The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. It requires "reasonable" governmental searches and seizures to be conducted only upon issuance of a warrant, judicially sanctioned by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Under the Fourth Amendment, search and seizure should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer who has sworn by it. Fourth Amendment case law deals with three issues: what government activities constitute "search" and "seizure"; what constitutes probable cause for these actions; and how violations of Fourth Amendment rights should be addressed. Early court decisions limited the amendment's scope to a law enforcement officer's physical intrusion onto private property, but with Katz v. United States, the Supreme Court held that its protections, such as the warrant requirement, extend to the privacy of individuals as well as physical locations. Law enforcement officers need a warrant for most search and seizure activities, but the Court has defined a series of exceptions for consent searches, motor vehicle searches, evidence in plain view, exigent circumstances, border searches, and other situations.So if a search warrant requires a description of the place to be searched and the things to be seized, and the seizure is limited to that place and thing... it would make perfect sense that the raid on Michael Cohen will include information that the authorities do not have the right to look at.
So, it's not only a simple case of attorney client privilege. The information that the U.S. Attorney's office seized would (in theory) also have to be sorted as to whether or not the information seized is part of what the original warrant was looking for. In other words, our law enforcement is not allowed to come into your house with a warrant looking for one thing, and then simply take everything in your house in order to look for something else to just "comes up". Not unless they see some sort of criminal evidence "in plain sight" (which of course would not include Attorney paperwork, computers, and Nook tablets.).
The current legal situation is that the Feds are not currently going through any of the information, pending the current court ruling. The Judge overseeing the case is said to be considering (or leaning towards depending on the source) allowing a "Special Master" to oversee the mess. That Special Master would view the information that the Feds seized, and determine which would be protected and which would be provided to the U.S. Attorney's office for review. This would probably server everyone's interest. Not sure why anyone would actually "oppose" the materials to be reviewed by a third party. Not like either Cohen or the material is going anywhere, and there certainly doesn't seem to be any issues with a time deadline.
192 comments:
Liberal Female ICON Stormy Daniels. The sea change is stark. She makes her living by selling her body for sex with men, who watch her xxx rate movies.
Are you quoting Cohen's lawyer who was mis-citing the law according to the judge? It wasn't quite clear ...
You should relax: Mueller has no reason to think that anything in Cohen's files implicates Trump in collusion with Russia. And if he had anything solid at all about "collusion", he'd be looking for it with Cohen. Q.E.D
Something else maybe, who knows. Collusion, still not likely. So you can quit struggling to defend the snake lawyer LOL.
Blagojevich, that's the guy I was trying to remember, who all the excuses about campaign finance, and the attacks on the investigators, kept reminding me of. He said all of the same things, his own supporters just as rabidly sure of themselves, but I couldn't remember the guy's name.
U.S. Supreme Court again rejects hearing Rod Blagojevich's appeal
What a charming day.
So peaceful. Coffee Hot.
Janebakedfattywp
Make me laugh.
"
A GermanApril 16, 2018 at 6:38 PM
klienminded IS A MSSPELLING"
The Judge overseeing the case is said to be considering (or leaning towards depending on the source) allowing a "Special Master" to oversee the mess.
a "special master," eh?
sigh. our society seems to be becoming more orwellian by the minute. so the left would have us dispense with the 1st amendment because everything they disagree with is hate speech.
they'd have us dispense with the 2nd amendment because black rifles with pistol grips are scary...
and now we're poised to dispense with the 4th amendment because the left's candidate couldn't win a fixed slam dunk election that nate silver said she'd win.
i'm wondering which amendment is next on the liberal hit list. i'm thinking the sixth, since there's nothing more inconvenient to a liberal than their political opponents getting a fair hearing. higher education has been using kangaroo courts under title IX for years to destroy innocent kids. i suppose it's time to ratchet that up to the general populace.
Comey's excessive sanctimony is already backfiring. Even never trumpers are having enough of his self righteous attitude.
at the end of the day comey is a dirty cop. and in my eyes, there's is nothing worse than a dirty cop. nothing.
I agree.
Comey , dirty filthy cop, interview with Hillary, not under oath, not videoed, not tape recorded, no nothing.
RRB
This one is next.
"The Fifth Amendment protects the right to private property in two ways. First, it states that a person may not be deprived of property by the government without “due process of law,” or fair procedures."
Those liberals that get a Federal refund, buy bonds. Put your money where your mouth is. Worried about debt all of a sudden.
President Trump, Winning, so much.
South Korea and North Korea to formally end war.
This one is next.
"The Fifth Amendment protects the right to private property in two ways. First, it states that a person may not be deprived of property by the government without “due process of law,” or fair procedures."
well, you're not wrong. we have an epidemic of civil asset forfeiture in this country that needs to be addressed. and this is one where both political parties are complicit in stealing from our citizens.
VDH at NRO has an outstanding detailing of the real collusion from sll the obama/hillary deep state partisans. This should concern all of America.
Next pre-dawn raid will be Sean Hannity.
They will take all his guns, shut his radio and TV show down since he is unsafe to the community, and send him to Room 101 where he will have to watch Hillary videos on repeat.
You laugh?
Leading bigly from behind as Putin has fotos of the piss party....
Trump Rejects New Sanctions Against Russia, Changing Course
By PETER BAKER
The administration reversed course a day after the ambassador to the United Nations said Russian companies would be penalized for facilitating Syria’s chemical weapons program.
Rewarding bad behavior again as the sycophants here slurp from the trump trough.....LOL
"VDH at NRO has an outstanding detailing of the real collusion from sll the obama/hillary deep state partisans. This should concern all of America."
Nailed it.
Unseating the duly elected sitting President by any means necessary will happen.
"VDH at NRO has an outstanding detailing of the real collusion
Sure he does.....The concern I have is the dumbing down of America especially with the HS drop out as the most unethical broadcaster evah....think faux will do anything or just bury their head deeper into trumps ass like you?????
You forgot LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL, Dennis.
"i'm thinking the sixth, since there's nothing more inconvenient to a liberal than their political opponents getting a fair hearing."
Bingo.
The filthy 5 liberals stooges of CHT started working on Voter Nullification @ 3 am Nov. 9th, 2016.
"this is one where both political parties are complicit in stealing from our citizens." RRB
Yes.
The filthy 5 liberals stooges of CHT
And kd the freemartin fucker and the sycophants defend a whore monger, cheating, lying bully as a righteous endeavor....I hope you all follow him down the road to perdition.....Time to bring dignity back to the oval office....
"The filthy 5 liberals stooges of CHT started working on Voter Nullification @ 3 am Nov. 9th, 2016."
Exactly.
"Time to bring dignity back to the oval office...."
Dignity? That flew out of the oval office with the blue dress and a well-placed cigar.
So you can quit struggling to defend the snake lawyer
Right back to this, huh?
This should be a simple issue of principles, WP. On the fundamental idea that the government can go into a law office looking a tiny subset of information specific to (possibly one or two things) and walk out with every paper, computer, tablet, cell phone, and everything else they could put in their vehicles and leave with.
As someone who "used" to have some degree of libertarian beliefs... I don't see how this action doesn't chill you to the bone. An attorney could have other clients, be in the middle of litigation or even a jury trial, and poof... all of his work is gone. In the hands of our Federal Government who obviously are not going to give it back any time soon.
Now let's forget about what the Government should or shouldn't be able to thumb their way through here... they not only deprived the lawyer of his liberties, but they conceivably deprive every client he has of heir liberties as well. They took away his ability to do his job and provide his services to people who have paid him to do so.
Absolutely none of this should have anything to do with what your "opinion" is of the attorney. The day we determine that a "good guy" who surrounds himself with people we like has certain rights and privileges, but that the person we deem as a "bad guy" (or a snake) who surrounds himself with people we don't like... is not provided those same rights, then we no longer live in a country guided by the principles of the constitution. We no longer have due process, equal protections under the law, or a fundamental matter of fairness.
So no, WP... this isn't about Cohen to me, nor should it be about Cohen to you (or anyone else). This "should be" whether or not the actions taken here, are justified under the bill of rights, and the protections that are provided by it.
That's all, WP. Take Cohen, Trump, Hannity out of it. Ask yourself why you would approve of the Federal Government having the right to walk in with a warrant for something specific, and walk out of ANY LAW OFFICE in the country with everything they had in that office.
Seriously, why are you okay with that?
So now we learn that this judge in the cohen case performed the 2013 wedding for................wait for it...............george soros.
You cant make this stuff up.
So who is Kimba Wood the judge presiding?
1. Bill Clinton Once Wanted Wood to Be His Attorney General & Hillary Clinton Was Involved in the Process
2. Wood Employed an Illegal Immigrant Babysitter & Sentenced Michael Milken
4. Wood Was Famously Dubbed the ‘Love Judge’ After a Romantic Scandal
This nickname derived from a romantic scandal involving her. According to The New York Daily News, in 1995, a “multimillionaire Wall Street financier’s” estranged wife “found his diary, which was filled with passionate prose about his trysts with the jurist.”
5. Wood Presided Over the Wedding of George Soros & Was Once Called a ‘Life-Long Democrat’
You can't make this shit up.
https://heavy.com/news/2018/04/kimba-wood-judge-photos-images-nanny-clinton/
You can't make this shit up.
And she tried out for being a playboy bunny while attending grad school in London....Yep, we have a lying whoremonger potus that you defend while obsessing over a judge appointed by an R who sentenced a fraud and paid SS taxes for her worker.....Nice try asshole....you got less than nothing!!!!
commie said... "Nice try asshole....you got less than nothing!!!! "
You are the blog joke, and don't even know it !
Hopeless comes to mind
ROFLMFAO !!!
This should be a simple issue of principles, WP. On the fundamental idea that the government can go into a law office looking a tiny subset of information specific to (possibly one or two things) and walk out with every paper, computer, tablet, cell phone, and everything else they could put in their vehicles and leave with.
"Into a law office" - that actually illustrates the point. Do you have the same outrage if it's not a law office but, say, the office in the back of a bar? The cops know that the manager is selling drugs, and they want a ledger to nail it down. Is that the same matter of principle to you as you express over Cohen's office?
It is the same fundamental idea. Would you change your fundamental idea if and when it's found that very few of Cohen's "thousands of documents" actually do qualify as privileged communications?
You ask if it's right for the Federal Government to walk into any law office and take everything they had. No, and that's not what the FBI did here with Cohen either. They served a warrant to search a criminal's office - at least that's their claim - which had a legal practice front. They're not even interested in his legal practice, and won't be looking at those documents.
As a matter of fundamental principle, we cannot allow anyone to hide their own criminal actions behind the facade of legal advice. It would be better to have no lawyers at all than to suffer that.
And you did make shit up. coward....
Wood, who was Clinton’s second choice for AG post, didn’t break the law employing the nanny and in fact paid the woman’s taxes. But the White House asked her to withdraw because her situation was similar to Clinton’s first AG nomination, Zoe Baird.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/cohen-case-heard-judge-kimba-wood-aka-love-judge-article-1.3936953
Desperate attempt fellating the liar in chief with BS>>>>
"Anonymous commie said...
And you did make shit up. coward...."
No I didn't. I posted direct quotes and nothing you posted even contradicted what was said.
You on the other hand say shit like "Desperate attempt fellating the liar in chief with BS>>>>"
But trying to explain something to an ignoramus like yourself is pretty futile. Enjoy another wasted day at your keyboard.
ROFLMFAO !!!
You ask if it's right for the Federal Government to walk into any law office and take everything they had. No, and that's not what the FBI did here
That's exactly what the FBI did here otherwise they wouldn't need a "taint team" sorting through the evidence to determing what was in scope for the warrant and what was not.
The trouble here is the "taint team" is not completely independent and there really nothing that stops them for using the illegally obtained information to get other search warrants.
No I didn't. I posted direct quotes and nothing
IOW's you posted fake fucking news like the good little asshole you are!!!! I posted what she did was not illegal, .... which what your quote intoned.....IDIOT!!! Nice try but a loser again....LOL.
Wood, who was Clinton’s second choice for AG post, didn’t break the law employing the nanny and in fact paid the woman’s taxes.
So say the Daily News but I can see at least one count of conspiracy to commit identity fraud by paying taxes under a false social security number.
And the only reason she didn't break the law by knowingly hiring an illegal alien is because the law didn't exist at the time.
In fact, it was abuses like this that led to passage of the law.
Ironic that it's always rich liberals who exploit illegal aliens to get cheap servants for their household.
So some Trump torch bearers have already opened up a character assassination of the judge, and you feel obliged to spread it here. He presided at a wedding for someone you don't like, that one's my favorite.
Every time we accept crap like that, we have to give up a little self-respect. For what, to sow doubt about a judge having to deal with a sleazy lawyer whose own arrogance has gotten him in trouble? It's bad trade.
2.3 million less people are on food stamps today then when Trump Took office.
WP...
By all accounts, they literally took every shred of paperwork, every computer, every notebook, every tablet, and every phone... from both his workplace and his home.
If it happened to me, it means they would have taken my work laptop, my son's gaming laptop, my other son's computer and school issues I-pad, as well as all of our phones, paperwork, and everything else.
All under the pretense that they are looking for specific information?
So... It doesn't matter that what they are looking for is limited, it's what they actually took that makes this scary (or at least it should be scary).
As Cohen stated... he just wants his shit back.
I think you would want your shit back if someone raided your home and workplace and literally took everything, because they were looking for something specific (that may or may not even exist at this point).
"Into a law office" - that actually illustrates the point. Do you have the same outrage if it's not a law office but, say, the office in the back of a bar? The cops know that the manager is selling drugs, and they want a ledger to nail it down. Is that the same matter of principle to you as you express over Cohen's office?
I would have that same issue if they raided a doctor's office because they thought he was engaged in some scam involving prescription medication or whatever... and they seized all of that office's records, all of the computers, all of the electronics, all of the phones, etc...
including all sorts of patient information, that could conceivably include information "needed" for that doctor's office to successfully treat patients.
The problem here, WP... is a law office is much more similar to a doctor's office... than it is to to a back bar office.
So it is your argument, that back bar offices, law offices, doctors offices, university systems, large corporations, or anyone else who the police might have cause to search... has no protection from having literally every piece of information taken from them (because the feds are looking for something specific)?
That's exactly what the FBI did here otherwise they wouldn't need a "taint team" sorting through the evidence to determing what was in scope for the warrant and what was not.
As I have already explained, they served a warrant on a criminal who was trying to hide behind a lawyer/client privilege. You're just repeating what Cohen's lawyers claim, and of course they're going to say that.
The "taint team" is to ensure that the evidence doesn't get thrown out if a document with actual legal advise is mishandled. If there even are any.
All under the pretense that they are looking for specific information?
And whose computer did they find hillary's E-mails on that created the last minute comey reopening the investigation???? That's why they took every electronic device.....open your eyes and mind CH, the answer is obvious .....
"As I have already explained, they served a warrant on a criminal"
Already convicted....
So it is your argument, that back bar offices, law offices, doctors offices, university systems, large corporations, or anyone else who the police might have cause to search... has no protection from having literally every piece of information taken from them (because the feds are looking for something specific)?
Because the Feds have strong concrete evidence of criminal activity, and iron-clad reason to believe that the criminal will destroy evidence, not because they're "looking for something specific". It's not my argument, it's the way the law is written. The most special thing about Cohen is not that they did it, but that they're going into meticulous detail to do it by the book.
Already convicted....
No, that's the point of the raid Loretta, to procure the evidence to convict in court. The FBI believes he is a criminal, and convinced a judge that he is hiding criminal evidence. They serve a warrant, prosecute the case. That's how law enforcement works.
So posting inconvenient factual information about Woods in character assassination according to wp.
She is a liberal nyc judge. But i guess that only matters when the judge is a conservative.
and iron-clad reason to believe that the criminal will destroy evidence
Am I supposed to take this statement serious?
Cohen had already been cooperating with the Feds on this (and to the degree that that cooperation was honest is obviously a point of contention). But Cohen would have had ample opportunity to destroy whatever it was that he wanted to destroy (if there was indeed evidence to be destroyed). I find it incredibly hard to believe that there was "iron clad" evidence that he was just about to destroy evidence.
Again, WP... (and you and I agree on this) - if the Feds no not find what they are looking for, and Cohen isn't charged with a mile long indictment of felony charges appropriate for the actions of a multiple location Federal Raid such as this... Then some serious heads should roll.
I am not talking about a campaign finance violation, or a made up bank fraud charge on otherwise legal activity. I am talking something actually threatening to the community that would justify it.
She is a liberal nyc judge.
Shocking, she was appointed by Saint Ronald of Reagan,,,,,,,
"No, that's the point of the raid Loretta, to procure the evidence to convict in court."
Odd that you'd call him a criminal, before he's been tried, eh.
WP...
Let me ask you a serious question.
If this wasn't Michael Cohen, and Cohen wasn't associated with the President. Do you believe that the Feds would be interested enough in this to have garnered a warrant to raid multiple locations and seize everything?
Which of course, is similar to Paul Manafort (who was twice investigated by the FBI for the exact same issues and never indicted) - but after being involved with the President, he is looking at a no-knock late night raid of his house.
Do you believe that here is no correlation?
_______
Or another way of looking at it...
Given this doesn't happen everyday (in fact it hardly ever happens to attorneys or law firms) - what sort of criminal investigation do you suppose "generally" warrants this action?
Are you confident that what happened to Cohen could be justified by example after example of similar raids of other attorneys for similar investigations?
Or do you suppose this is unusual?
and iron-clad reason to believe that the criminal will destroy evidence
Am I supposed to take this statement serious?
Yes you are supposed to take it serious, because that's what the law requires for the warrant. You reject it why, on general principle?
Cohen had already been cooperating with the Feds on this (and to the degree that that cooperation was honest is obviously a point of contention)
The FBI, and the Judge who was convinced by the evidence presented by them, disagree with you. It's going to have to stand up in court as well, in front of another judge, so it's not just a case of them agreeing amongst themselves and going ahead with a wink. I agree that it's "obvious" that Cohen's lawyers will make it a point of contention, but it's a moot point. None of this came about from someone's gut feeling.
Yeah it's all contingent on charges being filed. No one, not you nor I nor anyone else, will believe that the FBI had sufficient evidence to justify the raids unless there are actual, serious charges.
So now we learn that this judge in the cohen case performed the 2013 wedding for................wait for it...............george soros.
You cant make this stuff up."
The Incestuous left. Defended by the filthy 5 liberal stooges of CHT.
A person is innocent , except in the land of Miss WP.
Let me ask you a serious question.
If this wasn't Michael Cohen, and Cohen wasn't associated with the President. Do you believe that the Feds would be interested enough in this to have garnered a warrant to raid multiple locations and seize everything?
They wouldn't have been looking, and come across whatever it was, if he had not shown up in the investigation looking at Trump and his campaign. Is it unique to Cohen himself? Depends on what he's involved with; it could well be that Cohen was in a unique situation, or it could be something that anyone could have been into.
If you're asking if the suspected crimes are serious enough, in their own right, to justify those raids, we'll have to wait and see. I'm not sure that you can divorce it from Trump, because most people that the Special Counsel look at will have some sort of relationship with Trump. It was a referral, which means that Cohen is not of interest to the Investigation. It puts some distance between him and anything implicating Trump, so I'd say it has more to do with Cohen himself, and Cohen's notoriety.
Anonymous Myballs said...
So posting inconvenient factual information about Woods in character assassination according to wp.
That's what people always say when engaged in character assassination. "Inconvenient facts"
She is a liberal nyc judge.
Oh my!
Yes you are supposed to take it serious, because that's what the law requires for the warrant. You reject it why, on general principle?
Very few warrants are denied, WP. Most that are denied are allowed to be revised to clarify whatever it is that caused the Judge to deny the warrant, so that it can be eventually approved. Law enforcement suggest that this is because they never bring anything questionable, but that argument seems dubious.
I guess I am just more of a cynic, and less trusting of authority than you are.
I posted factual information. Wp used to not only appreciate it, but demand it.
That wp is gone i guess.
I'm not sure that you can divorce it from Trump, because most people that the Special Counsel look at will have some sort of relationship with Trump.
But wouldn't you agree that in terms of fourth amendment, due process, and equal protection... that Cohen shouldn't be treated any differently than any other attorney suspected of a similar crime?
It seems almost like you are argument that his relationship with Trump makes it "special" and therefor, there may be unique circumstances here that wouldn't necessarily apply to other people.
It was a referral, which means that Cohen is not of interest to the Investigation. It puts some distance between him and anything implicating Trump, so I'd say it has more to do with Cohen himself, and Cohen's notoriety.
I am glad you now agree with me on this particular issue.
Balls, facts are one thing, vague implications are another. Look at your facts:
Liberal NY Judge. Presided at a wedding for Soros. In the running for Clinton AG. What else, judge was friendly with someone?
As "facts", these are pretty underwhelming. But that's not the point is it? Whoever is pumping these out is trying to imply that the judge is politically motivated and letting that influence the decisions.
If there is a "fact" showing that the judge has been compromised, I'm all ears. Show me some facts in rulings, where the judge has allowed partisan factors to influence the rulings. But don't expect anyone to be impressed by "liberal judge" and "Soros wedding."
"It seems almost like you are argument that his relationship with Trump makes it "special" and therefor, there may be unique circumstances here that wouldn't necessarily apply to other people."
They are taking greater pains to ensure Cohen's rights because of his proximity to Trump, than they would with a more typical attorney. It may be regrettable that Cohen enjoys favorable treatment, but unavoidable.
The potential that Cohen has confidential information relating to the President is indeed a unique circumstance, which doesn't apply to other people. Trump really should have known better than to use the same guy for his personal business, his organization, his campaign, and advising him in the White House. Dealing harshly with low-lives trying to shake him down, facilitating dodgy deals, keeping Trump's personal behavior out of the public eye, these approach for all of that is probably not optimal for the positions Trump put him in.
Okay WP...
Wouldn't it have been better (for optics sake if nothing else) if a Judge who wasn't associated with Hillary Clinton, or performed a wedding for George Soros... had been the one overseeing a legal argument regarding President Trump's personal lawyer?
The very fact that so many people will "see" it as a conflict of interest should have been enough for this Judge to step aside and allow for someone else to oversee this issue. For purposes of conflict, a Judge is supposed to recuse themselves when a conflict would even be seen by others. even if they believe that they can successfully remain neutral.
We don't know at this point, whether the Judge is going to be fair, objective, or anything else. What we do know is that Balls is not going to be the only one questioning every move that this particular Judge makes. There will be lots of people questioning it.
Could have been avoided, and I would argue that it absolutely "should" have been avoided.
Underwhelming to whom? You?
One can reasonably draw fair conclusions based on facts. The facts posted by me and another poster lend enough analytical support to conclude that she leans liberal.
You jump to a conclusion that all this was a character assassination. Why must it be that? Why can't it be simply exposing relevant background traits?
They are taking greater pains to ensure Cohen's rights because of his proximity to Trump, than they would with a more typical attorney. It may be regrettable that Cohen enjoys favorable treatment, but unavoidable,
Okay... so provide us with some examples of other attorneys who have been treated without the "great pains" to ensure rights. Give us some examples of other attorneys who have had everything they own (business and personal) seized by authorities, and then told that they cannot even look at their own stuff for at least 10 days?
and what they experiences... that was so much worse?
Please Try to Impeach Trump.
"Highlights
The residential construction business had a very strong March: housing starts easily topped Econoday's high estimate at a 1.319 million annualized rate while permits came in just shy of the top estimate at a very strong 1.354 million.".
So much winning.
The very fact that so many people will "see" it as a conflict of interest should have been enough for this Judge to step aside and allow for someone else to oversee this issue. For purposes of conflict, a Judge is supposed to recuse themselves when a conflict would even be seen by others.
Are you sure about that? Judges recuse themselves when there is an actual conflict of interest, or bias, not out of fear that someone might 'see' it that way. There is nothing regarding a "perception of impartiality" in recusal rules that I'm aware of. Perception of an appellate Judge perhaps.
You jump to a conclusion that all this was a character assassination. Why must it be that?
Because you didn't present any conclusions, other than "she's a liberal". Which moreover, if true is completely irrelevant to the judge's impartiality.
The SOLE purpose of any of that is to attack the judge's impartiality, by presenting "inconvenient facts" as if those facts actually had any meaning to the question.
Why ELSE would you post those facts, and then say "you can't make this stuff up" or similar, unless you're attacking the judge?
Highlights
Industrial production rose a very solid 0.5 percent in March for a 4.3 percent year-on-year rate with mining once again leading the report, jumping 1.0 percent on top of February's 2.9 percent surge to lift year-on-year volumes to a 10.8 percent gain. Utilities also had a good March, with output up 3.0 percent in the month following a 5.0 percent weather-related decline in February. Year-on-year, utility output is up 5.3 percent.
WP...
Section 455, captioned "Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge," provides that a federal judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
Okay... so provide us with some examples of other attorneys who have been treated without the "great pains" to ensure rights. Give us some examples of other attorneys who have had everything they own (business and personal) seized by authorities, and then told that they cannot even look at their own stuff for at least 10 days?
Right here in Georgia, U.S. v. Sutton (U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia 2009)
And Sutton is one of the few cases where the court did appoint a "Special Master" to go through the materials.
So what advantages are you arguing Cohen has received that Sutton (who they had verified evidence was selling cocaine) did not?
Pretty big jump "his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." to "some people might see it as a conflict"
Might reasonably be questioned is an objective standard. You're suggesting a subjective veto by ... who exactly? The accusing "liberal judge" crowd who think that's a disqualifier?
They took data from Sutton and co-mingled data from four other attorneys, along with Sutton's emails which were indisputably privileged, allowed investigative agents to review them, and the court rejected Sutton's attempt to suppress privileged communications.
"(who they had verified evidence was selling cocaine) "
So your fundamental principle DOES depend on the alleged crime.
Muller Targets Sean Hanity.
Looks like they got a warrant to look for cocaine, found cocaine, seized cocaine, and then Sutton and the defense attorneys used a variety of reasons to attempt to squash the evidence based on attacking the warrant (unsuccessfully).
Pretty big jump "his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." to "some people might see it as a conflict"
It's a much bigger jump to suggest that judges only recuse themselves over an "actual conflict of interest" or bias.
The reality is that recusal is not just what a Judge might believe, but what can be reasonably argued.
Doesn't mean that it's an argument that "everyone" has to agree with. It just has be a reasonable. If you were Donald Trump's attorney, would you want your Judge to be someone who has affiliation with Hillary Clinton or oversaw a wedding of George Soros? I am pretty sure I wouldn't want that person overseeing my criminal case if I was Cohen.
Are you going to argue that this particular argument is entirely "unreasonable"? That being said, I am not sure that Cohen has made any argument at this time, but certainly "could" if the decisions of this Judge fall off the track of what people might seem as fair or normal.
A potential problem, that could have (and should have) been avoided.
As I have already explained, they served a warrant on a criminal
Allege criminal, Cohen has neither been convicted or even indicted, just investigated.
You're just repeating what Cohen's lawyers claim
Otherwise known as the fourth and fifth amendment.
The "taint team" is to ensure that the evidence doesn't get thrown out if a document with actual legal advise is mishandled.
As I said, if they limited the seizure to the scope of the warrant they wouldn't need a "taint team".
i'm kind of surprised that wp would've ended up on the team that would dispense with the bill of rights, but apparently that's where we are.
Not at all surprised.
RRB, They didn't invent this with Cohen. Why are you suddenly worried about HIS phony privilege claim, and not a million warrants served before him?
Commonsense said ... As I said, if they limited the seizure to the scope of the warrant they wouldn't need a "taint team".
And that's the second time you've made that mistaken claim.
i'm kind of surprised that wp would've ended up on the team that would dispense with the bill of rights, but apparently that's where we are.
I am more surprised at his sudden deferral to anyone or anything in authority. Whether it be that Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein, Judges, agents, or whoever... all of them are always just and fair, and none of them should ever be questioned.
I am amazed at the fact that I have seen him argue that someone's discretion should not be questioned, not because the facts bear out that they are correct... but simply because they are the person provided with that discretion. (Rosenstein and the appointment a classic example).
Unless of course it's the President. Then every action is not only questioned, but assumed to be nefarious.
Doesn't mean that it's an argument that "everyone" has to agree with.
In a sense it does mean that, Coldheart, where "everyone" means any reasonable person. You don't get to pick a person, or even some group, and say they would reasonably question his impartiality. It refers to a fictitious person, someone who is informed and rational and having no bias.
Some off the wall view, such as whose wedding he presided over, or what political party he identifies with, fails the test because objectively it doesn't reasonably question his impartiality.
I am more surprised at his sudden deferral to anyone or anything in authority.
Hardly. I'm simply acknowledging that those authorities probably have the facts required of them by law, and probably have followed lawful procedures. In response to your rather consistent insistence, with no rational basis, that they haven't been. A logical application of Hanlon'z razor, that any discrepancies are due to incompetance, not malice or conspiracy.
I am amazed at the fact that I have seen him argue that someone's discretion should not be questioned, not because the facts bear out that they are correct... but simply because they are the person provided with that discretion. (Rosenstein and the appointment a classic example).
You didn't even get that I was explaining why his appointment of Mueller was LEGAL and VALID according to the statute? That you were misinterpreting the statute? What a waste of time.
If you want some value judgment about appointing Special Investigators, and when and why that's one thing. But making some wildly wrong claim about the law and then calling that "not questioning authority" when someone sets the record straight? That's a little nuts ...
wphamilton said...
RRB, They didn't invent this with Cohen. Why are you suddenly worried about HIS phony privilege claim, and not a million warrants served before him?
how do you know it's phony? and how can every single device and piece of paper seized by team mueller have to do with trump. was trump cohen's only client? we know the answer to that question.
even due process is in play here. good grief, treating the guy like he's already a convict?
it's shit like this that cost us taxpayers $5.8M over mueller's handling of the anthrax case. this could cost twenty times that across everyone involved.
mueller's no boy scout. he's a fucking asshole. with a track record of fucking things up back to the whitey bulger days.
n a sense it does mean that, Coldheart, where "everyone" means any reasonable person. You don't get to pick a person, or even some group, and say they would reasonably question his impartiality. It refers to a fictitious person, someone who is informed and rational and having no bias.
The idea of a recusal is not just to make sure that the Judge is fair, but to make sure that everyone sees the Judge as fair. If the justice system was not interested in the optics or perception of fairness, they would not have created any sort of guidelines or procedures to follow. They certainly would not have provide the idea that he/she should recuse if their impartiality could be reasonably questioned.
That's simply common sense. There is no real rational manner to argue that optics or perception are irrelevant to whether or not there should be a recusal.
btw... you realize you went from a "reasonable person standard" argument a while back where you would call a census bureau question to be illuminated because a "reasonable person" might not take the survey... by tying it specifically to a "group of people" who would by nature be uninformed.
If your argument is that this person is reasonably informed, etc... then the laws that state that the census bureau does not share information with any other agencies in the government would be part of what a reasonably informed person would believe?
Or is the reasonable person standard used differently depending on your argument? Because you appeared in that case (illegal aliens) to actually "pick a group of people" and determine what that "group of people" might think... regardless of whether that group of people are "reasonably informed". In fact, your argument in that case was fueled by the fact that these people (illegal aliens) would be uninformed.
So I would call you on bull shit. Which way is it?
But making some wildly wrong claim about the law and then calling that "not questioning authority
Only I wasn't making any claims. A former Federal Prosecutor citing the law was making the claim. It wasn't nearly wildly wrong... it is what the law states.
The argument was that Special Counsel wasn't taking over a criminal probe, but an intelligence probe, a point proven by your own cut and pastes. One that you never actually were able to refute. Because it was never (under Comey) a criminal investigation.
Your argument was that the question was moot, because it provided Rosenstein the discretion to make that determination.
So even though Rosenstein was wrong on fact. You gave him the benefit of the doubt because he was "discretion".
how do you know it's phony?
It's obvious on the face of it, but you're right we don't KNOW at this point. We can suspend credulity and suppose for the sake of argument that thousands of documents are all legal advice or representing his clients. What argument are you serving with that? FBI had no just cause to seize them? Well, perhaps ... but that's on them. When the doubt represents something like a 1% chance, I'm not inclined to give the benefit of the doubt.
"and how can every single device and piece of paper seized by team mueller have to do with trump."
Each paper doesn't have to do with Trump, and I'd expect that the vast majority of it doesn't have to do with Trump. It's NOT "team mueller" - it's another team, who isn't concerned with Mueller's mandate and isn't concerned with Trump or the Russians. They are looking at Cohen's actions, including his own business dealings.
"good grief, treating the guy like he's already a convict? "
That's what the FBI does, and what your local police officer does, and they're allowed to as long as they don't violate your rights as a free citizen. In the courtroom you are innocent until proven guilty. You don't like it, fine neither do I but don't pretend that Cohen is treated any worse than anyone else they investigate.
If Cohen is innocent I hope he gets an apology and a book deal, and go back to intimidating people in the streets of Las Vegas, threatening to destroy people financially, and whatever else his "practice" may be. If he's guilty, I'm going to be cheering it on.
Commonsense said ... As I said, if they limited the seizure to the scope of the warrant they wouldn't need a "taint team".
And that's the second time you've made that mistaken claim.
In your arbitrary, bias and not very knowledgeable opinion.
"The argument was that Special Counsel wasn't taking over a criminal probe, but an intelligence probe, a point proven by your own cut and pastes"
What, a probe can't be both? Counter-intelligence never involves domestic crime? What's to refute? It was a throw-away line by your source, that he didn't even bother to support let alone justify.
I didn't address that because I don't need to, because the statute doesn't require it. That's not obedience to authority, to explain what a statute says.
In your arbitrary, bias and not very knowledgeable opinion
Ok sure, according to CommonSense, the FBI has no need to use a taint team when raiding a Law Firm, if they only will write the warrant right.
Never mind the court precedent that I supplied ColdHeart, that would have been self-explanatory if commonsense had bothered to look it up ...
Coldheart, do you honestly think that a Republican politician, or even someone who works for a Republican politician, should only come before a Republican judge?
Do you honestly believe that a Judge should be recused on the basis of wedding ceremonies that he's performed?
The answer to those questions illustrate the difference between "might reasonably be questioned" and your proposed standard.
Ok sure, according to CommonSense, the FBI has no need to use a taint team when raiding a Law Firm, if they only will write the warrant right.
Not write the warrant, only seize those things specified by the warrant as provided by the 4th amendment.
I rest my case.
I didn't address that because I don't need to, because the statute doesn't require it.
Yes. Actually it does specifically state it needs to be a criminal referral.
But thanks for the argument Mr Cleese.
Do you honestly believe that a Judge should be recused on the basis of wedding ceremonies that he's performed?
I honestly believe that if a Judge decides to rub elbows with high profile politicians and well known donors of one particular political Party... that that particular Judge should be recused from any and every issue that involves politicians, or people associated with politicians.
There are certainly enough Judges out there who are not so open about their politics and political affiliation to deal with cases involving high profile politicians or people associated with them.
And there are certainly enough cases out there that do not involve politicians or people associated with them for Judges who flaunt their politics to oversee...
Wouldn't you agree?
Yes. Actually it does specifically state it needs to be a criminal referral.
If we have to revisit this, it states
"when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted"
So ...
A: when it is warranted, not requiring that one already exists, and
B: when the AG determines that it's warranted. AG doesn't have to prove his reasons.
Not write the warrant, only seize those things specified by the warrant as provided by the 4th amendment.
Dealing with potentially privileged information, you're going to need a team to go over what's seized, regardless of how the warrant is written. That was explained in the precedent case I gave CH, which you still haven't bothered to look up.
Secondly, in a lawyers office, you can't have the agents examining every document in detail because that would be violating the lawyer/client confidentiality to begin with. You can't rely on the lawyer to tell you which documents to seize, because that's negates the point. You have to take boxes of documents, and someone - not the agents, not the lawyers being investigated - has to sort them out.
The only documents that the investigating agents are allowed to examine, are those which would be relevant per the warrant. The "taint team" is a precaution to ensure the rights of the person investigated. It is NOT a symptom that that the FBI has done something wrong, nor that there was a defect in the warrant.
We have seen political recusal when lawyers have donated to a Judge's campaign, when a judge has "political" relationships which impact a given case, and I believe when a Judge had previously worked on a campaign, but I am aware of no case where a Judge was recused merely due to social interactions with people involved in a political party that was other than the the employer of someone in litigation.
It doesn't even make sense, does it, that a Judge should recuse himself if he was friends with Democrats while an accused work for Republicans. He should in that case recuse himself if he was friends with Republicans when an accused worked for Republicans. If sympathy for Democrats biased him against Cohen (for example), then sympathy for Republicans would bias him for Cohen. Friends of more extreme parties would, by those standards, bias him even more.
So you would have any Judge be recused for conflict of interest, with respect to any politician, if the Judge had social relations with people associated with any political party. It is the only logical consequence of your position. How is the Supreme Court going to hear any case brought by the Government then? Aren't they going to have to recuse themselves en mass? Can any Federal Judge, appointed by Clinton or Trump either one, hear any case involving a Republican politician, since that politician's supporters might think that he's politically biased?
Let's just cut straight to the end goal, and declare that all Republican Politicians are exempt from any Federal Court, because hyper-partisan supporters feel like the Judges might be biased.
In reality, has any Federal Judge recused himself, or been recused, for the reason of social interactions with persons of the opposite political party of a person appearing before the court? In the past century?
The 4th amendment is pretty damn clear.
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to determing what is private business vs. privilege communications with a client.
And if you are not sure, you're suppose to err on the side of privilege.
However, they just did a total sweep of the office without even making a determination whether it fell into the scope of the warrant.
They'll just depend on the taint team to sort it all out. And oh by the way, use the information obtained illegally as the basis of new warrants.
Peter Strzok is the agent that interviewed Hillary. The same Strzok that did not tape the interview. Did not put her under oath, did not video tape it. Yet, he and his fucking dirty leg Liza Page working for Muller.
The two that had thier own plan to remove Trump from Office.
Aren't you getting it yet, CS, that the so-called "taint team" protects the 4th Amendment rights? It's not a defect of warrants.
It is the standard for serving the warrant right, and processing the information. It's how prosecutors ensure that evidence is NOT thrown out of court.
And no, they can't just use the information for new warrants. That's why it's a last resort, because any lead from that (for crimes unrelated to the warrant) is burned whether or not they could find it independently.
Parkinson's law is the adage that "work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion". It is sometimes applied to the growth of bureaucracy in an organization.
WP, you're wrong.
ABC News reports that the deep state FBI wire tapped President Trump conversations with his Attorney Cohen.
It doesn't even make sense, does it, that a Judge should recuse himself if he was friends with Democrats while an accused work for Republicans. He should in that case recuse himself if he was friends with Republicans when an accused worked for Republicans. If sympathy for Democrats biased him against Cohen (for example), then sympathy for Republicans would bias him for Cohen. Friends of more extreme parties would, by those standards, bias him even more.
To answer the implied question.
Yes, a judge who is seen to be friendly with Republicans should recuse himself when the person involved is someone who is known to be Republican or involved with high level Republicans.
Just as I would expect the particular Judge in question to have recused herself if the case involved Hillary Clinton (who she was rumored to be up for a political appointment).
Either way... a Judge should stay out of politics in either their personal or professional lives. Once they cross that line into being well known advocates for either Party, they should recuse themselves from judging cases that involve any well known politician or someone known to be associated with them.
Why are you even arguing this?
It seems like basic common sense.
Blogger KD said... WP, you're wrong.
It wouldn't be the first time. But I'm pretty confident with everything in this thread, other than my exaggeration that "perception has no part" in a judge's recusal. It does play some part, just not to the degree that he has to be acceptable to partisan idiots.
What am I wrong about?
Again, WP...
Rosenstein didn't argue that it was a criminal case:
“In my capacity as acting Attorney General, I determined that it is in the public interest for me to exercise my authority and appoint a Special Counsel to assume responsibility for this matter,” said Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein. “My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination. What I have determined is that based upon the unique circumstances, the public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree of independence from the normal chain of command.”
This was a non-criminal case that was turned over to special counsel because of what Rosenstein himself suggested was a unique set of circumstances.
Why do you keep arguing something that Rosenstein himself never argued?
Had Rosenstein suggested that the former counter-intelligence probe had become a criminal probe (in his opinion), listed the alleged or potential crimes that were going to be investigated, then that would have fallen under what you continue to argue (which is that Rosenstein had the authority to make the call that it had become criminal).
But Rosenstein himself admitted in his appointment that it was not on the basis any sort of criminal referral. It was "special circumstances".
That was outside the boundaries of the law according to many many legal experts.
Why are you even arguing this?
Because you are injecting politics into the jurisprudence. You are assuming a failure of integrity, a bias, simply by social association without even requiring any tangible reason. It's the opposite of the philosophy behind a judge's self-recusal, and would be abusive if it were the reason for a forced recusal.
Even when our Supreme Court takes up the question of Judges recusing, it's not so simple as even where the Judge's sympathies lie. Judges are human beings, and like any other human being will have social connections and philosophies which some people will think may influence a particular case. We do not, and should not consider, recusing Judges on that basis.
I will always argue against that sort of thing, Republican or Democrat.
Why do you keep arguing something that Rosenstein himself never argued?
He didn't say there that there was not a criminal probe. That happens to be a public statement, not something that you'd expect to explain in minute detail every consideration that factors into his decision making.
You're making a presumption because the Appointment referenced something that Comey once described as counter-intelligence. And if I recall correctly, the document also referenced criminal investigation separately.
For one, IF an in proper warren affidavit leads to an issued search warren and the collection of seized items. They are not "is burned whether or not they could find it independently.".
You are assuming a failure of integrity, a bias, simply by social association without even requiring any tangible reason.
Perhaps there was a time when a Judge who was involved personally in politics would believed by most to be fair when judging cases involving people within politics... but 2018 is not that time.
There is absolutely no reason to not err on the side of caution here. You have not given any real reasons why it wouldn't be better to have a Judge that is not a well known political advocate.
Simply wrong.
Aren't you getting it yet, CS, that the so-called "taint team" protects the 4th Amendment rights? It's not a defect of warrants.
That is about the most bizarre Orwellian logic I've ever heard.
The right to be secured in your person and possessions from government intrusion is dependent on a group of government agents reviewing the evidence seized.
Madison would be agast.
And if I recall correctly, the document also referenced criminal investigation separately.
Nope. You recall incorrectly. There was never any criminal investigation referenced. Because a criminal investigation would require that there was a crime actually being investigated.
Rosenstein clearly stated in his appointment documentation that no such finding of a crime (therefor no such criminal investigation) existed.
You do understand, that this why many people (such as Andrew McCarthy) take issue with the appointment. It's not like they were uninformed, or not capable of understanding the appointment. It's not like they didn't read page 2 or have a complete lack of understanding of what Rosenstein wrote.
It's that it was specifically an appointment that was made without any sort of criminal referral.
The Lost Years low life.
Obama burns Trump on 'Jimmy Kimmel Live': 'At least I'll go down as a president'
Bryan Logan Oct 24, 2016, 11:52 PM ET
WP is a member of #Resist.
Spot on;
"That is about the most bizarre Orwellian logic I've ever heard.
The right to be secured in your person and possessions from government intrusion is dependent on a group of government agents reviewing the evidence seized.
Madison would be agast."
"Blogger KD said...
For one, IF an in proper warren affidavit leads to an issued search warren and the collection of seized items. They are not "is burned whether or not they could find it independently."."
I'm not certain how that unpacks, but IF you're saying what I think you are, suppose for the sake of argument:
Agent looks at Cohen's email, with some random client. Say, the email has a name, something about "the cash" and a bank account. It's privileged because it's a client asking legal advice. So the agent checks it out on a hunch, given the date and account, gets a warrant from the bank, tracks down some money laundering scheme. But he can't use any of that in court! Cohen just has to produce the email, and the second warrant is "poisoned fruit" because it came about from that privileged communication. It's all thrown out, and the perp walks. Any lead that plausibly derives from those privileged communications, is handled the same way.
And that's if the agent hides the original source. If he tries to use that information to get his second warrant, he may get the warrant all right but the warrant itself would be instant proof that anything coming from that second warrant is inadmissible. You could try some tricks like in TV shows, but the chances are that the FBI agent would screw it up and the defense lawyer would see right through it. The FBI can't use any of that for investigative leads, and they're far better off not even knowing about them.
Nope. You recall incorrectly. There was never any criminal investigation referenced
Did it not say something like "an any crimes arising from investigation?" I'm certain that it did.
such finding of a crime (therefor no such criminal investigation) existed.
Eh? Don't you generally have an investigation BEFORE a finding of a crime? Sure, a bank is robbed or someone is murdered you definitely see a crime first, but other crimes, such as conspiracy with the Russians for instance ... I think it's first "investigate" and then "finding" a crime.
WP. Your wrong. I don't argue. I inform.
If you think it's "Orwellian logic" that the taint team protects the clients' 4th amendment rights, then what do you think of how the Court saw it:
"Grady’s Affidavit also contained several pages on search protocol. Most notably, the Affidavit provided for a “taint team” procedure to protect information covered by the attorney-client privilege. This procedure provided that the search would be conducted by a “privilege search team” that consisted of law enforcement agents who had no previous involvement in the underlying investigation. "
Is that not exactly what I told you?
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-gamd-5_08-cr-00040/pdf/USCOURTS-gamd-5_08-cr-00040-10.pdf
Don't you generally have an investigation BEFORE a finding of a crime?
i suppose it depends upon which precedent is being followed. in all fairness i would've at least expect cohen to be afforded all of the luxuries of cheryl mills in the clinton non investigation. wishful thinking i know, considering the seperate set of laws that govern all things clinton.
just noting the glaring, staggering level of hypocrisy is all.
I don't argue. I inform.
Now that is the funniest thing you ever have posted, numb nutz......Almost as funny as hannity getting caught!!! Too bad faux has as much integrity as trump and will not do anything.....but you will watch him lie and cheat with wild abandon....LOL
wp, you're operating from the principle that the taint team is there to protect the 4th amendment rights of cohen and trump. and under normal circumstances with investigators that can be trusted, i would agree.
but we're talking about mueller and his merry band of scoundrels, none of which can be trusted as far as i can throw a fucking school bus. so in this case, the taint team is operating under the guise of propriety, all the while gleaning every snippet of harmful info they can, whether they're legally entitled to it and whether it's relevant or not.
once you've accepted the simple fact that mueller et. al. is corrupt, none of the standard legal practices, procedures, or protections apply. the coup remains underway, and there's nothing much to stop it as long as sessions remains the AG.
Did it not say something like "an any crimes arising from investigation?" I'm certain that it did.
Ahhh... They must have all missed that.
I guess they were wrong. The Criminal portion of the investigation was specifically "any crime", huh?
Yeah. Good one.
Is that not exactly what I told you?
You didn't mention that they seized evidence outside the scope of the warrant.
Which was why a taint team was necessary.
Trump wins and Temporary loss.
Win, his Appointment Ruled using the US Constitution and put to rest that Gorsuch was a "Rubber stamp " vote.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said Tuesday that part of a federal law that makes it easier to deport immigrants who have been convicted of crimes is too vague to be enforced.
The court's 5-4 decision — an unusual alignment in which new Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the four liberal justices — concerns a catchall provision of immigration law that defines what makes a crime violent. Conviction for a crime of violence makes deportation "a virtual certainty" for an immigrant, no matter how long he has lived in the United States, Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her opinion for the court.
WP...
The Justice Department was investigating the White Water situation as a criminal investigation. There was existing evidence of criminal behavior. They referred it to special counsel once it became clear that Hillary (and possibly Bill) had a hand in the mess. A criminal investigation that involved the first lady and possibly the President warranted a special prosecutor.
The Plame investigation arose specifically to investigate the fact that the identify of Valarie Plame was leaked. The potential of that leak being both a criminal act, and almost assuredly coming from the Bush Administration, suggested that a conflict of interest warranted a special counsel.
Those were specific criminal investigations where criminal actions could be cited. Existing laws were known (or thought in the case of Plame) in all of these cases to be broken. The suspects were political in nature.
The only criminal action really ever alleged from the 2016 election involved the actions of the Russians. But we pretty much never charge foreigners with criminal acts for that sort of meddling. There was a counterintelligence investigation to see how broad the Russian scope was and if there were Americans involved. But technically neither the President or anyone within his administration were ever actually suspected of any crime. There was never a criminal investigation. There is no conflict of interest if you are going after the Russians (who are and probably will be the only ones charged with a crime over the 2016 election).
Had the FBI eventually uncovered real evidence of criminal behavior by someone within the Trump administration, and it it was something to be pursed by the DOJ, then at that point in time, a Special Counsel may have been warranted to actually follow up, finish the investigation, and make determinations and recommendations about prosecution.
I am sorry that you are too stubborn to see the difference.
#Hillary'sResist butt baby is Now an Adult, in age only.
David Hogg calls for boycotts of Blackrock, Vanguard Group.
The Vanguard Group/Assets under management
5.1 trillion USD
January 31, 2018
BlackRock/Assets under management
6.288 trillion USD
2017
Ok Hogg, let's see how this goes. 😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😂😂😁😁😁😁😂😂😂😂😂😂😉😂😃😃😃😃😃😃😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😆😆😆😆😆😅😅😅😆😅😆😅😆😅😆😅😆😑😕😑😆😆
More to the point, even if there can be argued that there is a criminal investigation (which it cannot at this point)... there is a separation of responsibilities.
The FBI investigates. When it finds what they believe is a crime, it turns that information over the Dept of Justice, who then in turns decides whether or not to prosecute, and turns that information into a legal case.
Obviously the prosecutor would also talk to witnesses, do some of their own investigation... but their main focus is to use the investigation information provided to them to build a case.
Generally, at the point of law enforcement providing a criminal recommendation to the DOJ, that is where an Attorney General would decide if the DOJ can honestly prosecute the case, or if it should be independently turned over to a Independent Counsel, Special Counsel, or Special Prosecutor (whatever the jargon is at the time).
They don't call them special investigators, because their job isn't generally to investigate to see if crimes exist. They call them special counsel or special prosecutors, because that is what they are. They are the people who step in once the investigators have found probable cause to bring a criminal case or determine that a criminal case is warranted. They know there is a crime that took place (or are reasonably certain). There are probably key suspects (or even one suspect). They just need to tie the thing together and build a case.
The Rosenstein appointment provides no criminal referral. No crime. No criminal suspects (at least not anyone who can be prosecuted). He appointed a former prosecutor who (other than heading the FBI in the administrative scope of director) was never an investigator. Mueller filled his entire team with prosecutors (not investigators). While all of this would be normal, if there was a criminal complaint, and we were looking to determine who to prosecute. But there is no such criminal complaint...
Which is exactly why we have indictments for years old transgressions, indictment of Russians taken from a Magazine article, and a bunch of process crimes (affiliated with the FBI investigation - not his own probe). Mueller is not so much "investigating" as he is looking for reasons to bring whatever charges he can against whatever people he can. Even when the FBI never recommended charges in the first place (which is the case with Papadopolous, Flynn, Manafort, and Gates).
A real First Lady, Barbara Bush has left us to take her place with God.
You're just making a semantic argument, since the Russian governments effort to interfere is enough of a criminal investigation as far as the rest of the country is concerned, including the Attorney General himself. And as much as you don't want to admit it, links and coordination with individuals of the Trump campaign is a reference to potential crimes.
Counsel vs Investigator vs Prosecutor, again you're picking nits. The Special Counsel is investigating (obviously). He is investigating crimes, they are investigating whether other crimes exist. It's specified in the Order appointing him for pete's sake.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4343433-Justice-Department-order-appointing-Mueller-and.html
There was no interference.
"Obama says he personally warned Putin to 'cut it out' over election hacking"
He did it with his pen, phone, red line and reset button.
What happned?
"“So in early September when I saw president Putin in China, I felt that the most effective way to ensure that that didn't happen was to talk to him directly and tell him to cut it out and there were going to be serious consequences if he didn't. And in fact, we did not see further tampering of the election ." The Lost Years
Hillary/Stien attempted and failed to win in the Electoral College. Even got Hollywood involved.
"credible intelligence reports suggest a concerted effort by a foreign power to interfere in the outcome" of the election, Mr Beyer said on twitter.
CELEBRITIES MAKE VIDEO URGING ELECTORAL COLLEGE NOT TO VOTE TRUMP
You're just making a semantic argument, since the Russian governments effort to interfere is enough of a criminal investigation
Of course, if the Russians were the suspects, then there was no conflict of interest. But hey, why quibble with the facts?
Bottom line: It was an appointment of special counsel without a criminal referral. It was unprecedented and not within guidelines. Rosenstein (in his own appointment letter) acknowledged that the appointment was due to "special circumstances".
While I appreciate your valiant head in the sand argument, I think it's run it's course.
It's specified in the Order appointing him for pete's sake.
which is the root of the matter. the order is overly broad, vague and not specific. that's been my issue with it all along, and the complaint of many other respected individuals in the legal community. this order effectively gives mueller authority to investigate trump al the way back to the day he emerged from his mother's womb. ridiculous on its face, and to me constitutionally questionable. imagine someone from the DOJ popping up in your life one day with the intent of going day by day all the way back to your birth. investigating each and every move you ever made, with out end, and in search of no specific crime, but just a sort of umbrella investigation into the existence of wp hamilton. is there an unpaid parking ticket in your past? a dispute with some entity in which you may have been at fault? have you jaywalked? was it caught on surveillance camera? were you ever late in paying a fee, tax, surcharge or debt to a government entity from the hamlet/village level all the way up to the federal level?
the answer to all of these questions is most likely no, but it will take an extensive, lengthy, and intrusive investigation to find this out. perhaps the authorities are willing to devote a decade or more to the effort. oh, and by the way, there is no specific crime that's being investigated here wp. we're just performing a level of law enforcement due diligence to ensure that you are not a law breaker, threat, or menace to the public at large, and to seek punishment for any crimes committed over the course of your life. all on order of the DOJ AG. you know - regarding any "matters that may arise."
oh, and one other thing...
those assigned to this effort will possess an inherent and overt bias towards you and your family with regards to your politics and any other positions and opinions you may hold on anything.
Of course, if the Russians were the suspects, then there was no conflict of interest. But hey, why quibble with the facts?
Facts like the indictments for identity theft, fraud and financial crimes? But those aren't "crimes" in your idea of the facts, and Mueller didn't investigate any of those crimes in your world.
NO one other than you, including the original source of your argument, takes it seriously. It's a non-starter, literally, because it's not even supported by the statute. And even if it were, your argument that Mueller wasn't tasked with investigating any crimes is ludicrous.
Your second swing at it here failed as badly as your first did.
Blogger rrb said...
It's specified in the Order appointing him for pete's sake.
which is the root of the matter. the order is overly broad, vague and not specific. that's been my issue with it all along,
That's the problem with all Special Investigations. But Coldheart thinks that it is illegal, because he doesn't think the Order allows Mueller to investigate crimes.
rrb -"investigating each and every move you ever made, with out end, and in search of no specific crime, but just a sort of umbrella investigation into the existence of wp hamilton. is there an unpaid parking ticket in your past? a dispute with some entity in which you may have been at fault? have you jaywalked?"
Believe me, civil attorneys hire people to do that. The problem with the people around Trump isn't that someone is scrutinizing their past, it's that there's so much to find. You should be holding Trump accountable for it. He needed to do a better job of vetting people.
But Coldheart thinks that it is illegal, because he doesn't think the Order allows Mueller to investigate crimes.
no, he (and i) disagree with the order because it does not specify a crime. previous special prosecutor investigations have always specified a suspected crime or area of potential criminal activity and concern.
this basically says - "turn over every single aspect of trump's life since the day he was born in search of something, anything, that we can nail him on, no matter how long it takes" "oh yeah... because RUSSIA."
so forgive us for calling this what it really is - a (now) overt coup attempt.
the ultimate irony here is that what is being done to this administration, and HOW it's being done is bordering on the criminal. and anyone who's familiar with mueller's actual record knows the facts mean nothing to him. only the conviction does, facts be damned.
like i've said earlier, this most likely results in multi-million dollar payouts to all who have been unfairly railroaded. just like the infamous anthrax case that cost us taxpayers $5.8M.
WP...
I didn't say the Russians didn't possibly commit crimes.
I stated that if your argument is that the known crimes were by Russians, then there was no conflict of interest for the FBI to have continued to investigate it. Not unless the Peter Stzrok and Linda Page were Russians?
Perhaps you can explain to us why it would be of any use at all to pull the investigation of Russian influence on our election... out of the hands of the FBI (and those conducting a counter intelligence probe) and into the hands of career prosecutors?
Who of course, have uncovered zero at this point. Only copying magazine articles into indictments, reopening old FBI cases, and prosecuting process crimes.
The problem with the people around Trump isn't that someone is scrutinizing their past, it's that there's so much to find. You should be holding Trump accountable for it.
alrighty then. let's work forward from your newly established precedent. starting with the next changed of administrations a special prosecutor will be assigned to investigate the incoming administration. this investigation will be so broadly defined as to have no legal boundaries. nothing is off limits, and no potential crime will be defined.
we'll make this special prosecutor appointment a part of the presidential inauguration ceremony, to be introduced upon the dais. perhaps we'll even give the SP a speech, warning the incoming administration of the process that is about to begin. we'll use orwell's 'newspeak dictionary.' that should be quite fitting.
i like this idea of your, wp. especially during those times when the shoe will be on the democrat foot.
oh what fun we'll have!
Perhaps you can explain to us why it would be of any use at all to pull the investigation of Russian influence on our election...out of the hands of the FBI (and those conducting a counter intelligence probe) and into the hands of career prosecutors?
Sessions knew that he was a possible witness or person of interest. Secondly, the investigation involved members of the Trump cabinet, and the Trump campaign. Therefore, an independent special investigation was merited.
And we should note, that in spite of the independent nature of the investigation it still operates under the command structure of the Justice Department.
alrighty then. let's work forward from your newly established precedent. starting with the next changed of administrations a special prosecutor will be assigned to investigate the incoming administration. this investigation will be so broadly defined as to have no legal boundaries. nothing is off limits, and no potential crime will be defined.
That's called vetting (minus the hyperbole) and it's standard operating procedure for incoming Administrations, before they put these people in positions of power.
we'll make this special prosecutor appointment a part of the presidential inauguration ceremony,
Why? Just keep the old one empowered and give them a broader scope. The next President will not be as likely to hire con artists, foreign agents and crooks.
anyone who's familiar with mueller's actual record knows the facts mean nothing to him. only the conviction does, facts be damned.
I've been sounding the clarion call on that since the time he was appointed, and "who the heck is Mueller" was my first question. It doesn't take much to reach that conclusion.
It doesn't mean he won't dig up the facts - he already has, a lot of them. It's up to Congress to decide what to do with his practically inevitable allegation of obstruction.
WP...
You keep contradicting yourself.
- If it was the Russians who committed the crimes, then there is no conflict with the FBI continuing their counter-intelligence probe.
- If the conflict of interest was the Trump campaign, then there was no allegation of (much less evidence of) any sort crime.
If you were honest, you would admit that the best way to get to the bottom of what happened in the 2016 election was to let the counterintelligence probe continue, with the people within the FBI (trained to investigate foreign agents) running the show.
If you were honest, you would admit that a team of Prosecutors (headed by Robert Mueller) have little interest in answering those questions. You would admit that their interest will be in little more than prosecuting people (even if those crimes have nothing to do with Russia or the 2016 election).
It doesn't mean he won't dig up the facts - he already has, a lot of them.
Just like what Adam Schiff provided us with his rebuttal of the House intelligence report? You know, a bunch of stuff I could look up on the internet?
So far, we have not learned "anything" new from any of the Mueller actions. Manafort and Gates has been previously investigated. The process crimes were all from the original FBI investigation. The Russian indictments was public knowledge from a magazine expose.
I don't see that as a contradiction. If you insist on a "criminal" investigation in the immediate scope of the Order, the Russian indictments satisfy that. Those were crimes, within the scope, investigated and charged as part of the "counter-intelligence" investigation. It proves that it was also a criminal investigation.
The Order is specific that Trump associated individuals are also being investigated. That's a conflict of interest, even if some of Trump's associates are not Russians.
Aside from the very real conflict of interest issue there is the political one for Trump. Given that Trump, his campaign, and political operatives had been criticizing the FBI for whitewashing an investigation of Clinton (past Obama cabinet member), they couldn't very well trust the FBI to honestly investigate Trump cabinet members. Either way it turned out, it would not be trusted. Trump's men in the DOJ felt that it would be in Trump's interest to have an independent unit investigate and presumably clear him.
So far, we have not learned "anything" new from any of the Mueller actions.
You already knew about the foreign agents, tax fraud, money laundering, all those lies etc ... and you didn't care?
Manafort and Gates had been previously investigated (I believe twice) by the FBI over these issues. All of the bank transfers are automatically reported. The fact that the FBI never brought indictments, suggests that the case is not a slam dunk (as many of you assume).
As far as if it matters? Probably not. Neither Manafort or Gates are part of the administration. Both played either short or unimportant roles in the campaign.
Either way, WP... Gates has already been pretty much cleared of most of the charges. He plead guilty of a process charge and low level catch all "conspiracy" charge. Manafort is standing his ground and going to trial. We have no idea how strong Mueller's case is there. But we do know it was neither strong enough for the FBI to being charges, or to take Gates to task.
If you are justifying pretty much "ending" an FBI counterintelligence probe into Russian involvement... in order to find out about old actions of two short lived campaign aids of Trump...
I'd argue that your priorities are out of whack.
A "guilty" plea is not being cleared, CH. It pretty much IS a "slam dunk". Even with a plea deal, that doesn't clear him.
I don't think you can draw any conclusions from Manafort not being charged earlier either. For one thing, the tax fraud and money laundering charges required an addition IRS investigation, which takes months in itself.
Why do you say that Manafort had a short or unimportant role? He was Trump's campaign chairman and chief strategist in 2016. He was in operational control since April 7, according to the original campaign manager. He directed the Republican National Convention. It was neither unimportant nor short-term.
WP...
Manfort started working for Trump in June 2016.
He was fired in August of 2016.
I'd say that qualifies as "short".
Either way, I couldn't really care less what he was doing in Ukraine prior to joining the Trump campaign. Not sure why it matters to you? Certainly doesn't justify a Special Counsel.
Naw, if Manafort was working with money laundering Russian bankers who answer to Putin, that's not important. Who cares what he did for a corrupt murderous despot in Zaire either? Pfft, trivial. All of his relations with Russian oligarchs, why should we care? It's not like the Special Counsel was investigating Russian connections with the Russians who interfered in the election or anything, right?
After all, he was only in control of the campaign and the Republican Convention, unimportant duties where his business with corrupt Russians shouldn't matter. I get it.
WP....
Do you honestly believe "everything" you are told?
What, we're defending the military dictator of Zaire now? OK I can play along with that. He's just proving law and order, doing what he has to in his civic duty. And no Liberals allowed, so he's got that going for him.
And Russian oligarchs, well just like Manafort is cleared - of everything - because the FBI hadn't charged him earlier, it stands to reason that those oligarch guys have all been cleared because Putin's FSB hasn't charged them yet. Or just killed them, as happens ... the fact that they're still alive proves their innocence. Of everything.
How's that CH, showing that I don't "believe *everything* I'm told"? Is that good enough denial of reality, or do I need to call it fake news or fake facts or something?
"I'd say that qualifies as "short"."
LOL, since the entire campaign from April 7 through the National Convention is, to you, "short" and "unimportant" I guess it follows, for you, that anyone who worked in Trump's campaign at all had a "short-term" position. And since Campaign Manager and chief strategist is, to you, "unimportant", it also follows that anyone subordinate to him (ie, everyone in the campaign) has an even MORE "unimportant" position.
I like how that works Coldheart. It means that no matter what anyone might find out, about anyone in Trump's campaign, you can dismiss it as a "short term and unimportant" worker, who didn't really have anything to do with Trump. Nice :)
Sure, WP...
We are defending the military dictator of Zaire. That's what we are doing here. As if the military dictator of Zaier is relevant and must be defended.
I just find it very amusing that people like the lobbyist/attorney who met with Trump Jr was said to have "strong ties to the Kremlin" because her and her firm once defended a client who's father was a local transportation minister in Moscow (who may or may not have even met Putin).
I find it equally amusing that so many of you are so quick to fall into line with the media rhetoric. It's as if you lost the ability to take any cynical view whatsoever.
The fact is that Manafort worked with Ukrainians, not Russians. The fact that the media states that the people he worked with are "pro-Russian" does not make them Russian, and does not mean they work for Putin. It certainly does not draw old consulting fees between Manafort and Ukranians any closer to the 2016 election.
The fact that you allow yourself to follow this seven degrees of separation argument to justify this as part of the Russia/election probe is comical.
That's called vetting (minus the hyperbole) and it's standard operating procedure for incoming Administrations, before they put these people in positions of power.
correct. and this administration passed. but in the case of trump you've introduced a new precedent, one that should become a tradition with all future incoming administrations. every administrations in my lifetime has had its share of shady characters, especially nixon and clinton, where we should require a special prosecutor to shadow the administration for its duration. and if the opportunity to overthrow the administration presents itself, it should be taken. think of it as a perpetual "resistance."
The fact that you allow yourself to follow this seven degrees of separation argument to justify this as part of the Russia/election probe is comical.
indeed. this is the kind of shit i used to hear on 'air america' or al gore's 'current tv.'
If I knew so little about Manafort that I thought that his campaign gig in Ukraine was the extent of his business with Russian oligarchs, I might be chuckling also. But probably not ... I'd probably do a quick bit of research before making a mistake like that ...
How many "degrees of separation" is getting sued by Oleg Deripaska over Manafort's failure in a business deal? Coldheart? RRB? want to take a swing at that?
How much of this can you take, before you realize that you actually have to know something about the topic before posting your condescending conclusions?
Let me short-cut the entire sequence to save time. Without even googling it, you'll say:
Coldheart: "What's the point, some business transaction from ancient history, with some random Russian businessman and nothing to do with Putin, is just another of your strawman arguments."
RRB: "yeh, he's just trolling again"
WP, "Um, the business was to promote the Russian government interest worldwide ..."
Coldheart: "yeah sure, that's not illegal is it? And the Russian Government is a lot of people, not just Putin you dolt. Besides, you STILL haven't proven that it's an "oligarch".
RRB: "Sad isn't it, WP is resorting to semantics again".
WP: "CH, Isn't Putin's inner circle close enough? And as a billionare government official, why do you care if I call Deripaska an oligarch or not?"
RRB: "look at him nit-pick with semantics now."
CH: "Whatever, no one was arguing that Manafort didn't work with Russians. That was before Trump's campaign started anyway."
WP: then why did you say "The fact is that Manafort worked with Ukrainians, not Russians" and mock my naivete for "believing everything in the media" and dismiss it as "seven degrees of freedom" if no one is arguing it?
CH: That's just ancient history, and Manafort was never charged anyway, so what's your point?
RRB: Don't be ridiculous. Trump's people were all vetted just like anyone else would do, but YOU want to put their ENTIRE past under a microscope.
And then, on to the next one. Or sidestep once again that Mueller didn't have a criminal investigation and wasn't authorized for one, which "all legal experts agree" with. And he hasn't found anything yet that CH didn't know about anyway.
It's as if WP forgot about all of the back and forth that took place regarding whether or not Manafort was going to "turn" on Trump and give up all that information he had about collusion to avoid prosecution.
Back when it took place it was a great tactic on Mueller's part to squeeze Manafort with an old potential criminal action... in order to get him to provide information. In line with past Mueller action.
Now that this particular ship has sailed, and it's clear Manafort never had information (probably because there was no collusion for him to know about)... we are being told that there must be some sort of connection between the Ukranian business dealings going back a decade or so, and the 2016 election.
A sucker is born every minute.
Right on cue, he sidesteps into saying that Mueller's got nothing on Manafort, who's got nothing on Trump. But since you doubled down I'll say this:
If I knew so little about Manafort, that I thought that his campaign gig in Ukraine was the extent of his business with Russian oligarchs, and someone showed me wrong,
AND EVEN THEN I still knew so little about Manafort that I thought the Ukraine gig and the Deripaska were the extent of his business with Russian oligarchs, I too might chuckle "A sucker is born every minute."
But probably not ... once burned, I'd probably do another quicky research before making another mistake like that ...
Maybe I should template this post, to make it easier every time you make that mistake.
I am sorry, WP...
What again is Manafort being charged with?
I thought it was from payment transfers from work he did with Ukrainian companies and political Parties, and the fact he didn't register as a foreign agent? Was there something in that indictment I missed that had to do with Russian oligarchs?
And WP...
We don't know what sort of case Mueller has on Manafort. You keep calling Manafort a criminal because you assume he will be found guilty. He might be, but we don't know.
What we do know is that this is not unknown information to the FBI, and the FBI did not (previously) indict Manafort. Perhaps they found more information, or perhaps Mueller decided to indict for what the FBI didn't.
I would also suggest if the case was such a slam dunk, that they would have no reason to plea the Gates charges down to where they did. They would have had them both dead to rights.
That's the whole point Coldheart, that's the bar that you're setting now. The Gold Standard for the President's associates, are they in jail yet? Have they been charged? Are those felonies "serious" enough?
You don't care. Take a look at what you're portraying. You channel the comic book villain cackling "Where is your PROOF". A guy makes a fortune helping some of the worlds worst people, and your excuse is "that was decades ago." His Russian business associates, who most of us in the West consider to be evil, corrupt men who prosper by repression, well that's just his business you say. Clandestinely an agent of a foreign power, while controlling an American election, just a "process crime" you say. And that's not the half of it. Literally, not even half. It is, frankly, disgusting.
Al Capone should have been running FDR's campaigns. I'll bet his groupies would have talked about "process crimes" and how he was "cleared" because the Feds had investigated him, and were only charging tax evasion.
We don't know what sort of case Mueller has on Manafort. You keep calling Manafort a criminal because you assume he will be found guilty. He might be, but we don't know.
I don't know if you're deliberately lying there, are just having a hard time remembering things. Do a keyword search in this thread: I didn't even write his name until you'd brought it up 6 or 7 times already. You're obsessed with the man. I didn't get into Manafort until YOU wanted to make some insane rationalizations that he must be innocent of everything, because his felony charges didn't seem to you to be very serious or topical.
Seriously, unless someone's trying hard to convince themselves that "move along, nothing to see here", no one is going to accept that nonsense. But you insisted that you want to argue about it.
What I DID say was "I don't think you can draw any conclusions from Manafort not being charged earlier either." Is that calling him a criminal CH? Really?
GATES pleads guilty. That makes him guilty CH. It IS "a slam dunk". It doesn't "clear" him of the other charges.
How many "degrees of separation" is getting sued by Oleg Deripaska over Manafort's failure in a business deal? Coldheart? RRB? want to take a swing at that?
to paraphrase felonia von pantsuit - "what difference at this point does it make???"
wp, it could be two degrees, it could be two hundred, it could be two thousand....
in any case mueller is going to pursue it ad nauseum. everything else he's pursued has come up empty, has resulted in some worthless indictments, or has resulted in process crimes any respectable prosecutor would be embarrassed to pursue.
my remaining interest in this cluster is in how and when it all ends. at what point does a sane, rational person stand up and tell everyone to fucking knock it off?
you're obviously entertained by the theatre of the absurd. me, not so much.
to paraphrase felonia von pantsuit - "what difference at this point does it make???" wp, it could be two degrees, ...
Well that's a lot easier that saying "Yeah I was wrong WP, I didn't know that Manafort was doing business with actual Russian oligarchs in Putin's inner circle, to advance Putin's interests elsewhere in the world".
you're obviously entertained by the theatre of the absurd. me, not so much.
Yeah, that's true and the arguments I'm facing in this thread are peak performance. Very entertaining.
GATES pleads guilty.
yeah, to "conspiracy" (heh) and lying to the FBI. ooohhh. if the guy does any time at all it's in a minimum security country club and he emerges a marginally better racquetball player.
wow.
I didn't know that Manafort was doing business with actual Russian oligarchs in Putin's inner circle, to advance Putin's interests elsewhere in the world".
and neither do you. i give you credit for having a much more vivid imagination than i do though.
you really should follow in trump's footsteps and write a book -
"the art of the troll"
you're good.
I already wrote that script RRB in the post 5 or 6 back. You don't have to follow it word for word.
I didn't know that Manafort was doing business with actual Russian oligarchs in Putin's inner circle
Well if it says so on the internet, then it must be true.
A guy makes a fortune helping some of the worlds worst people, and your excuse is "that was decades ago." His Russian business associates, who most of us in the West consider to be evil, corrupt men who prosper by repression, well that's just his business you say. Clandestinely an agent of a foreign power, while controlling an American election, just a "process crime" you say. And that's not the half of it. Literally, not even half. It is, frankly, disgusting.
Wow... reading a lot so spy novels, lately? Manafort is being charged with white collar business relate paperwork and tax crimes. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Here is my question, WP.
How do we get from discussing the legitimacy of Special Counsel supposed to be investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 elections, to you having a complete cow over internet rumors regarding some associates of associates of associates of Donald Trump being bad people... and then getting angry at Rat and I because we don't agree that it's the end of the world?
Seriously?
You've become Roger, with better writing skills.
Well if it says so on the internet, then it must be true.
indeed. the only thing i have not yet seen on the internet is when this galactic clusterfuck of a waste of time and $$$$$$$$$$$$ is going to end.
there needs to be some sort of a statute of absurdity that governs these fishing expeditions/witch hunts.
how much would anyone like to bet that this ends abruptly if the dems take back the house?
How do we get from discussing the legitimacy of Special Counsel supposed to be investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 elections, to you having a complete cow over internet rumors regarding some associates of associates of associates of Donald Trump being bad people..
Simple: you keep bringing up Manafort in a discussion about Cohen, until someone answers you.
As for "angry", I become "annoyed" when you end every post with a personal disparagement. Especially when the post was nonsensical. I'd read KD's posts if that sort of thing interested me.
Simple: you keep bringing up Manafort in a discussion about Cohen
I brought up Manafort only as it pertained to him also being raided in a similar fashion to Cohen. I certainly didn't bring the realm of this conversation into allegations that he is part of Putin's inner circle and involved with corrupt evil men who prosper by repression.
wp, give it a rest. while i'm sure you don't truly deserve a personal disparagement as we do try to be civil with you, the way you're clinging to this whole charade can be exasperating. like i said above - this thing ends abruptly if the dems take back the house. and then we move swiftly to impeachment proceedings with absolutely no regard for any high crimes or misdemeanors. this is a coup and trump must be removed.
what i'm specifically getting tired of is how you consistently insult the intelligence of anyone who hasn't fallen for this fraud - hook, line and sinker. perhaps your dedication to the resistance has made you just gullible enough to fall for what's transpired as reported by trump's detractors in the press.
me? my cynicism and distrust of our democrats with bylines - otherwise known as the media, has left me calling bullshit on the whole mess. couple that with the fact that mueller is an asshole not to be trusted based upon his deplorable track record and i guess you can tell why i don't share your enthusiasm for how this thing has transpired.
Control-F, "Manafort" and check it yourself. You harped on it half a dozen times before I told you, simply and without any heat at all, that you can't draw any conclusions from him not being charged earlier.
You then demanded to know why it matters what he was doing before, and I told you. It was your question, at your insistence. You didn't like the answer, because you actually didn't know Manafort's history. It's all on you, Coldheart.
what i'm specifically getting tired of is how you consistently insult the intelligence of anyone who hasn't fallen for this fraud
I got a little insulting with you two here, but you've got to admit that it was humorous and you were practically asking me to do it. I don't guarantee that I'm a "safe" target, every time.
But seriously, check back and you'll see that I actually don't. I generally point out some contrary facts, in a way that seems so obvious that a person can feel insulted. I submit that there is a difference there, because a person who feels like that's an insult needs to re-examine his argument.
All of my "harping" was in response to your assertions that Mueller has "uncovered" all sorts of things in his investigation.
I pointed out (and continue to have to point out apparently) that all of the charges he has brought were from previously known activities. I also mentioned Papadopoulos, Flynn, and the 13 Russians as examples of indictment/charges that were brought for things that were previously known (prior to him being even appointed). It wasn't just Manafort.
You continue to argue that old charges regarding Ukrainian political/business interests are somehow associated with Putin, Evil Russians, etc... in spite of the fact that the indictment doesn't mention any "Russians" at all.
While I appreciate your ability to find all sorts of internet rumors regarding all of the nefarious actions that Manafort is engaged in (that he has not been charged with).... The fact is that the internet could accuse him of being the anti-Christ and it's really irrelevant to the investigation.
All that matters is what Manafort is legally accused of (not what the internet says he did). I would think you (of all people) would understand this? But apparently not.
All that matters is what Manafort is legally accused of (not what the internet says he did).
Are you sure you want to initiate a recursive re-entry to this? We would re-examine whether this really is "what the internet says" or is actual fact (it is), I will point out again that you're setting an absurdly low bar for the President's associates, and so on ...
I am sure it is much like how a attorney/lobbyist who once represented a person who's father was local transportation Minister in Moscow...
was repeated claimed by the media to have "close ties to the Kremlin".
I got a little insulting with you two here, but you've got to admit that it was humorous and you were practically asking me to do it. I don't guarantee that I'm a "safe" target, every time.
no, you misinterpret. your snide remarks are not insulting to my intelligence. it's your insistence that what we're witnessing is legitimate that's gotten old and tiresome. this entire investigation has been a fraud from day one. it's genesis was the desperate need for an excuse to explain the loss of the most sure 'sure thing' of the modern political era. it had to be russia. there's simply no way it could be that the democrats ran the shittiest candidate in the history of the republic.
so here we are, with mueller conducting a thinly veiled coup attempt with partisan hacks as his henchmen.
that's what's REALLY going on here.
was repeated claimed by the media to have "close ties to the Kremlin".
the author tom clancy had closer ties to the kremlin when he was alive.
That isn't something that you should feel legitimately insulted about, unless you're accepting that 2/3 of the American population are insulting your intelligence. That's over two thirds who are supporting the probe in general, and almost as many want it to look into Trump's businesses specifically. Of that remaining one third who don't support it, how many of them do you think are convinced it's an attempted coup because of the election?
I'd say a tiny percentage of that minority of people. If I were in those shoes, if I thought that everyone else were missing something that I could see, that seems so obvious, so insulting for them to deny, and I thought that it was because the propaganda and fake news was fooling everyone but me and a few like-minded folks, I'd be wanting to take a real hard look at that.
WP.
I didn't know that you accepted polling as a means to garner the truth? As someone who understands statistics... I think you understand that polling can absolutely be inaccurate, misleading, and many times it's so specifically by design. Give me a polling concept, and I can create questions to push a good portion of the sample to agree with the point I want them to see. Give me the opposite concept, and I can create questions to push that same sample to a different conclusion.
More to the point, even if we accepted that every poll was always correct.
What people want and what is legal and right are often two different things. Law enforcement just doesn't get to dig into someone's business (with out due cause) just because it happens to be popular.
You speak as if there is no media influence? Media influence is a well known psychological and sociological phenomenon. Ask yourself how you might view this if you had seen zero media coverage on the subject. All you knew were the facts. No opinion.
Do you believe that you would see this investigation as warranted considering:
1) The basis of the investigation (was a the tip from a high level losing candidate donor, and losing Party/Candidate opposition research)
2) Nearly two years into the probe and there has been no discovery of anything "new" related to the investigation into the election.
3) Three process crimes, and the reopen of an investigation of a previously dead FBI issue that has nothing to do with either the winning candidate or the election.
4) An indictment of foreign parties that will never be prosecuted, taken almost entirely from a Magazine article.
Tell me what you would find "objectively" as this being a good investigation... without assuming that you got your logical conclusion from reading a poll?
None of your four points are well supported by the facts, so your question is very much an academic one, but that said, I would find none of those points sufficient to disqualify the investigation. All of them together would not be sufficient to disqualify it.
It would be very possible that there was evidence to support an investigation regardless of what instigated it, regardless of whatever "new" material is discovered or what charges are currently indicted.
However, none of those claims are true.
All of these claims are fact.
1) Came from Congressional reports from the House Intelligence committee, who had access to the information from the FBI. Not disputed by anyone.
2) 18 people have been charged or indicted. None of them were indicted or charged based on any information that was otherwise not known or made publicly available (Russian indictments). That can be ascertained by reading the charges or the indictments.
3) All a matter of fact. There are three process crimes (Fact). The Manafort Ukraine situation has previously been investigated by the FBI (fact).
4) Unless you are arguing that these Russians will face prosecution. A fact.
Not sure how you claim differently, unless you are doing a John Cleese 5 minute argument imitation.
On the flip side... From what official sources are you getting your information on the allegations you make?
1) Is not even "claimed" by anyone except partisan hacks. Something that triggered an investigation is not elevated to the full basis of it, unless you are to put it bluntly, trying to lie to people.
2) Every indictment of a Trump associate relates in some way to the investigation, and there is certainly new evidence in those documents. You're arguing semantics: old "stale" crimes based on "old" evidence. It doesn't really work for you.
3) "Process crime" just refers to crimes committed to impede an investigation. Lying, destruction of evidence, witness tampering, that sort of thing. You seem to treat it as a sort of second-class crime, trivial. But be advised, if Trump faces impeachment charges they will likely be related to obstruction ... and you're going to be calling those "process crimes" and wondering what the big deal is.
4) Mueller didn't plagiarize a magazine article to indict the Russians LOL.
Post a Comment