, but I believe that the concern is the reporting structure of the Special Counsel through the Justice Department rather than completely independent.

I don't know about you, but I've always felt that the truly independent investigators were a bit of a problem being unchecked by policies and procedures.

James said...

LOL I don't know where Ch does his reading, but most Dems are ecstatic about this.

As I said, see politicalwire.com

James said...

Trump Campaign Had 18 Undisclosed Contacts with Russia

“Michael Flynn and other advisers to Donald Trump’s campaign were in contact with Russian officials and others with Kremlin ties in at least 18 calls and emails during the last seven months of the 2016 presidential race,” current and former U.S. officials familiar with the exchanges told Reuters.

“The previously undisclosed interactions form part of the record now being reviewed by FBI and congressional investigators probing Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election and contacts between Trump’s campaign and Russia.”

C.H. Truth said...

WP... I don't believe that the reporting structure for Mueller is any different than it has been in the past... other than answering to the deputy attorney general rather than the attorney general. As far as I can tell, all special counsels have always been appointed and answered directly to the AG.

There is quite literally nothing else available that could be considered more "independent" unless you wanted to make something up specific for Trump.

Certainly the "independent committees" are not really "independent" of anything, considering the members would all be from Congress and would be about as "political" as can be.

I believe what Pelosi and others are obviously concerned about is the fact that this will likely now be out of their control. The congressional investigations have probably no chance of finding any criminal collusion. They likely know this by now. They can only drag those on for so long.

But either way, I think this doesn't play out as well for them as they might have otherwise believed. They have done very well playing on the unnamed sources alleging all sorts of misdeeds that the Administration refuses to allow to be investigated.

Now that there is a true special counsel assigned to oversee the investigation I believe the public will more inclined to wait it out for answers and less inclined to follow the daily barrage of stories.

Loretta Russo said...

Spam by the pedo

C.H. Truth said...

But I ask you W.P... as a logical person.

Other than the obvious issues with Flynn's non-disclosure of his association with Turkish interests... and possible international money laundering that some accuse Manafort of...

Do you honestly believe that a real "crime" can be established?

When Comey admits that the conclusions about the hacking coming from Russia is more based on logic than evidence... and without knowing very specifically who the hackers are...

how do you tie anyone specifically to the hacking?


When logically that is the only known crime at this point.

Roger Amick said...

Why don't you just follow directions?

It's officially "Witch Hunt"

C.H. Truth said...

Why don't you just follow directions?

Not everyone behaves like you, Roger!

rrb said...

Not everyone behaves like you, Roger!
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


ouch..

ya better put some ice on that*, alky.


*h/t bubba the rapist.

rrb said...

It's officially "Witch Hunt"
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


that's one thing to call it.

"liberal temper tantrum" is another.

what's amazing is that the genesis of all this nonsense was purely an invention of the losing clinton campaign which desperately needed an excuse.

within 24 hours of losing, the "russians hacked the election!!!11!" bullshit went mainstream thanks to the msm.

and months later here we are.

rrb said...

Anonymous James said...
Trump Campaign Had 18 Undisclosed Contacts with Russia
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

claim verified by 19 anonymous sources otherwise known as "current and former U.S. officials familiar with the exchanges."



Commonsense said...

within 24 hours of losing, the "russians hacked the election!!!11!" bullshit went mainstream thanks to the msm.

The MSM are mightily pissed that their chosen candidate for president was utterly rejected by the American people.

And they are bound and determined to make those rubes in flyover country pay for this act of defiance to their benevolent rule.

rrb said...



"The childish response of Democrats — and “NeverTrump” Republicans — to the 2016 election has done more damage to American politics and institutions than any foreign meddling could do."


https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/265142/#respond

Loretta Russo said...

"The childish response of Democrats — and “NeverTrump” Republicans — to the 2016 election has done more damage to American politics and institutions than any foreign meddling could do."

I'll say it again, even though I was poo poo'd by conservatives here...

Putin won. His intent was to undermine our election and cause chaos, he succeeded...

...thanks to regressive pukes like Roger, James, Opie and every unhinged, bitter Hillary supporter.

Useful tools.

rrb said...

Putin won. His intent was to undermine our election and cause chaos, he succeeded...
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


putin won long before the election.

he was doing donuts on the white house lawn for at least 0linsky's entire second term.

Loretta Russo said...

There's that too.

rrb said...



btw, putin didn't even have to TRY to undermine our election. hillary and her loser cabal did it for him.

Loretta Russo said...

Putin knew that.

rrb said...


true.

thanks to podesta being a fucking techno-clod, putin was probably reading his emails in real time.

Commonsense said...

I find the reaction of the Democrats to be a little odd.

I don't. They just belatedly realized they have lost the Russia issue to beat the Republicans over with for awhile.

It is probably the only good news in all of this for Trump.

Commonsense said...

Ben Stein has a spot on commentary about the special council appointment.

Witches must exist therefore witches will be found.

Loretta Russo said...

"thanks to podesta being a fucking techno-clod, putin was probably reading his emails in real time."

Yep. Putin knows liberals better than they know themselves. PuPunking Obama was just hors d'oeuvre before having Fugu.

rrb said...



from stein's piece -

"The issue was made incredibly clear — inadvertently — by Bob Beckel on Fox News Wednesday night. He was talking about the need for a Special Prosecutor. One of the sane people on the panel said something like, “But there’s no evidence that anything wrong was done.”

Beckel, who says he’s sober now, answered something like, “That’s why we need an investigation.”"

LOL.

sounds familiar...


"we need access to the data, the people, and it may take up to a year"

- the alky


beckel's a minor celebrity. i'd hate to think he might snag a liver our alky was in line for.


wphamilton said...

"Do you honestly believe that a real "crime" can be established?"

If it comes to light that any sort of "deal-making" transpired between Trump and representatives of Russia during the election, then in the context of Trump's interactions with Comey, the Comey firing, and Trump's actions and statements regarding that, the crime of obstruction of justice might be established.

It's also possible that he or someone in his campaign might be vulnerable to charges of conspiracy with respect to Russian hacking, although that's a long shot to establish IMO. It's also not unlikely that more information will surface which is currently unknown to us, and I wouldn't be surprised if evidence of crimes is established.

Perhaps not risible to the point of impeachment proceedings, but Trump's administration is not far from being politically radioactive as far as Congressional Republicans are concerned, and his agenda other than strictly traditional conservative issues is sinking.

Commonsense said...

And what if it turns out to be nothing but a fevered fantasy pushed by the Democrats.

Who gets the blame then?

wphamilton said...

The Ethics in Government Act provides that Special Prosecutor "would be "separate and independent of DOJ and required DOJ to cease any investigations of matters within the jurisdiction of the independent counsel."

The Democrats are complaining that our current Special Counsel is more dependent on the organizational structure of Justice and not wholly independent of that department. I haven't researched much into that, but I believe that's their problem in a nutshell.

wphamilton said...

Since none of this happens without Trump acting out, and ranting without thinking, you'll need to blame him.

We already know that there is some truth to the allegations though. The question is, how serious is it?

rrb said...

And what if it turns out to be nothing but a fevered fantasy pushed by the Democrats.

Who gets the blame then?
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


trump.

his crime?

winning the election fair and square.

he was not supposed to win. granny's coronation was a formality. trump fucked that up. therefore he must be punished. that's what this has always been about.

stein nailed it -

"There’s no evidence whatsoever of any crime, so expect major convictions."


james said...

Trump is still saying it was Rosenstein's recommendation was his reason for firing Comey although Rosenstein has said that he knew before he wrote that recommendation that Trump had already decided he would be fired.

Trump says that the special counsel is "ridiculous and everybody knows it."

No, Mr. "President," everyone does not know that.

Loretta Russo said...

"We already know that there is some truth to the allegations though"

We do?

Loretta Russo said...

Spam by the pedo

james said...

Calling something that Robert Mueller is involved in "ridiculous" is itself ridiculous.

rrb said...

We already know that there is some truth to the allegations though. The question is, how serious is it?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


c'mon wp, the genesis of this entire debacle was the losing clinton campaign desperate for an excuse to explain away the loss by the worst candidate in the history of our nation. and with 98% of the media deeply disappointed in the election result, and therefore SO willing to participate in the charade, this is exactly how we ended up where we are.

what should anger everyone on the right is the fact that with a plethora of genuine legitimate scandals to investigate during the previous administration, the GOP called for exactly zero special counsels to investigate fast and furious, the IRS, benghazi, etc. and all should have been viewed as legitimate and therefore eligible. instead they held some kabuki theatre hearings which produced exactly nothing. it was all for show. one can conclude that the well-fed republicans were complicit with the democrats, and the joke was on us.

ironically, that is exactly how we got trump. outrage at increasingly wealthy ruling class politicians - democrat and republican - content to gorge themselves at the taxpayer funded trough.

like i said, the joke's on us.



Anonymous said...

Trump Denies Telling Comey to Back Off

President Trump denied ever asking FBI Director James Comey to back off his agency’s investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, and the role played by former national security adviser Michael Flynn, the Washington Post reports.

Asked whether he urged Comey to ease up on the Flynn investigation, Trump said at a news conference, “No, no,” before ordering the media to move onto the “next question.”
_____________

Nice to have General BullMoose himself on record there.

rrb said...

Calling something that Robert Mueller is involved in "ridiculous" is itself ridiculous.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


i trust mueller as far as i can throw a fucking school bus. he has a fallen FBI comrade to avenge.

Loretta Russo said...

Spam by the pedo

Commonsense said...

The Ethics in Government Act provides that Special Prosecutor "would be "separate and independent of DOJ and required DOJ to cease any investigations of matters within the jurisdiction of the independent counsel."

Provided, past tense. Congress allowed the law to expire in 1999.

Loretta Russo said...

Spam by the pedo

james said...

Trump Wants Michael Flynn Back

“Trump doesn’t just hope that Flynn will beat the rap. Several sources close to Flynn and to the administration tell the Daily Beast that Trump has expressed his hopes that a resolution of the FBI’s investigation in Flynn’s favor might allow Flynn to rejoin the White House in some capacity—a scenario some of Trump’s closest advisers in and outside the West Wing have assured him absolutely should not happen.”
__________________

People could not reason with Hitler either.

Commonsense said...

We already know that there is some truth to the allegations though.

The people who described the contacts to Reuters said they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed so far.

You got a special source you want to share?

Loretta Russo said...

Spam by the pedo

Loretta Russo said...

No.

opie said...

Ye of cultist faith.....This why a special investigation, since the senate seems very likely to ignore facts, like you do.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-campaign-repeatedly-met-101950531.html

Donald Trump's campaign made contact with Russia at least 18 times during his presidential race, according to a new report.

The interactions had previously been kept secret by the campaign but are now being reviewed as part of the FBI and congressional investigation into Trump's relationship with Russia.

Related Searches
Donald Trump RussiaTrump Campaign WebsiteDonald Trump WebsiteContact President Trump
Conversations between members of Trump's team and high-ranking officials including setting up a special backchannel for communications between the President and Putin, Reuters reported. That would allow the two talk without involving US national security officials.

Such discussions accelerated after Donald Trump won the election, in November.

The 18 calls and electronic messages took place between April and November 2016 as hackers engaged in what US intelligence concluded in January was part of a Kremlin campaign to discredit the vote and influence the outcome of the election in favour of Trump over his Democratic challenger, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

Loretta Russo said...

Lindsey Graham: “I don’t know what caused the appointment. I haven’t seen any evidence of a crime yet. The bottom line is I respect the decision, but this pretty much shuts Congress down. Democrats, you got what you wanted. You got a special counsel. Now we’ll just move on. We’re not prosecutors.”

“There’s a new front opening here. I have reason to believe that there are emails between Clinton campaign officials, democratic operatives to the Department of Justice regarding the Clinton email investigation that happened on Obama’s watch. I have reason to believe those emails exist.

I’m on the Judiciary Committee. And I think it’s important that the Judiciary Committee be given any emails that were directed to the Department of Justice by Clinton campaign officials or operatives because we have jurisdiction over the Department of Justice.”

james said...

Donald Trump hardly welcomed the appointment of a special prosecutor to look into the relationship between his presidential campaign and Russia—in fact, he called it a “witch hunt” on Thursday morning—but if I were he, I’d go big: Embrace the American people’s hunger for the whole truth about what happened during the campaign and the first months of the administration—and who leaked what about whom—and call for an independent commission. If he truly believes he did nothing wrong, as he said in Wednesday’s statement, it’s the best way to prove it once and for all.
--Allan Dershowitz

Loretta Russo said...

Spam by the pedo

opie said...

Blogger Commonsense said...
Ben Stein has a spot on commentary about the special council appointment.

Ben Stein is an actor. i care about as much about his opinion as I care about ratholes.

opie said...

Anyone actually notice the only 2 people trump hasn't blasted recently is flynn and putin......seems to be a theme there, even loretta can see, but will never admit. Idiot.

Commonsense said...

The amazing part of your post Opie is you actually though someone cared about your opinion.

Loretta Russo said...

From the Reuters article:


"The people who described the contacts to Reuters said they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed so far."

Opie's a moron.

opie said...

Commonsense said...
The amazing part of your post Opie is you actually THOUGH someone cared about your opinion.

I don't have "though"s like you, the cultist, who tries to push his life choices on all. But, I know my opinion is as worthless as yours, but a hell of lot more pragmatic to reality, something you can't accept....like GW, evolution, and women being equal to you.

opie said...

loretta the twat russo posted......

"The people who described the contacts to Reuters

Which proves you are dumber than menstral and means less than nothing.

Commonsense said...

Na, I never thought women were equal to me. They were always superior. Especially the one I was lucky enough to marry.

opie said...

Menstral child posted.....

Especially the one I was lucky enough to marry.


Poor thing. Yeah, they are equal as long as they walk 2 steps behind you and do exactly as you tell them when it comes to their own bodies. You are really a walking, talking idiot...

opie said...

WOW.... The POTUS is under criminal investigation. Good choice boys and girls.....the last criminal in the oval office was Nixon.....How'd that work out?????

Getty Images
MORE ON:
LINDSEY GRAHAM

Graham: Syria's post-airstrike actions are a big 'FU' to Trump

Graham blasts Schumer over resistance to Neil Gorsuch


A senior Republican senator said Thursday that the probe into Russian meddling in the US election “is now a criminal investigation.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham used the term after he and all other senators were briefed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in an extraordinary sessions at the Capitol.

“The shock to the body is that this is now a criminal investigation,” Graham (R-SC) said moments after he exited the Senate chamber.

He said as a result Congress may be impeded in carrying out its own examination of Russia’s actions.

“Mr. Mueller will tell us what we can get,” Graham said, referring to former FBI Director Robert Mueller, the new special counsel looking into Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether Trump

Commonsense said...

I think it's with some irony that Opie accuses others of misogyny when he is the one who disrespects women on this blog.

It's like he's projecting.

He really does hate women.

Loretta Russo said...

"He really does hate women."

He's an insignificant fat troll.

Loretta Russo said...

You forgot LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

opie said...

Commonsense said...
I think it's with some irony that Opie accuses others of misogyny when he is the one who disrespects women on this blog.

Yer an idiot....I accuse you of bigotry against women and their rights. The only women I disrespect here is the only cunt poster from kansas. Your tenet once again is as full of shit as the spammer of pedo. Idiot.

Loretta Russo said...
You forgot LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

wphamilton said...

Allegations of extraordinary contacts with the Russians during the election, one member of the Administration already resigning over it, Trump attempting to influence the investigation, both of Flynn and himself, firing the lead investigator after tying his job status to the investigation. So yes, there is some truth to the allegations that Trump has tried to obstruct the investigations, and that he had good motive to do so. There is some truth to the allegations that Trump has been lying about it.

The question is how serious it really is.

Loretta Russo said...

Fat insignificant troll.

Commonsense said...

Trump attempting to influence the investigation, both of Flynn and himself, firing the lead investigator after tying his job status to the investigation.


HIRONO: So if the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?

COMEY: In theory yes.

HIRONO: Has it happened?

COMEY: Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that — without an appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don’t see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I’m talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It’s not happened in my experience.

opie said...

Loretta Russo said...
Fat insignificant troll.

And the bitch shows why she is an abject asshole who commands no respect, except the loser sycophants like menstral the cultist and rathole the bigot...A group of true trump voters!!!!!

C.H. Truth said...

Allegations of extraordinary contacts with the Russians during the election

Would be interesting, except for the fact that wikileaks already had the DNC and Clinton emails "prior" to the general election campaign.

In fact they specifically held onto them and strategically started releasing them right before the Democratic Convention.

It would be difficult to prove "Russian collusion" about email hacking because there was contact between Trump associates and random Russian people... "after" the hacking had already taken place.

Wouldn't collusion to commit a crime generally take place "before" the crime rather than after?

Loretta Russo said...

You forgot LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL


Fat insignificant troll.

Loretta Russo said...

"Wouldn't collusion to commit a crime generally take place "before" the crime rather than after?"

Not if it's Trump, with his supernatural powers and all....

wphamilton said...

Collusion, or conspiracy to commit a crime, doesn't technically require that a crime has been committed. Granted that's difficult to prosecute.

Your questions seem to be an attempt to narrow the focus. Narrowly inquiring about collusion with Russia in hacking the DNC for instance.
While that's generally a good idea in a technical legal defense, I think that it's missing the mark here. This is about more than what the Russians might or might not have done to Clinton and Wasserman in the DNC and what part Trump might have played.

The important questions deal more generally with whether Trump or any of his staff crossed the line in acting as agents, and what Trump has done about it subsequently. Was anyone paid, money, promises, favors from either side? Were these contacts improperly hidden? Did Trump or his staff try to improperly suppress investigations by the lawful authority into these questions?

Whether or NOT Trump's campaign aid offered policy concessions for political cyber-attacks, Trump would like to keep that hidden under the rock. If he actively obstructed the investigations, then he's got a real problem.

opie said...

Sycophant CH wishing.....
Would be interesting, except for the fact that wikileaks already had the DNC and Clinton emails "prior" to the general election campaign.

Would even be more interesting if trump, who won by billions of votes, wasn't being investigated......I love the irony...

wphamilton said...

CH - BTW regarding the "independence" of the Special Counsel, I came across an article by the guy who wrote the law. I know, it's in the over the top the Washington Post, but this article is from the horse's mouth. Neal Katyal confirms my impression of the difference now, and strangely enough my general opinion about it as well.

"Our first decision was to let the Independent Counsel Act expire on June 30, 1999. Independence sounds good in theory, but in practice, it is mutually exclusive with accountability. The more independence you give a prosecutor, the less you make that prosecutor accountable to the public and regular checks and balances. And so we had seen the investigations and mandates of independent counsels mushroom, becoming a headless fourth branch of government."

I kind of wish I'd written it that way.

"At the same time, everyone understood the need for a prosecutor to take the reins when the Justice Department faced a conflict of interest or an appearance of impropriety. ... Mueller operates as a subordinate to the Justice Department, not as Rosenstein’s equal"

So there's the difference, and I expect the Democrats' problem. I disagree with them, even though Meuller will be subordinate in the Justice Department, he may operate independently enough for an objective investigation while having some checks against the broadening of scope that has plagued previous Special Investigations