Here are some fundamental truths:
- The Clinton investigation lasted about a year. The original FBI investigation was triggered in July of 2015. In July of 2016 James Comey provided a public statement that the investigation was completed. Presumably so that we could move on with the election without the investigation hanging over us.
- The combined FBI/Special counsel investigation into possible Trump Russian collusion has been going on for 20 months, with basically no end in sight. Most observers suggest that there is little possibility that this will end before the 2018 midterms. Many people "want" it to still be hanging over us.
_______
- Comey admitted that there was actual evidence that criminal statutes were violated. but argued that no reasonable prosecutor would charge her. Comey basically tortured the statutes to suggest that a specific intent to harm the country was required to charge someone with this criminal act.
- After 20 months of investigations, there is still no suggestion from anyone that there is any actual evidence of criminal behavior related to the 2016 election or any sort of Trump Russia collusion. However, there is much suggestion that Trump (or associates) could be charged with some form of conspiracy or obstruction that would be unprecedented and specific only to this particular case. In other words we didn't charge Hillary for something that was technically a crime, but there is talk that Mueller wants to charge Trump with a crime for actions that are otherwise perfectly legal.
_______
- The Clinton FBI investigation started from Inspector General reports, and actual evidence that classified information was being stored on a private server. In other words, there was solid evidence that a crime had been committed.
- The Trump FBI investigation started from a tip from a $25 million dollar Clinton donor and was spurred on by an unverified dossier paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign. There was not then, and still is not today, any known evidence of a crime.
_______
- The FBI investigation into the Clintons revealed that several people lied under oath, including Hillary Clinton who (while under oath) swore multiple times that there had been no classified information sent, received from, or stored on her personal server. That server was subpoenaed, not turned over, and eventually seized after Clinton had hired a firm to wipe the server of all evidence. Nobody was charged either for perjury or obstruction.
- The Mueller probe has so far charged four different people with misleading investigators. At least half of them were for charged that the FBI themselves did not feel were necessary. Meanwhile, suggestion is that the President (who has by all accounts been forthcoming with all requests for information, and have turned over everything requested) is being investigated for possible obstruction charges.
Like it or not, these comparisons will continue to come into play, as well they should. We should not live in a country where our law enforcement treats you one way when your name is Clinton and your Party is Democrat, and completely differently when your name is Trump and you are a Republican.
103 comments:
the reality is that there is a legitimate political, ethical, and logical reason to always hold the Mueller probe up to (or down to) the same standards that existed with Comey investigation of Hillary Clinton's email scandal.
I really couldn't get past this. You consider the Comey email investigation to be a political coverup, flawed due to the influence of corrupt officials. Probably with good reason. Why on Earth would you think there are ANY "legitimate" reasons to hold ANY investigation to those standards?
You should be standing up and cheering that the Mueller investigation is being held to higher standards.
What an amazing collection of entitled creeps, who long ago convinced themselves that the “rule of law” is identical to what they see as their sacred right to exercise power in any way they see fit. All the blather about Trump’s violation of the law is simply a projection of their own lawlessness. So far the coup has been thwarted. They had hoped to stop him in the campaign through political espionage. But that didn’t work. Then they tried to upend him through spying during the transition, holding out hope until the very last moment, as evidenced by Susan Rice penning her sham exculpatory note only after Trump’s swearing-in. Now they join Brennan in seeking to bury Trump in Mueller’s dustbin.
Trotsky would have understood the shorthand of all the tweets, polemics, and posturing perfectly. Nothing in this show trial bears any relationship to reality or justice. It is simply an expression of power politics, which doesn’t always end well for its exponents. As even an old Gus Hall supporter like John Brennan must know, and perhaps his fulminating panic indicates a dawning awareness of it, those who talk the loudest about their enemies heading for the ash heap of history often end up in it.
https://spectator.org/john-brennans-thwarted-coup/
"As even an old Gus Hall supporter like John Brennan must know, and perhaps his fulminating panic indicates a dawning awareness of it, those who talk the loudest about their enemies heading for the ash heap of history often end up in it."
Guilty whores are coming out of the woodwork.
The deep state is getting desperate. That's why John Brennan is now being so vocal in his trump bashing.
Drain the swamp Mr President.
WP...
Right or wrong, those comparisons will take place. You cannot get around it in this particular case.
Would it matter if the 2016 election was not Clinton vs Trump?
Would it matter if the Trump investigation was not about the 2016 election?
Would it matter if there wasn't a open movement to remove Trump from office?
Would it matter if there wasn't such an obvious difference in standards?
Nope.
But the Clinton Trump investigations are tied, because they were the candidates of the 2016 election, because the investigation is tied to that Presidential race, because there is a open movement to remove Trump from office, and because the difference in the investigative standards are so obvious.
You just "choose" to ignore that these two investigations will be forever tied together.
I might add that those who were ultimately in charge of the Hillary Investigation are supposedly now going to be "witnesses" in the Trump investigation.
I might also add that the FBI had several of the same agents working on both investigations, but with entirely different attitudes (if text messages and other reported evidence is to be believed).
Another safe seat is suddenly competitive....I personally thank donnie for his clear ineptitude...
Former Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen (D) holds a slight lead over his likely U.S. Senate race opponent, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R), according to a poll released Wednesday.
The poll, conducted by the left-leaning Public Policy Polling, found 46 percent of respondents would vote for Bredesen, compared to 41 percent who said they’d vote for Blackburn. The two are vying to replace Sen. Bob Corker (R), who is not seeking reelection.
PPP is a dem party polling firm. Everyone knows that.
Stormy Daniels Passed Lie Detector Test
Adult film actress Stormy Daniels underwent a polygraph exam in 2011 about her relationship with Donald Trump, and the examiner found there was a more than 99 percent probability she told the truth when she said they had unprotected sex in 2006, according to a copy of the report obtained by NBC News.
______________
Ex-Playboy Model Sues to Break Silence on Trump
“A former Playboy model who claimed she had an affair with Donald Trump sued to be released from a 2016 legal agreement requiring her silence, becoming the second woman this month to challenge Trump allies’ efforts during the presidential campaign to bury stories about extramarital relationships,” the New York Times reports.
“The model, Karen McDougal, is suing the company that owns The National Enquirer, American Media Inc., which paid her $150,000 and whose chief executive is a friend of Mr. Trump’s.”
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile and admits it.
Obama\Hillary facebook data mining working hand in glove with Zuckerberg
And she still lost.
Hi Jane, I see your focused on the paid whore.
You also continue to break your promise.
I might add that those who were ultimately in charge of the Hillary Investigation are supposedly now going to be "witnesses" in the Trump investigation.
witnesses or defendants?
Not one vote was changed, so without that, how exactly did Putin steal the election from Hillary?
Are the left done using the Florida school kids?
Some people will certainly "tie them together", but surely there are not many who hope that the Clinton standard of whitewash will apply to Trump.
I think it would be far more logical and correct to ask "what went wrong" in the prior investigation, and then to correct those things, than to encourage those same mistakes in the present investigation.
but surely there are not many who hope that the Clinton standard of whitewash will apply to Trump.
of course not. why would you construct such an obvious strawman?
with clinton they worked overtime to cover up her crimes. with trump they'll work just as hard to invent crimes out of thin air.
I think it would be far more logical and correct to ask "what went wrong" in the prior investigation
that's the point. NOTHING went wrong according to the corrupt AG at the time.. everything went exactly according to plan. that's why hillary is a free woman today instead of in a federal pen where she belongs.
and remember, it wasn't an investigation. it was a "matter."
That's one illustration of my point. Perhaps having an principled non-political Attorney General would be the first step.
Surely you don't advocate the same standards now, having a corrupt AG impeding investigations into highly placed politicians for political reasons.
"of course not. why would you construct such an obvious strawman?"
Is it "an obvious strawman" when the blog host advocates exactly that?
"always hold the Mueller probe up to (or down to) the same standards that existed with Comey investigation of Hillary Clinton's email scandal."
Surely you don't advocate the same standards now...
heh.
no, after 8 years of blatant corruption under BHO what we have today is a breath of fresh air.
Republicans couldn't even field a candidate in Illinois to oppose literal Nazi Athur Jones? What's going on in that party?
Tge same Illinois that gave us barack obama and dick durbin. Nuff said.
So the answer to Obama is a Nazi?
I'm not sure that you fully understand the situation. The Republican Party opposed their own primary candidate. They campaigned against him, with robo-calls and advertising and public statements. Yet they couldn't field a candidate to run against him in the primary. That's completely off the rails.
"What's going on in that party?"
It's Illinois.
Anonymous wphamilton said...
Republicans couldn't even field a candidate in Illinois to oppose literal Nazi Athur Jones? What's going on in that party?
I'm not sure that you fully understand the situation. The Republican Party opposed their own primary candidate. They campaigned against him, with robo-calls and advertising and public statements. Yet they couldn't field a candidate to run against him in the primary. That's completely off the rails.
that seat has been held by a democrat since moses wore short pants. and the fuckstick nazi who decided to "run" did so completely on his own. you know this. enough with the concern trolling.
"that seat has been held by a democrat since ..." but voted for Reagan and Bush. I can see why the Republicans are not competitive though, given this one. Unopposed, and then the Party blowing money to tell voters to ignore him, that's just sad.
I think trump has every right to wield power as Obimbo and his team did.
Well WP,
Nobody (in theory) is going to argue with your idea that something "went wrong" with the Clinton investigation.
But once you concede that something dangerously "went wrong' with the Clinton investigation... the very first thing to do is to make sure that none of the same people are involved with the next "political" investigation.
So you don't hire a friend of James Comey, who hires a bunch of Prosecutors who are Democrats and supported Clinton to run a probe. You don't let him put anyone on staff that was already involved with the original investigation (which they did).
Because nobody is going to believe that the problems are exclusive to the first investigation. They see it as a matter of partisanship and bias. They went easy on Clinton and everyone associated with her. Now they appear to be going out of their way to be hard on Trump and everyone associated with him.
Your argument appears to be... it was wrong that Clinton got away with it, so let's try extra hard to make sure that the investigation into Trump turns up something, anything... because it's important that the next politician doesn't get away with it.
But... that is the absolute "worst" thing that they could do is make it as if they are treating Democrats and Republicans differently. Clinton is a Democrat. Trump is a Republican. There should be no difference in how they are treated. That is the way people are going to see "this" particular investigation.
I would love to see a mass exodus of people from the FBI, DOJ, etc... fire them all, and replace them with people who have little interest in politics.
Well WP,
Nobody (in theory) is going to argue with your idea that something "went wrong" with the Clinton investigation.
But once you concede that something dangerously "went wrong' with the Clinton investigation... the very first thing to do is to make sure that none of the same people are involved with the next "political" investigation.
So you don't hire a friend of James Comey, who hires a bunch of Prosecutors who are Democrats and supported Clinton to run a probe. You don't let him put anyone on staff that was already involved with the original investigation (which they did).
Because nobody is going to believe that the problems are exclusive to the first investigation. They see it as a matter of partisanship and bias. They went easy on Clinton and everyone associated with her. Now they appear to be going out of their way to be hard on Trump and everyone associated with him.
Your argument appears to be... it was wrong that Clinton got away with it, so let's try extra hard to make sure that the investigation into Trump turns up something, anything... because it's important that the next politician doesn't get away with it.
But... the absolute "worst" thing that they could do is make it as if they are treating Democrats and Republicans differently. Clinton is a Democrat. Trump is a Republican. There should be no difference in how they are treated. That is the way people are going to see "this" particular investigation. Partisan and bias.
I would love to see a mass exodus of people from the FBI, DOJ, etc... fire them all, and replace them with people who have little interest in politics. But that's not going to happen today.
"Every kid in this country now goes to school wondering if this day might be their last." Parkland Puppet Children of #neveragain
Actual they are wrong. There has not been a mass Shooting in a Catholic or Jewish School.
That's a little weird CH - where did I suggest " let's try extra hard to make sure that the investigation into Trump turns up something"? For someone so fond of alleging "strawman" arguments, you do come out with some doozies.
Near as I can tell, the only argument that I've made, seemingly or otherwise was "I think it would be far more logical and correct to ask "what went wrong" in the prior investigation, and then to correct those things, than to encourage those same mistakes in the present investigation."
So in your mind, correcting the mistakes of the Clinton investigation is somehow equivalent to making sure that the investigating turns up "anything" against Trump? You've got some explaining to do ...
There has not been a mass Shooting in a Catholic or Jewish School.
Which proves nothing asswipe!!!! Dayum you are dumber than a fence post.....
Near as I can tell, the only argument that I've made, seemingly or otherwise was "I think it would be far more logical and correct to ask "what went wrong" in the prior investigation, and then to correct those things, than to encourage those same mistakes in the present investigation."
except that it's a bullshit argument.
correct what went wrong? by hiring all of the same people that were involved with clinton and purposely let her off the hook for reasons of political allegiance???
really.
start by assembling a team of politically uninterested third party individuals with no attachment, direct or indirect, with the clinton's or the DNC.
this is a major reason why this investigation to date has been a joke. the only people missing from mueller's team today are cheryl mills and huma abedin. and hey, maybe lanny davis is available.
good grief. if mueller wishes to be taken seriously he needs to act like it. not like some two-bit hack.
Parkinson's law helps explain Obimbo Administration.
CH, the ONLY people who are going to see this particular investigation as "Clinton is a Democrat. Trump is a Republican. There should be no difference in how they are treated." are the unreachable hard-core Trump followers who think there should be no investigation at all.
Just about everyone else in the country - a vast majority of those who care about it one way or the other, even Republicans - want to see a legitimate investigation completed with factual, objective conclusions.
Most people think that the Clinton investigation was a failure. Those people don't want to see the same failures with Trump. Period.
correct what went wrong? by hiring all of the same people that were involved with clinton and purposely let her off the hook for reasons of political allegiance???
The investigators weren't the problem. They did a pretty good job in fact, given the circumstances. Highly placed officials deliberately hindering the investigation and misrepresenting the findings were the problem.
Sssshhh, the Liberals don't like good economic news.
" back higher for single-family homes leads a positive existing home sales report for February. Total sales rose 3.0 percent to a higher-than-expected 5.540 million annualized "
"Highly placed officials deliberately hindering the investigation and misrepresenting the findings were the problem."
Obama
Hillary
Bill meeting with loser lynch
Comey
McBride
Who else WP?
RRB, let's say that Mueller had followed your plan, and hired only staunch supporters of Trump who denied from the beginning that there was any possibility of wrong-doing, and that he was supervised by a Trump political appointee. Wouldn't that be repeating the same mistakes that derailed the Clinton investigation?
From the non-partisan perspective (my own for instance), it's far better to have adversarial investigators. They have to make a case sometime, dealing with facts, or else admit defeat. When they do, if the charges don't pass muster then it doesn't matter what their political leanings are.
KD potables erroneously that
Parkinson's law helps explain Obimbo Administration.
Early onset dementia explains you, asshole....
Other than McBride, who I don't think even worked in Obama's administration at the end of his term, yes KD you've seen me criticize each of those for their role in the Clinton investigation.
In fact, I will remind you that just before Comey's big appearance before the Congressional committee I went out on a limb here and declared that I wouldn't believe a word out of him, while you all were skeptical. I told you that he was self-serving and didn't have the backbone to stand up to political pressure. NOW you believe me.
"Highly placed officials deliberately unqualified for any job other than janitor...
Jared.
Ivanka
Flynn
Perry
Kelly Anne
Chucklebee
Hope Hicks
I am sure I missed more than a few.....
Even a janitor needs some fundamental level of integrity. At least an idea about acceptable boundaries. Would you allow any of the Trump clan unsupervised access to your work area?
Gee freemartin screwer all that good eco news seems not to be translating into good polls....idiot...
Todays latest gaggle of polls....
Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
President Trump Job Approval Quinnipiac Approve 40, Disapprove 53 Disapprove +13
President Trump Job Approval Rasmussen Reports Approve 47, Disapprove 52 Disapprove +5
President Trump Job Approval Economist/YouGov Approve 41, Disapprove 54 Disapprove +13
2018 Generic Congressional Vote Economist/YouGov Democrats 44, Republicans 38 Democrats +6
2018 Generic Congressional Vote Quinnipiac Democrats 49, Republicans 43 Democrats +6
Congressional Job Approval Economist/YouGov Approve 11, Disapprove 69 Disapprove +58
Direction of Country Economist/YouGov Right Direction 35, Wrong Track 54 Wrong Track +19
RRB, let's say that Mueller had followed your plan, and hired only staunch supporters of Trump ...
Except RRB never said that.
"President Trump Job Approval"
All 40% or better Approve now, that's huge ratings, the best ever for Presidents, everyone loves the Great Job that I'm doing.
oPie, those you listed where not in Office with Obama during the Lost Years.
"Except RRB never said that." ...
"start by assembling a team of politically uninterested third party individuals with no attachment, direct or indirect, with the clinton's or the DNC. "
Or you could do that.
Never let it be said that I used a "Coldheart style" argument and then doubled down on it.
except that's not what i stated as "my plan."
The investigators weren't the problem.
except that they showed an obvious bias. they lied, and even bragged about an insurance policy to stop this administration.
Most people think that the Clinton investigation was a failure. Those people don't want to see the same failures with Trump. Period.
and this is what is eating at most honest objective people. what you're saying is that as egregious as clinton's crimes were, let's just write it all off as a failure. but to make up for it, we're going to nail trump to the fucking wall six ways from sunday, GUILTY OR NOT. that'll make everything right with the world.
all you've advocated for is two sets of laws, wp. one for the democrats, namely the clintons, and one for everyone else. and if the ball managed to get dropped on prosecuting a democrat, we'll double the effort on the republican to make up for it and make sure we crucify the bastard, the facts be damned..
heads i win, tails you lose.
nice.
oPie, those you listed where not in Office with
You really are dumber than a brick, freemartin fucker...LOLOLOLOL
So they did work for Obama.
K
So they did work for Obama.
Doubling down on stupid, KD....Typical of dementia and losers like you...LOLOLOLOL
Wp has a very black and white view of All Americans.
You're either have ties to Clinton and DNC or you're a Trumpest.
oPie, you can't have it both ways.
We need the 2nd Amendment to make sure we defend the 1st Amendment, for these kinds of views.
I want Hillary to talk. Ever more.
During an interview with a Dutch television station, the reporter said, “Apparently Ivanka Trump wants to be the first female President of the United States,” Her response? “That’s not going to happen,” the Daily Caller reported.
“When asked why Clinton thought it could never happen, she said that, ‘we don’t want any more inexperienced Trumps in the White House. I think that normally I would like to believe what you’re saying,’ [Eva] Jinek said, ‘but I’ve also learned after these elections that things that we don’t expect to happen sometimes do happen.’ Clinton said, ‘Well, that’s true, but you know, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. And I think the American people have seen for themselves what happens when a reality TV candidate wins …’ “
oPie, you can't have it both ways.
The freemartin fucker continues his string of demented posts that mean nothing....Good going idiot....
Obama/Hillary data mining of Facebook.
Blogger rrb said...except that's not what i stated as "my plan."
I've already retracted that.
WP...
In essence, when you use the same people (or people who run in the same circles) to run both the Clinton and Trump investigations... people who are friendly to the Democratic cause, but antagonistic to the Republican cause...
You get simple partisan bias. Period.
But when you suggest that we need to hire 'adversarial' investigators rather than 'friendly' investigators... you are really advocating that we hire more people with the same bias (or the same people) for the Trump investigation that were on the Clinton investigation.
You actually advocate for partisan bias.
Which of course, misses the entire point.
You don't hire ANYONE who is either friendly or adversarial. The entire concept of having law enforcement such as the FBI is to make sure that they are neither friendly or adversarial. They should all be "objective".
Let's be clear...
Objective people do not start investigations into Presidential candidates based on "tips" from large $25 million dollar donors to the opposition candidate or from unverified opposition research bought and paid for by the opposition Party and opposition candidate.
Objective people are certainly not providing unlimited budgets and resources while still looking for evidence 20 months later. Objective people do not start expanding the investigation into ever known nook and cranny looking for someone to charge with some sort of a crime. Which is where we are at today.
So far, not one person has been charged with a Criminal act that was not otherwise known (prior to the Mueller probe start date). He has uncovered nothing new that we know of, but has still indicted how many people?
Objectively, this entire probe is a scam. From the fact that Rosenstein did not use proper cause to call for a special counsel, to the fact that Rosenstein does not appear to have "any" reigns in place on Mueller, to the fact that Mueller did not hire an objective staff.
Blaine Gaskill, when does the media make is name a household name like they did the #neveragain kiddo's.
I would love to see a mass exodus of people from the FBI, DOJ, etc... fire them all, and replace them with people who have little interest in politics.
Do you really believe that Trump would replace the "allegedly" politically motivated with neutral investigators?
What the hell are you on? Opioids for hockey injuries?
Objectively, this entire probe is a scam. From the fact that Rosenstein did not use proper cause to call for a special counsel, to the fact that Rosenstein does not appear to have "any" reigns in place on Mueller, to the fact that Mueller did not hire an objective staff.
1: Even the President has said that the Russians were involved in corrupting the election in favor of Trump. We will never know if it actually effected the outcome of the election.
2: If in the case of the investigation, that other crimes are discovered, the investigators are obligated to pursue the investigation of the crimes. You're assumptions are all based upon your political views. You're claim to be objective, has been exposed as biased towards the President.
"election in favor of Trump "
How?
Everyone said no votes where changed. So minds where changed?
Really?
Is that something you thought up on your own?
What the hell are you on? Opioids for hockey injuries?
your psychological projections have become more frequent, alky.
Roger...
Look up the laws in place for appointing a special counsel. There are specific reasons why a special counsel is called, and specific criteria that have to be met. Short of doing that little bit of cursory research on your own... please just shut the fuck up.
And no... Mueller did not "uncover" Manafort and Gates alleged crimes. The FBI had previously investigated these money transfers on at least two occasions. Mueller just chose to "reopen" these cases (that are completely unrelated to Russia or the 2016 election), either to show his adoring fans that he could come up with indictments or because he thought he could "break" one or the other with the pressure of the charges... and get them to "confess" to all of that collusion.
If the FBI wanted to reopen old cases of suspicious money transfers, they could have (and legally should have) done that without the help of a special counsel. There is no conflict of interest, or any of the legal reasons for a special counsel to be involved with it.
We will never know if it actually effected the outcome of the election.
well, your dear leader 0linsky is on the record as telling us it did not effect the outcome of the election.
suddenly you doubt the magic negro?
telling us it did not effect the outcome of the election.
Given the political nature of the FBI leadership at the time, I am skeptical of any political conclusions from that sector.
In fact, suppose hypothetically that some election audit had somehow determined that Russian shenanigans DID affect the outcome. Never mind "how" you could know it, just for the sake of argument suppose it was at least a strong suspicion. Who in the federal government could actually tell you this? Politically, for the USA, it would be better to NOT throw the results into dispute. Bush v Gore was bad enough, this would be magnitudes worse. Furthermore, if Obama (or even Trump) did make that known, they would have no choice but to confront Russia directly and with great force which could further destabilize the country. The people would demand it.
So I don't think we'd know even if it were the case, and we'd hear the exact same things that we're hearing now. Russia "attempted" to alter the election, in an attempt to erode confidence in our political institutions, but they "failed".
Look up the laws in place for appointing a special counsel. There are specific reasons why a special counsel is called, and specific criteria that have to be met
I looked it up, and I don't see what your beef with Roger is.
§ 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.
The requirements are:
An investigation would be a conflict of interest for the DOJ OR "other extraordinary circumstances" and also " it would be in the public interest".
That statute's requirements aren't particularly difficult or controversial to meet IMO since what "other extraordinary circumstances" and "public interest" mean seem to be up to the Attorney General or his next in line to decide.
What "specific criteria" did you have in mind? These appear to be very general criteria, and pretty clearly met. The fact that Sessions recused himself would indicate a conflict of interest, and Russian involvement in a Presidential election is definitely an extraordinary circumstance. Either one would have worked, but in this case both apply.
WP...
You skipped the first part:
will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted
As argued by Andrew McCarthy:
Unfortunately, Wallace did not engage the DAG on the fundamental flaw in his appointment of Mueller. Rosenstein maintains that DOJ officials (presumably including himself) are subject to “the rules and regulations of the Department of Justice.” Yet, those rules and regulations expressly mandate that there be a basis for a criminal investigation or prosecution before a special counsel is appointed. The appropriate scope of the investigation is not supposed to be something to which the DAG and the special counsel agree in off-the-record conversations. It is governed by what is supposed to be the specified predicate for a criminal investigation without which there should be no special-counsel appointment in the first place.
Don’t take my word for it. The regulation, 28 CFR Sec. 600.1, states that the Justice Department may appoint a special counsel when it is “determine[d] that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted,” and that the Justice Department’s handling of “that investigation or prosecution of that person or matter” in the normal course “would present a conflict of interest for the Department” (emphasis added).
The regulation does not permit the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel in order to determine whether there is a basis for a criminal investigation. To the contrary, the basis for a criminal investigation must pre-exist the appointment. It is the criminal investigation that triggers the special counsel, not the other way around. Rosenstein, instead, appointed a special counsel and unleashed him to sniff around and see if he could come up with a crime.
It is specious to claim, as Rosenstein does, that his citation of the Russia counterintelligence investigation is a sufficiently definite statement of the scope of the investigation. As we have frequently pointed out, a counterintelligence investigation is not a criminal investigation. There need be no suspicion of crime before a counterintelligence probe is commenced. The purpose of the latter is to collect information about a foreign power, not to investigate a suspected crime. As shown above, however, the need to probe a specific suspected crime is, by regulation, the prerequisite for appointing a special counsel.
I don't see what your beef with Roger is.
It's Roger!!!!! Nothing else....CH's propensity for defending the absurd is memorialized with the question you answered. Sometimes things are more complicated than indicated, in this case, much simpler that even the most fervent trump sycophant should understand....
"WP...
You skipped the first part:"
Of course.
Well of course you have to determine that an investigation is warranted, before instigating an investigation. I don't usually feel that it's necessary to point out the obvious.
Clearly, Sessions did come to that conclusion. That is ALL that is necessary to satisfy that portion. Is THAT what you're going on about?
It's as if your champion McCarthy forgot to read, or prefers to ignore, the Order appointing the Special Counsel. That's probably why I have to periodically refresh the Blog about it.
and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian govemment's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election
Which Session determined warranted a criminal investigation. Right there in black and white is his determination, published for the whole world to see. Note also that the statute allows the AG the discretion to make that determination. Not McCarthy's, not your's, not any judge's, but his alone unless he's recused. Making that determination, he is golden by that statute regardless of why you, or any of us, thinks about his reasoning.
However, in this case he was backed up by US intelligence and enforcement that crimes were committed. Honestly it should be obvious on the face of it. Illegal hacking to start with. The argument has no credibility.
WP...
An investigation into the actions of a foreign government is considered a counterintelligence probe. Not a criminal one.
There is no specific crime alleged.
No specific actors under criminal investigation.
With all due respect, McCarthy has written extensively about this, including comparisons to every other appointment of Special Counsel or Independent Counsel that has ever gone before. Showing specifically that other appointments were made under the same specific conditions of at the very least listing a criminal act.
He's not the only legal expert who has made this argument.
An investigation into the actions of a foreign government is considered a counterintelligence probe. Not a criminal one
Apparently the US Attorney General disagreed with you. Unfortunately for your argument, only his opinion counts for the purposes of that statute.
And if you insist, the Order DID specifically reference a criminal investigation which was already in progress under the auspices of the FBI. In short, there was ALREADY a criminal investigation, and that fact alone would satisfy your objections.
I'll give you specific quotes, since you and McCarthy seem to be leaving things out:
"conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James 8. Comey in testimony" - from the Order
"I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government" - from Comey's testimony.
Unfortunately WP...
Many people believe that Rosenstein was wrong. Almost nobody disagrees that his reasoning was unprecedented.
Like it or not, that causes serious problems with the credibility of the Special Counsel probe.
"I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government"
You realize that you just proved McCarthy's point?
WP...
Perhaps you could use the Hillary Clinton excuse of not being sophisticated enough to know the difference between counterintelligence and criminal?
Are you saying that the FBI doesn't know the difference? After all, it was an FBI investigation that Comey was testifying to, and yes he did call it a counter-terrorism mission.
That doesn't mean it's not also a criminal investigation. There have been criminal indictments already of individuals who were involved, which should be a pretty good indication. But why should I defend Sessions on this, other than the honest fact that he's right? The statute gives him unhindered discretion, regardless of what YOU think about the nature of the investigation.
WP...
As the resident Mr Semantics here, I find it amusing that you won't admit that McCarthy is right. Honestly, Rosenstein never used the term criminal because it was not a criminal FBI probe. Has it been a criminal, then he would have used the term criminal, both to be factually correct and to follow the statute of the laws regarding special counsel.
I find it equally amusing that you would go with the whole "well Rosenstein obviously knows what he is doing" argument here. Especially when it becomes a choice between arguing that Rosenstein was using 180 degrees wrong language to explain something this important or using 180 degrees wrong application of the law. Either way, the actions of this appointment should not offer anyone any degree of confidence that he "knows what he is doing". To argue as such seems like a childish pleas that he must know what he is doing because he is a person of some authority.
I am also not quite sure why you keep referring to Sessions. Sessions made a political (not legal) decision to recuse himself from the Russian Investigation.... largely because he had been and could still be a witness in the investigation. The fact that he recused himself brings us no closer to it being a criminal probe as it would to bring us closer to being counterintelligence. He would have been just as responsible to and just as likely to recuse himself either way.
Lastly, we both know that the FBI did not charge Manafort or Gates after investigating their financial dealings twice previously. We know that the FBI did not charge Papadopoulos or Flynn with perjury at the time of their statements to the FBI. We also can be nearly guaranteed that the FBI would not have made public indictments of 13 Russians, gathered from a magazine article.
Those are things that happens when you put a criminal prosecutor in charge of a counterintelligence probe. You find out nothing new, but you start charging people with crimes, investigating Facebook, or looking for more process crimes... just to justify the existence of such a probe.
I find it equally amusing that you would go with the whole "well Rosenstein obviously knows what he is doing" argument here.
That's because you don't understand the argument.
It's not that he knew what he was doing. He likely did, being one of the few appointments by this administration that wasn't a complete clown, but it's beside the point.
The argument is, whether or not he knew what he was doing, whether or not he was right, regardless of whether you or McCarthy agree with him, the statute gives him the discretion. It only requires that HE determines, at HIS discretion, that an investigation is warranted. Plus the two requirements.
Which means, your (and McCarthy's) entire argument that there was no crime named is moot. It doesn't matter, even if there WERE no crime, because in HIS determination there was. And as it incidentally turns out, they were investigating crimes after all.
"I am also not quite sure why you keep referring to Sessions." Because the statute does, and to his subordinate whom I also referred to whenever I referred to Sessions.
WP...
Your argument would make sense if Rosenstein made the argument at the time he appointed special counsel that it was a criminal probe, and listed specific crimes that he felt should be investigated.
Then, that would validate your argument that even though the FBI called it a counterintelligence probe, that Rosenstein believed it was also a criminal probe.
But he didn't. He appointed Mueller as Special Counsel to oversee what he specifically referred to in his own letter as a counterintelligence probe.
Regardless of how many times you would like to ignore it... the statute (that you cited) very specifically states that a special counsel will be appointed when an A.G. determines that a CRIMINAL investigation is warranted.
That is not a difference without a distinction... and the main point (the sub-points being irrelevant if the main point isn't met) of the statute does not provide any leeway to appoint special counsel for anything other than a specific criminal investigation. There is no language that would allow a special counsel to be appointed "other than" when the A.G. believes a criminal investigation is warranted.
Either that... or you simply believe that the law doesn't mean what the law actually states?
I don't see any specific mention of counterintelligence in the Order appointing the Special Counsel.
He did mention specifically:
1. Russian govemment's efforts to interfere, which is what you are focusing on exclusively, and which clearly involves elements of both criminal and counter-intelligence investigations,
2. The existing FBI investigation, which was described by Comey as conter-intelligence, which again does not exclude criminal investigations, and
3. Any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individual sassociated with the campaign of President Donald Trump, which clearly is investigating allegations of crimes
Finally, I will point out once again that there is NO REQUIREMENT in the statute for the AG or his subordinate to list the crimes under investigation. It only requires him to determine that an investigation is warranted. He did so, and therefore there is NO legal issue in that regard with his order appointing one.
The old days when the left hated Mueller
Statement for the Record of
Robert S. Mueller, III
Director
Federal Bureau of Investigation
on
War on Terrorism
Before the
Select Committee on Intelligence of the
United States Senate
Washington, D.C.
It only requires him to determine that an investigation is warranted.
it requires them to determine that a CRIMINAL investigation is warranted.
a significant stipulation.
without the 'criminal' requirement, any AG can draw a bead on any political enemy they wish, shop it to a politically sympathetic judge, and completely destroy them. see: Flynn, Michael.
here's some more of mueller's handiwork:
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department announced Friday that it would pay $4.6 million to settle a lawsuit filed by Steven J. Hatfill, a former Army biodefense researcher intensively investigated as a “person of interest” in the deadly anthrax letters of 2001.
The settlement, consisting of $2.825 million in cash and an annuity paying Dr. Hatfill $150,000 a year for 20 years, brings to an end a five-year legal battle that had recently threatened a reporter with large fines for declining to name sources she said she did not recall.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/28/washington/28hatfill.html
without the 'criminal' requirement, any AG can draw a bead on any political enemy they wish, shop it to a politically sympathetic judge, and completely destroy them. see: Flynn, Michael.
Without any "criminal" requirement...
any AG can start a similar special counsel investigation on any incoming President... based on little more than some good old fashioned "opposition research".
You know, perhaps when the Donald leaves, his AG can appoint Rudy Guiliani as special counsel. Get a team of Donald Trump supporting Lawyers... give them an unlimited budget, sit a grand jury, and just do some good old fashioned investigating... looking for a crime to charge someone with.
Because, of course, that's how WP and others believe that our Law Enforcement should work.
Because, of course, that's how WP and others believe that our Law Enforcement should work.
well, if they would like to establish the tradition of forming a coup against a new president based upon fucking NOTHING, then i would hope that we can oblige the moment a democrat takes the oath of office.
a dangerous precedent has been set, and i don't want to hear a fucking word out of the left when the shoe is on the other foot.
Liberals get their undies in a bunch when people like Andrew McCabe is fired on the recommendation of his peers... and demand that it's all political and ultimately "Trump's fault".
of course it's trump's fault.
when was the last time a liberal ever took responsibility for ANYTHING??? they're always victims no matter the circumstances.
I didn't write the statute folks, just telling you why the Order appointing a Special Counsel doesn't suffer the legal problem that you believed it does.
Liberals get their undies in a bunch when people like Andrew McCabe is fired on the recommendation of his peers... and demand that it's all political and ultimately "Trump's fault".
We told you that if Trump tried to prosecute him, then it would look political. He deserved to get fired, but you folks went off the deep end.
I didn't write the statute folks
Nor did you appear to read it.
just telling you why the Order appointing a Special Counsel doesn't suffer the legal problem that you believed it does.
Of course, WP... nothing is as written in black and white. It always extends to the limits of how well you can torture an argument into the murk.
just telling you why the Order appointing a Special Counsel doesn't suffer the legal problem that you believed it does.
on the contrary, to my untrained legal eye the order looks ripe for a challenge. it has no clearly defined purpose or end. it's essentially a blank check that can go on ad infinitum and seems to exist to prosecute crimes that have yet to be committed.
had trump a reliable and competent AG, the order as written may never have been issued
and at this point i would expect some sort of a challenge considering the legal team trump has just assembled.
Torturing an argument? It's dead simple
"when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted"
Your attempt to make it mean something other than "when he determines" would be torturing the statute.
The statute literally and plainly allows the AG to determine that a criminal investigation is warranted. Not that he has to prove it, not that you have to agree, but in his determination, period. What is so difficult about that to you, that you would have it "torturing an argument"?
Well WP...
I guess it boils down to how you view the term criminal investigation.
McCarthy and most other experts in criminal law believe that a criminal investigation arises when there is a crime committed and we need to figure out how that crime was committed, who committed the crime, what he motive was for the crime, and other things associated with the crime.
The idea of special counsel is when the criminal act leads us to people or things that create the sort of conflict of interest that does not allow normal law enforcement to continue without calls of bias.
Example would be when Robert Fiske was appointed by Reno to investigate the White Water scandal. They already identified the criminal acts that were likely committed. There were SEC and other criminal investigations going on. When it became apparent that the scope of the investigation would reach the Rose Law firm and hte Clintons, it became a conflict of interest for Janet Reno to be in charge of it. btw... Fiske was also seen to have a conflict of interest (no worse than what Mueller probably has) and was replaced by Ken Starr.
Starr took over what had already been a criminal investigation into known criminal behavior. He ended up with 15 people who either plead or were found guilty of crimes associated with the White Water deal. (None of those 15 were process crimes or crimes committed years previously. they all dealt specifically with the scope of the investigation).
This is not the case with the Meuller probe. There was not a criminal investigation, there was not an SEC investigation, and there is no suggestion that (like it did with Whitewater) that special counsel was needed for any sort of conflict of interest because there was evidence of the President being involved. On the contrary, our outgoing FBI director in charge suggested that Trump was not even under investigation. Certainly there is no conflict of interest in charging Russian citizens from a trolling factory.
The bill of rights has four separate amendments protecting the due process and rights of citizens against unnecessary law enforcement searches, seizures, excessive prosecution/sentencing, being held without bail, etc. We have many laws governing the requirement to garner warrants and such.
To suggest that our system of Government, our constitution, and our bill of rights allows an A.G. or acting A.G. to simply provide someone with unlimited funding to go on a "fishing exhibition" in search of possible criminal activity that "may arise from the investigation" is certainly a dubious position to take.
Like it or not... that is what Rosenstein quite literally did. He alleges no criminal acts have been committed. Basically appoints special counsel to take over an FBI counterintelligence operation, and suggests (in his own word in the letter he wrote) that Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute (unknown) federal crimes that "arise" from the investigation.
That is not the definition of a criminal investigation, where you have a crime you are investigating.
It's literally what most people think of as a "witch hunt", where you give someone authority to go "look and see if any sort of crime actually may have been committed".
It's unfortunate that you either don't understand or choose not to see the difference... but when it comes to Donald Trump, your normal logic simply doesn't apply.
And WP...
There are two conditions.
- That a crime was committed and needs to be investigated.
- That there is a conflict of interest in prosecuting the crime.
So if your argument is that the criminal act was the actual "Russian involvement" then you fall short of finding an actual "conflict of interest".
Else if your argument is that the conflict of interest is the possible involvement of Donald Trump or his staff, then you fall short of actually having any evidence that such a crime had taken place.
There are two conditions.
- That a crime was committed and needs to be investigated.
- That there is a conflict of interest in prosecuting the crime.
You call it "semantics" but there is a distinction that you are continuing to overlook when you paraphrase it. It is NOT a condition that "a crime was committed". The condition is that the Attorney General DETERMINES that a crime was committed. The difference is that with YOUR condition, an Order appointing a Special Counsel is illegal without proof of a crime but in reality that part is at his discretion.
"So if your argument is that the criminal act was the actual "Russian involvement" then you fall short of finding an actual "conflict of interest"."
OK that's a new one but it doesn't hold up either. Any involvement may constitute a conflict of interest, not just direct involvement in a given postulated crime. Again, look at the actual Statute, and don't overlook the second option "or other extraordinary circumstances".
First, it says "the investigation or prosecution" is a conflict of interest, which means if he is a potential witness or person of interest - which he is - he can't be investigating himself. The DOJ reporting to the President, whose staff may be investigated, is also a conflict of interest.
Second, "other extraordinary circumstances" can be applied. Certainly the situation is unique. The order satisfies both options, where only one is required. You're not going to find credible grounds by claiming that it wasn't really a conflict of interest, and therefore failed the statute.
The condition is that the Attorney General DETERMINES that a crime was committed.
Would would be a great argument if the A.G. actually determined it. But he failed to make that determination. He makes no statement about any crimes being committed. His only reference is to the FBI counterintelligence proble.
Second, "other extraordinary circumstances" can be applied.
The only extraordinary circumstances here is the irrational hatred of Donald Trump and the big giant hissy fit people are still throwing because he won the election. Short of those two things, there wouldn't have even been an investigation of any sort, much less a special counsel.
I could think of multiple events over the past few years (IRS scandal, Clinton email scandal, wiretaps of journalists, secret cash payment to Iran, Fast and Furious) that would meet all of the requirements of a Special Counsel, without having to use the logical gymnastics being used here to justify this one.
Post a Comment