In the United States, a special prosecutor (or special counsel or independent counsel) is a lawyer appointed to investigate, and potentially prosecute, a particular case of suspected wrongdoing for which a conflict of interest exists for the usual prosecuting authority. wiki/Special_prosecutor
If you watch Gowdy here, he goes into specific detail in explaining the obvious examples of the very conflict of interest that a special counsel is designed to remove. His observations are both very in depth, and very compelling.
Rosenstein's answers are neither specific or compelling. He basically seems to make the argument that the only relevant conflict that matters is whether or not there are specific "actions" that are outside the boundaries of professional or legal standards. He seems to be implying that the optics of the investigation are irrelevant.
This proves that Rosenstein apparently doesn't understand the historical use of special counsel. Rosenstein appointed Mueller in spite of the fact that there was no specific known criminal activity that was being investigated. To the degree that there was any possible conflict of interest came from the fact that the Attorney General was supposedly of interest to the investigation. The recusal of Sessions from the probe, should have allowed the FBI to continue their investigation without any conflict. Especially considering the sworn testimony of the outgoing FBI director that the President was not under investigation.
More to the point, the Special Counsel in question raises more questions about conflict of interests, than we would have had if the FBI had continued the investigation. What is clear here, is that Rosenstein appointed special counsel for political purposes, and quite possibly because of the public pleading of James Comey to do so. Because it was a political decision, the current Mueller investigation will continue to be tainted by politics and conflict.
Rosenstein has supplied us with a road map as to how "not" to go about appointing and overseeing a special counsel. Rosenstein has proven himself to be incompetent in his job. If you watched his responses at the hearing, it becomes impossible to not come away with the conclusion that he is simply not in charge of any part of this. He is Mueller's pawn.
88 comments:
As noted previously, this is not correct:
"sworn testimony of the outgoing FBI director that the President was not under investigation."
What conflicts of interest? Texts between some individuals? Those might show a personal bias, but not a conflict of interest.
FBI and Clintons buying the FAKE ASS shit, but look the other way and couch WP, you moroon.
WP -
A judge is supposed to recuse themselves from cases where there is an appearance that they may not be impartial. When there are some personal issues that would make it harder for the Judge to be objective and fair.
That is the basic concept of a conflict.
The fact of the matter is that there are many Americans who doubt that the Mueller probe is behaving in an objective, non-partisan, fair manner. There is more and more evidence that the investigators are specifically anti-Trump. That they believe inherently that he should not be President, and that this might provide them with motive to behave in ways that they would not have behaved had they been investigating Hillary Clinton (for instance).
If your argument is that this staff put together by Mueller is objective, non-partisan, and fair... and would have proceeded the same way if they were investigating a Democrat... then I think it's fair to suggest that your argument has no merit on fact or logic.
Their interest related to the current roles is objectivity. It is proven that they are not objective. Conflict of interest.
So the fact that Gowdy perceives "an appearance" of a conflict of interest, and an Investigator is similar to a judge somehow, Mueller should be recused? That sounds silly, but honestly that's what your argument appears to boil down to.
That is NOT the basis of conflict of interest by the way. Under your logic, any investigation could be veto'd by any politician who purports to perceive "optics" of a conflict. A conflict of interest requires that a person has something personally to gain or lose from the investigation. Or if you want to get more legal about it, if the person cannot do justice to two or more parties to which he has a duty. Clearly, your idea of "optical conflict" is not a legal concept.
and would have proceeded the same way if they were investigating a Democrat...
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
when it came to interviewing team hillary, no one was placed under oath, no notes were taken, and no devices examined. in fact, they were allowed to be destroyed. and the final determination was written way in advance of the conclusion of the case.
the two investigations bear only one similarity - blatant and over-the-top bias exists/existed in both. in hillary's case to protect her, and in trump's case to persecute - not prosecute - him.
mueller couldn't see his way to hiring at least one non-hillary supporter for his team? i thought the guy was smart. apparently not so much.
bias is inherently subjective, and perception really is reality. that's why most on the right consider this a complete sham. and there's no way that rosenstein, mueller or anyone else attached to the investigation can recover the credibility that has been lost.
If your argument is that this staff put together by Mueller is objective, non-partisan, and fair...
My argument is that neither you nor Gowdy have even begun to establish a factual basis for the accusation against Mueller of conflict of interest.
brush aside the semantics bullshit and this is what you're left with, wp -
Definition of conflict of interest
: a conflict between the private interests and the official responsibilities of a person in a position of trust
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conflict%20of%20interest
": a conflict between the private interests and the official responsibilities of a person in a position of trust"
the private interest of every member of mueller's team was for hillary to be elected. so much so that at least one (that we know of) attended her victory, err, defeat extravaganza at the javits center.
their official responsibilities otoh are to investigate trump.
to deny this conflict of interest is to deny reality.
Legal definition, not semantics rrb. It's a legal investigation, therefore appropriate.
"a conflict between the private interests and the official responsibilities" is paraphrasing my first sentence, and covered by the legal one.
"sworn testimony of the outgoing FBI director that the President was not under investigation.
Okay then. Sworn testimony that Mueller told the President multiple times that he (the President) was not under investigation.
A conflict of interest requires that a person has something personally to gain or lose from the investigation.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
bingo. and based upon the blatant biases exhibited by some on mueller's team, at least the ones we know of, they have something to personally gain by trump's removal as president.
the private interest of every member of mueller's team was for hillary to be elected.
What personal gain do they have from Hillary's election, beyond the interest of EVERY federal employee in continuity? And how does the investigation President Trump promote that interest?
Okay then. Sworn testimony that Mueller told the President multiple times that he (the President) was not under investigation.
Better but still not completely accurate. You still need qualifiers: "to my knowledge", "at this time", and "specifically".
My argument is that neither you nor Gowdy have even begun to establish a factual basis for the accusation against Mueller of conflict of interest.
If conflict of interest was a legal thing that had to be some how proven to the most skeptical of such a claim, then there would be a process in place to provide for such a thing.
But there isn't such a process... because it's designed to be a decision based on the optics of the situation, as much as the legal standards and factual arguments.
But let's be clear here WP.
What Mueller is conducting is not a "legal investigation" as much as it is a political one, aimed specifically to inform the country to what degree that Russia influenced our election and whether or not there was any "collusion". Collusion, by the way, not even a legal term.
That was specifically what he was hired to do. To make a determination as to whether or not the election was somehow "stolen" from Hillary Clinton and handed over to Donald Trump via interference from the Russians... possibly with the help of the Trump campaign.
This was an investigation that by all accounts was based largely on opposition research that was in part paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC.
For you to (with some sort of straight face) offer that people who supported Hillary Clinton with donations, people who have attended Campaign events for Hillary Clinton, and people who are on record as stating that they do not believe Donald Trump should be President...
are not conflicted by investigating claims that their favorite candidate was shafted by the Russians, and possibly helped along by the man who they openly have hostilities for....
Means that you have no interest in actually looking at this objectively.
"to my knowledge"
Yes, to the knowledge of the FBI director (who of course would know) Donald Trump was not being investigated. The FBI director (who of course would know) felt confident enough about the fact that the President was not under investigation to actually tell him this multiple times.
What personal gain do they have from Hillary's election, beyond the interest of EVERY federal employee in continuity?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ask THEM. there's a text message trail that makes their interests detailed, defined and explicit.
"And how does the investigation President Trump promote that interest?"
once again, ask THEM. they made it clear they absolutely despised the guy. taking down a guy they despise would obviously serve their personal interest.
for chrissakes, DOJ employee Ohr's wife who worked for fusion gps went to the extent of getting a ham radio license in order to communicate without being detected.
so you have members of mueller's team or those otherwise attached to it taking extraordinary measures to hide their activity, not be detected, etc. but they had nothing to "personally gain."
no, nothing at all, and certainly nothing that gowdy, et. al. could prove.
CH You need to review Title 18 U.S. Code, and after that probably revise your ideas of what constitutes conflict of interest and the legal ramifications. Because it is clear that you do not realize that it is very much a legal concept, with statutory definitions and potentially having criminal penalties.
It is certainly NOT what you are describing, apparently your angst over the idea that criminal investigators might desire that the suspect is guilty and prosecuted.
CH opines: "What Mueller is conducting is not a "legal investigation" as much as it is a political one, aimed specifically to inform the country to what degree that Russia influenced our election and whether or not there was any "collusion". Collusion, by the way, not even a legal term. "
Again, you need to review the Order appointing the Special Counsel and revise your incorrect opinion about it.
1. It IS a "legal (sic) investigation" (you mean "Criminal") because (b)(iii) places everything within the scope of 28 CFR 600. Any illegal action
2. It is NOT investigating the degree that Russia influenced the election. It investigates the "links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals"
3. The word "Collusion" is NOT present there, nor in what you're responding to here. Mueller is investigating "links and coordination", which some people generally refer to as collusion. So whether or not "collusion" is a legal term is irrelevant.
ask THEM. there's a text message trail that makes their interests detailed, defined and explicit.
A person's general interests have no bearing with a conflict of interest. You say this after you wanted to snark about semantics.
The text messages may inform about a person's personal bias, but bias is likewise not a conflict of interest. Personal bias is also not a disqualifier for investigators.
This is the sort of thing that poor Gowdy et al were stumbling over: you don't need objectionable actions to establish an actual conflict of interest, but for personal bias to have any relevance you DO need objectionable actions. They are playing word games (as are you) but they are easily refuted from either a hard logical perspective or legal perspective.
For you to (with some sort of straight face) offer that people who supported Hillary Clinton with donations, people who have attended Campaign events for Hillary Clinton, and people who are on record as stating that they do not believe Donald Trump should be President...
are not conflicted by investigating claims
There is nothing wrong with an investigator feeling conflicted over what he hopes the investigation produces. Feelings do not rise to the level of conflict of interest.
If all 97% of the department that donated to Clinton were marked off the list, and you are left with 3% who hoped Trump would win, would they "feel" any less "conflicted" about the investigation? Would you still consider the fact that they participated in the democratic process a "conflict of interest"?
"any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump", as well as "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation","
So far, we only have charges which arose directly from the investigation.
Liberals call in bomb threat to disrupt FFC Hearing.
Hillary or obimbo , which idiot follow did it?
So far, we only have charges which arose directly from the investigation.
True and he's not going to charge Trump with "links and/or associations" either. He won't be charging Trump regardless, with anything. The Justice Department will evaluate the extent of coordination, if any, and determine if they are risible to make a recommendation to Congress. If that occurs I would expect it to be the final action of the Special Investigation.
There is nothing wrong with an investigator feeling conflicted over what he hopes the investigation produces. Feelings do not rise to the level of conflict of interest.
When the ENTIRE CONCEPT of an independent investigation is to produce an INDEPENDENT answer that rises above politics...
The the fact that a person has political motives absolutely rises to the level of conflict that should disqualify them.
This isn't just some FBI Investigation. It's HELD TO A HIGHER STANDARD very specifically to erase doubt.
If all 97% of the department that donated to Clinton were marked off the list, and you are left with 3% who hoped Trump would win, would they "feel" any less "conflicted" about the investigation? Would you still consider the fact that they participated in the democratic process a "conflict of interest"?
Special Prosecutors are not required to hire people from within the deep state to begin with. They could hire an entire team of people independent from the Justice Department, FBI, or anything to do with the Federal Government.
The claim that you could not find a dozen or so people in the entire country...
both capable of investigating these claims and who did not donate to either candidate is laughable. It's not even a pretend argument. It's just down right silly.
You are just being obtuse, likely on purpose.
When the ENTIRE CONCEPT of an independent investigation is to produce an INDEPENDENT answer that rises above politics...
Calm down and reflect on the fact that feelings of personal bias do not hinder an independent investigation, nor do feelings of personal bias mean that an investigation is likely to be about politics.
No one but you has claimed that the investigators have political motives. You have to assume that anyone who thinks Trump is an idiot has political motives, which, given Trump's performance, is necessarily incorrect. Prominent Republicans believe that Trump is an idiot, members of his own staff (perhaps) think Trump is an idiot.
"The claim that you could not find a dozen or so people in the entire country..."
FBI investigations need FBI investigators, or is this some tangent? I can't really tell when it gets this weird.
No one but you has claimed that the investigators have political motives. - I mean claimed as a result of the texts. There has been the usual political babbling that it's a witch hunt, all political and so on from those who wish to discredit the investigation.
"You have to assume that anyone who thinks Trump is an idiot has political motives"
That, and texts stating "this can't stand"
FBI actors openly hostile toward a Trump presidency. Now they are the be con of fair-mindedness.
Sure WP, sure.
No one but you has claimed that the investigators have political motives.
Why don't you go ahead and watch the video provided in this post. Then explain how you believe that Gowdy is not accusing the investigators of having bias.
Again, your argument that nobody is claiming that the Mueller team has political motives is absurd, and obvious trolling. It cannot even be taken even partially serious.
____
Also, you did know that there is an Inspector General who is investigating claims of bias, from the Justice Department and FBI in handing the Russian investigation? You do understand that the information released regarding Peter Strzok, Bruce Ohr, and others have been coming directly from that IG. You realize that anti-Trump bias, including FBI and DOJ leaks are being investigated by an IG as we speak?
In fact, the speculation is that Strzok did not get demoted because he sent some text messages, but rather because he is beings specifically investigated over leaks to the media, and may end up criminally charged. There is also speculation that staff of Adam Schiff are also on the hot seat in regards to possibly being responsible for some of these leaks.
You won't read about it on CNN or the Washington Post, but if I had to make a bet as to which investigation turns out finding actual prosecutable criminal activity... I might give odds that the IG will find something before Mueller does... and it might actually be someone from Mueller's staff?
I wonder if you would still make the same argument if this turns out to be the case?
wp shredded the esteemed host.
Good work. But his Trumpism has taken away his analytical skills. 😂
Blogger Roger Amick said...
wp shredded the esteemed host.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
only in the eyes of a piss drunk loser on his second liver.
start your own blog yet alky?
Anonymous wphamilton said...
No one but you has claimed that the investigators have political motives. -
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
anyone who has read the text thread between stroke and his side piece can easily come to the conclusion that the political motives in this case are so overwhelming as to be laughable to deny.
you ARE trolling wp.
Rep. Jim Jordan:
Listen you can’t make this stuff up. It gets worse each and every day… What deep down scares me, if this actually happened the FBI had a concerted effort with the people at the top to go after one party’s nominee to help the other party’s nominee. If that actually happened in the United States of America and everything each and every day points to more and more likely that that is what took place, it is sad for our country if that took place. And I think it did based on everything I am seeing. All the evidence points to that.
https://youtu.be/T7S9t4o9HC0
Why don't you go ahead and watch the video provided in this post. Then explain how you believe that Gowdy is not accusing the investigators of having bias
I did clarify that I meant leaping from the texts to conflict of interest, because I can see how that can be misconstrued.
And Gowdy is grandstanding, as usual.
Lol, There's the white Flag.
Mueller, FBI face crisis in public confidence
Sixty-three percent of polled voters believe that the FBI has been resisting providing information to Congress on the Clinton and Trump investigations. This is a remarkable finding for an agency whose new head said a few days ago that the agency was in fine shape. No, it isn’t.
Fifty-four percent say special counsel Robert Mueller has conflicts of interest that prevent him from doing an unbiased job, also according to this month’s Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll. So, given this finding, the silence from the special counsel on the subject has become downright deafening.
These are significant findings about an operation that was supposed to bring more objectivity and less partisanship to the Trump-Russia investigation. Clearly these numbers indicate that there is a crisis in public confidence in both the FBI and Mueller. What makes these findings important is that, with Trump’s approval rating at 41 percent, these results include large numbers of voters who don’t like Trump yet who now agree that these investigations have veered off course.
After this poll was conducted, we learned that rogue agent Peter Strzok and his paramour, Lisa Page, both high-ranking members of the Mueller task force, discussed during the campaign how, in case Trump won, that they were developing, along with deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, what Strzok called an “insurance policy.” I can’t even imagine how badly these new facts will poll next month.
Crisis of confidence, if Obama was the target this investigation would have been closed down a long time ago.
This is why conflicts of interest are important and even the appearance of political motivation is so damaging.
Naw, CH was proven wrong about
what Conflict of Interest is,
what the legal ramifications are,
about the authority of the Special Investigation,
about what they are actually investigating,
and about the makeup of the Investigation unit.
And that was in just the first two posts - I'm too easy-going to list the rest.
And I have yet to see anyone here present even the beginnings of a factual basis to allege that Mueller has a conflict of interest.
WP
People don't trust Mueller to be objective. Taking the Harris poll at face value... are you really arguing that special counsel can provide the country with answers when over half believe he is not capable of being unbiased.
Your argument that distrust in Special Counsel is somehow something that has to somehow proven by an obscure legal explanation is just as stupid as claiming that I am the only person questionin this.
54% of Americans are not only questioning it, but are convinced the process is tainted.
That, WP (and not some silly definition you want us to go along with) is the tangible, measurable, determination as to whether Mueller can satisfy the public. With out the public`s trust, his potential findings (especially anything that relies on his judgement) will be next to worthless.
Ironically, that will even hold true if he ends up finding nothing. You (and others of your general obsession ) will not accept anything that clears Trump.
DEMOCRAT SENATOR TOM CARPER RESIGNS.
Wow, Battered wife. Dems dropping like flies.
When he first ran for cores he called the claim he hit his wife baseless, now HE confirmed he battered her. See ya, don't let the door hit ya, where the good Lord split ya.
Cores = office
People don't trust Mueller to be objective. Taking the Harris poll at face value... are you really arguing that special counsel can provide the country with answers when over half believe he is not capable of being unbiased.
I would say that the poll is utterly irrelevant to whether Mueller can provide the country with answers. For a lot of reasons, not least of which are that 30% are going to latch onto any rationalization Trump gives them, and also I doubt that half of the country has any better concept of conflict of interest than you described here.
Wall Street Journal calls for Mueller probe to be shut down.
I am sure they forgot to call the all knowing and all powerful WP.
and also I doubt that half of the country has any better concept of conflict of interest than you described here.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
if they're paying attention they can see that what's going on is completely corrupt.
and i'll bet that MORE than half the country would have no interest in splitting semantic hairs over a narrow definition of conflict of interest.
since trump was elected you've become quite the boorish troll, wp.
The messages show Strzok and Page praising Clinton, discussing whether Strzok could use his position to protect the country from Donald Trump — whom they described as “that menace” — and referring to an unnamed “insurance policy” in case Trump beat Clinton.
“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office – that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40” Strzok said of Trump in one message to Page. “Andy” referred to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who has close ties to Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime Clinton ally.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/14/fbi-hillary-clinton-email-investigation-peter-strzok-lisa-page-james-comey/
I would say that the poll is utterly irrelevant to whether Mueller can provide the country with answers.
No, the poll is entirely relevant to whether Mueller can provide people with a conclusion that can be trusted.
The American public is not obligated to meet your particular "definition" of the term conflict. Their opinion as to the trust in this investigation cannot be something you can just declare to be "wrong".
The American public is not obligated to meet your particular "definition" of the term conflict. Their opinion as to the trust in this investigation cannot be something you can just declare to be "wrong".
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ironically, it requires a "willing suspension of disbelief" on the part of the american people to believe in mueller and his investigation while staring at the preponderance of circumstantial evidence that the investigation is hopelessly corrupt.
this must be a game like candy crush where wp gets a point for every nit he picks.
You're both misreading the two polls in question. The Harvard Caps Harris survey number is about Mueller's relationship with Comey, not about whether people trust the probe to find the facts.
In fact, the public overwhelmingly supports the prosecutions so far.
The Harvard Caps Harris survey number is about Mueller's relationship with Comey, not about whether people trust the probe to find the facts.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
yeah, there's no way the american people could ever manage to draw a conclusion that links the two.
54 percent responded that the “relationship” between the two amounts to a conflict of interest.
couple that factoid with the revelations of the other players in this show and it's not a huge leap from that to the entire investigation being hopelessly corrupt.
“The special counsel has serious perception issues as a clear majority now see him as having a conflict of interest,” said Mark Penn, co-director of the Harvard CAPS-Harris survey.
what??? that's not allowed. perception does not equal reality here. that so called "clear majority" must remain cloistered within the narrow legal definition of conflict of interest.
And I have yet to see anyone here present even the beginnings of a factual basis
Facts and this blog are mutually exclusive !!!!!
Mark Penn? Well the Clinton strategist should know about "perception issues" LOL.
More than 54% of the public despise Comey, and think Mueller is going too easy on him. So what? It says little about their confidence in the investigation into Trump's campaign, while the poll DOES show that a large majority DO have confidence in the results so far.
You're trying to wedge a problem in, that isn't even supported by the poll you're citing. The MAIN problem that these polls point up is the same one that I have expressed: the secrecy surrounding the investigation.
No, the poll is entirely relevant to whether Mueller can provide people with a conclusion that can be trusted.
The poll proves that people DO trust his conclusions, because they overwhelmingly approve of the charges so far.
Space X just had another successful launch and recovery of the booster....beautiful day in floriduh to watch....sonic boom was louder than usual...Cograts to the team!!!!
The power of free enterprise.
ommonsense said...
The power of free enterprise.
http://beta.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html
And billions of gubermint $ LOL at your naive posting again...
The poll proves that people DO trust his conclusions, because they overwhelmingly approve of the charges so far.
Fifty-four percent say special counsel Robert Mueller has conflicts of interest that prevent him from doing an unbiased job, also according to this month’s Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll.
How do get from people saying he has "conflicts of interest that prevent him from doing an unbiased job" to "trust his conclusions".
That's quite a leap of logic and it is certainly different from Penn's conclusions.
He believes the public is rapidly losing confidence in the investigation.
while the poll DOES show that a large majority DO have confidence in the results so far.
Now you are just making things up.
Actually the poll doesn't offer that at all. No specific question was asked about "confidence" in Mueller or his investigation. But...
Only 35% believe any evidence has been found of collusion. 54% believe there is a conflict. 60% don't believe the President telling Comey to go easy on Flynn was "obstruction". All in spite of the media tryin to convince people of the opposite.
Ironically... 65% believe that it's illegal for a Transition team member to communicate with the Russians. On that part, the media has done their part to "miseducated" the American population.
On the last point...
It is similar to the Plame investigation and Scooter Libby. If you asked most Democrats back then, they would have told you that Scooter Libby was found guilty of outing Valerie Plame... not guilty of perjury and obstruction. Either they couldn't or didn't want to distinguish between fact and fiction.
Similarly, I think it's difficult for people to see Flynn pleading guilty, and not assuming that it was about something other than "misleading statements". Same being said of Manafort. I have watched many people actually make the argument that the Charges against Manafort prove collusion between Trump and the Russians.
So that is why Mueller will continue to look for process crimes, and unrelated crimes. The more people he can charge (with anything) the more it will look (to many casual observers) that he is proving something else.
menstral asks without reading
from doing an unbiased job" to "trust his conclusions".
Still, 76 percent of voters say the special counsel was right to prosecute Flynn and 59 percent say that he deserves jail time.
Flynn has pled guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russians and is a cooperating witness in the special counsel investigation.
most Democrats back then, they would have told you that Scooter Libby was found guilty of outing Valerie Plame.
Wow...no you speak for most democrats also....too funny CH!!!!
nd not assuming that it was about something other than "misleading statements".
Really CH? Even those living in a perpetual coma know the difference between lying to the FBI and misleading as you allege....LOLOLOL
Actually the poll doesn't offer that at all. No specific question was asked about "confidence" in Mueller or his investigation. But..
Absolutely it does! You're demanding confidence in the conclusions, the results - and the poll asked that directly about the results so far. Resoundingly those polled approved of them.
What you are doing, on the other hand, is exactly what you're accusing. You've fixated on Comey, and projected that into a false conclusion that Americans can't have confidence in the investigation.
Wow...no you speak for most democrats also....too funny CH!!!!
Not to mention his equating "outing" Plame with the crimes committed by Flynn and Manafort. Just, wow.
That's quite a leap of logic and it is certainly different from Penn's conclusions.
Mark Penn is suddenly your political guru? The man who crashed and burned in Hillary's 2008 campaign, and whose spin was so consistently wrong in the 2016 campaign?
What's the leap? The charges are the result of the investigation so far. Everyone approves of them, everyone trusts them. Therefore, they have confidence in the results of the investigation. It takes more than a leap for you to deny it.
Mueller will "continue to look for process crimes", not that that's all that's been charged so far, because those will be be the most direct path to determining the links and coordination between Trump officials and Russian interference.
We can keep on pretending that "process crimes" and "unrelated crimes" are just cosmetic, right up until the point that charges are recommended. Then, reality sets in.
Well, the fact that Penn is a Democrat partisan who worked for both Clinton and Obama does lend credence to his conclusion.
Since it is quite contrary to his own political interest.
And this is a poll that came out before the latest revelation of an "insurance" against a Trump administration and the rather extensive "editing" of Comey's public statement closing the Clinton security breach investigation.
As Penn said "I can’t even imagine how badly these new facts will poll next month."
We can keep on pretending that "process crimes" and "unrelated crimes" are just cosmetic.
No pretend needed, it is following the exact same prosecutorial abuse as the Valerie Plame investigation just like I predicted.
And billions of gubermint $ LOL at your naive posting again...
SpaceX doesn't use government subsidies. Where Musk does use subsidies are in areas you approve of, Tesla electric cars, solar and wind power projects.
i.e. project the market doesn't support but are politically correct with the liberals. (except if it happens to be in their back yard)
You think they're looking for a scapegoat to insulate Administration higher ups, as happened with the Plame investigation? I kind of doubt it, in this case.
Penn is no doubt still grinding an ax with Comey, and projecting that onto the entire investigation. That is in line with his political interest.
His credibility lies mainly within the Clinton camp, and not a whole lot even there these days. Strange champion that you've chosen here, to defend Trump by attacking the investigators.
You're demanding confidence in the conclusions, the results - and the poll asked that directly about the results so far. Resoundingly those polled approved of them.
I have the entire poll downloaded in PDF form, WP.
It does not ask that question, nor does it provide that answer.
I think Mullier will continue to lay perjury traps and prosecute process crimes because he knows he doesn't have any violation of the law in the Russian collusion case and has known it since the first week of the investigation.
This is all a show for the media and the Democrats. Just like the Plame investigation was.
You think they're looking for a scapegoat to insulate Administration higher ups, as happened with the Plame investigation? I kind of doubt it, in this case.
Well let's look at the reality.
Kenneth Starr sent 15 people to jail over the Whitewater with over 40 specific charges. Fraud, Tax evasion, Conspiracy, Embezzlement, Bribery... all of them pertaining to Whitewater. The only person who was charged with just a "process crime" was a charge against Susan McDougal for criminal contempt (she was sentenced to 18 months for civil contempt by the judge).
Fitzgerald charged one person. Scooter Libby. For a process crime.
I know your expectations are high here WP... but I would see "process crimes" and "unrelated" charges as a sign of weakness, not strength. Even by the logic of those who believe he is using charges against one person to turn on another is sort of an indication that Mueller doesn't otherwise "have" incriminating evidence, or he certainly would not require the testimony of a man who he forced to plead guilty to lying under oath (making his testimony next to worthless).
SpaceX doesn't use government subsidies.
Learn to read, mutton breath..
Really, that's not what the times reported Suggest you read it again . Idiot...
...
Maybe you should read it again or for the first time since you didn't seem to get it.
“The special counsel has serious perception issues as a clear majority now see him as having a conflict of interest,” said Mark Penn, co-director of the Harvard CAPS-Harris survey.
penn COULD have an election butthurt axe to grind with comey.
or maybe, just maybe, the corruption of this investigation is obvious to an intellectually honest democrat.
Tesla Motors Inc., SolarCity Corp. and Space Exploration Technologies Corp., known as SpaceX, together have benefited from an estimated $4.9 billion in government support, according to data compiled by The Times. The figure underscores a common theme running through his emerging empire: a public-private financing model underpinning long-shot start-ups.
"He definitely goes where there is government money," said Dan Dolev, an analyst at Jefferies Equity Research. "That's a great strategy, but the government will cut you off one day."
The figure compiled by The Times comprises a variety of government incentives, including grants, tax breaks, factory construction, discounted loans and environmental credits that Tesla can sell. It also includes tax credits and rebates to buyers of solar panels and electric cars.
A looming question is whether the companies are moving toward self-sufficiency — as Dolev believes — and whether they can slash development costs before the public largesse ends.
Tesla and SolarCity continue to report net losses after a decade in business, but the stocks of both companies have soared on their potential; Musk's stake in the firms alone is worth about $10 billion. (SpaceX, a private company, does not publicly report financial performance.)
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html
we haven't seen a con artist like musk since charles ponzi himself.
It's in the same article CH, if not the same poll:
"Still, 76 percent of voters say the special counsel was right to prosecute Flynn and 59 percent say he deserves jail time".
If you want to get to specifics, the question isn't even what you portray it to be.
"Do you think independent counsel Robert Mueller has conflicts of interest as the former head of the FBI and a friend of James Comey or do those relationships not amount to a conflict of interest?"
Is it a "conflict of interest" specifically with regards to Comey? Not having to do with Trump, not Russia, not anything else, but with Comey. So no, it does NOT imply that the public has no confidence with the conclusions of the investigation, which are necessarily far from any potential action taken against Comey.
RRB thinks that Mark Penn is "an intellectually honest democrat".
Have you forgotten everything about Penn, or are you going to start worrying about snail darters, cultural diversity, and poor people getting health care now?
CH, indulge my curiosity please, since you've downloaded and studied the poll.
What did the poll say about how many believe that Trump should be impeached right now? Or censured by Congress? More than half?
WP
Here is probalby the most relevant question as to how people are viewing the investigation:
Do you think the investigations into Russia and President Trump are helping the country or hurting the country?
Helping 37%
Hurting 63%
Hard to argue that they approve of Mueller's investigation when they (by almost a two to one margin) believe it is hurting (not helping) the country.
As far as the Flynn Question.
The entire question is a paragraph that explains that Michael Flynn plead guilty to lying to investigators... and then asks after the explanation... if they were correct to prosecute. T
Asking someone if a prosecutor was right to prosecute someone for something they admitted guilt to isn't exactly a question I would qualify as deeming overall support for an investigation.
Moreover... Considering that the second question determined that 65% of the public was convinced that he was lying about something illegal (when contacting the Russians during a transition which actually isn't illegal) tells me this part of the Q.A. was based on a combination of misinformation and a leading polling question.
Do you think the investigations into Russia and President Trump are helping the country or hurting the country?
You know better than to try that, CH. We've been over that question on every special investigation, and the answer is the same as always - and it's anything but "the most relevant as to how people are viewing".
The rejoinder, as you full well know, is that ANY Special Investigation involving the President is ALWAYS hurting the country. Often necessary, but ALWAYS hurting. The answers reflect that fact much more than the public view.
HOW much support did you say there was there was in that poll for impeaching the President now, or censuring him? Or haven't you said yet?
Asking someone if a prosecutor was right to prosecute someone for something they admitted guilt to isn't exactly a question I would qualify as deeming overall support for an investigation
It IS support for the investigation's conclusion, that Flynn needed to be investigated, was caught, charged and plead guilty. Manafort and a couple others are caught and charged, and the public approves. All of these results are results and conclusions of the investigation.
BUT, from your perspective, let me see if I have this right:
Does Mueller have a conflict of interest with Comey: good question, disqualifies the Special Investigation
Approve of the Charges brought so far: bad question, doesn't matter
Trump should be impeached: bad question, doesn't matter
Right?
WP...
They investigated the Valerie Plame situation for quite some time, only to come out of the whole thing millions of dollars lighter, and with one person charges with process crimes.
Anyone who would judge that special counsel to have been worthy of the time is a complete fool. That would hold true whether or not you actually believe that Libby was guilty of perjury.
The Manafort charges had been previously investigated and could have been separately investigated with or without special counsel. To be perfectly honest, there are plenty of legal experts who believe that Mueller's charges are a house of cards. I mean he is charging Manafort with laundering money that was actually admittedly legally obtained (The money being obtained illegally, of course, being one of the two key points required to prove the charge). He is stacking smaller charges together and calling them conspiracy, which many legal analysts say won't hold up. So I wouldn't get too terribly ahead of yourself that Manafort was a major coup quite yet. Not to mention that they are irrelevant to what he is supposed to be investigating.
We both know this to be true, WP... if all Mueller comes up with is charges irrelevant to the 2016 election, and process crimes. He will have failed. No matter how you spin it. It will be a failure.
Every criminal in Trump's Administration, that Mueller locks up, is one more success. If he uncovers real coordination between Trump himself and the Russians, or even indictable criminal actions from Trump's past, that would be a home run. None of that is a failure.
Every criminal in Trump's Administration
Especially family members who are targets, good.
What gets my attention of this disaster, is the likes of holier than thou Howdy Gowdy pontificating what others motives are in such forceful terms. Like CH talking for everyone plus himself, how can anyone with such certainty predict how others will do their jobs based on personal discussions? I can imagine what CH has said privately about Obama that is written, that could be construed as a bias affecting his menial work. With state run faux news leading the charge and cheerleading this major incident with their collective hair on fire, the really only thing those agents can be accountable for is conducting personal business on their gubmint machines. The worst part, that I instilled on those who worked for me is avoid text messages and e-mails as they become permanent records of everything they write. A face to face was a much safer way to communicate since the phone system was also monitored and recorded.....
Post a Comment