Judge rejects Mueller's request for delay in Russian troll farm case
Not to bore you with details, but one of the Russian companies listed in the big Russian indictment is now represented by counsel, has plead not guilty, and asked for discovery.
In other words, they are demanding Special Counsel provide them with the evidence that they have against Concord Management. Of course, as a matter of trial law, Concord Management is entitled to see any actual evidence, and Special Counsel it required to provide it.
Special Counsel requested a delay. Judge says nope. Special Counsel will need to show their hand.
It's "almost" as of Special Counsel didn't actually believe that any of the defendants would accept the summons, and were caught flat footed when someone did. Considering that Concord Management is a Russian firm and that Mueller and gang probably had little recourse if they didn't respond to the summons, Concord Management must not believe that Special Counsel has much evidence. What other possible reason would there be for them to voluntarily step into court?
Worst case scenario for Special Counsel?
Would be a very very very embarrassing dismissal of the case due to lack of evidence.
117 comments:
Speaking of embarrassments, Rudy is saying that Trump would have had Cohen make payments to women other than Stormy if "necessary."
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile and admits it.
Former Clinton lawyer Lanny Davis suggested Sunday that newly-hired Trump personal attorney Rudy Giuliani should be dismissed, following his statements related to the Stormy Daniels scandal.
LOL. Just can't stay on topic.
All those STD's, Alcohol and drug abuse has taken a toll on old Rog.
Comey and Mueller like cockroaches can't handle the light of day.
Gee, I hope that the Russian troll farm company's lawyers can get counter-intelligence information in discovery from Mueller's team.
Wouldn't that be funny? Get all the sensitive information and then never show up, because they haven't really been served yet, and aren't going to step foot in the USA anyway ... easy win for Russian espionage, embarrass the counter-intelligence investigation, what's not to like about that, right CH?
Of course, as a matter of trial law, Concord Management is entitled to see any actual evidence, and Special Counsel it required to provide it.
Special Counsel requested a delay. Judge says nope. Special Counsel will need to show their hand."
Discovery is a great tool. Concord Management can, if they so choose to do so can release it all to the Public. IF, they release it in Russia, it will be see everywhere.
WP, spun out or control.
Ranting against the fair playing field of the Open And Free US Justice system.
WP, where you under the belief that those accused are not allowed to mount a public defense?
A true American hero, John McCain has said that President Trump is not invited to his funeral.
He's one of the few Republicans that haven't been turned into Trumpbliacans.
Lincoln is rolling in his grave
Roger Amick said...Lincoln is rolling in his grave
If Trump had said this Roger would be calling that another Trump lie.
ROFLMFAO !!!
Roger, off topic again, the STD"s, alchol and drug abuse are kicking your ass.
Did you read the topic on this thread, because you didn't the last one.
Lincoln is rolling in his grave"
Lol, roger, like hillary talks to dead famous ppl.
But hey, maybe I'm on your's and Coldheart's side and I'm hoping for a cheap victory for the Russians who attacked our election.
What a great tool, if it works! An off-shore corporation, break some laws, get indicted, refuse process service and hire a lawyer to file for discovery! Find out everything they have against you, improve your practices plug some leaks, rinse and repeat. Let's all hope that the Russians win this one, because I'll bet that NK is dying to know some of our intelligence on them this playbook would really help them out. Maybe also cripple a counter-intelligence investigation, that would be icing on the cake. I'm really glad that this idea makes ya'll so happy.
And the rule of law stands. What is Mueller hiding this time?
WP takes a ride on make shit up train.
"But hey, maybe I'm on your's and Coldheart's side and I'm hoping for a cheap victory for the Russians who attacked our election. "
From the blog: " Concord Management must not believe that Special Counsel has much evidence. What other possible reason would there be for them to voluntarily step into court?
Worst case scenario for Special Counsel?
Would be a very very very embarrassing dismissal of the case due to lack of evidence"
He thinks it's all about the Special Counsel, their lack of evidence, their blunders, and apparently anticipating a "worst case" embarrassing dismissal. Something less than "worst caste" is presumably complying with discovery and starting a trial. What other reason is there to have the lawyers file discovery, other than acquire that information? Given that they obviously have no intention of ever stepping foot into the USA, let alone a court.
Embarrass the Mueller team, which would weaken the case against Trump (if any), that's gotta be a win right? Even if it helps Russian espionage against our country, it's small price to pay. In this weird little corner of the universe.
If that works, (and what's the worst case for Concord, dismissed charges), it would be useful for these guys U.S. Charges Three Chinese Hackers Who Work at Internet Security Firm for Hacking Three Corporations for Commercial Advantage
They can just hire a Pennsylvania lawyer, who can refuse the process server and then file for discovery! No need to risk arrest or anything like that, what's the downside? Find out what the FBI knows, figure out how they know it, maybe figure out an informant, who knows but it's all WINNING. If that happens to embarrass the FBI, so much the better right gang?
Hey, the whole FBI is corrupt, political and out of control so the more they fail, the weaker Mueller will be and the less danger Trump faces, so let's all cheer them on.
We get to feel like Russian hackers are our allies, Chinese hackers are our allies, money-laundering banks in Ukraine, Kremlin money, allies! Because what's not bad for them, is good for Trump! It's kind of fun.
Yay Concord! Welcome to the Team!
Gasoline up to $3.49 a gallon. Thanks Trump!
$3.49 a gallon, good for domestic oil companies. Bad for everyone else, so ... winning bigly!
I'm sure that Energy Secretary Rick Perry is happy with it, with his ties to Texas oil and his corporate roles in a couple of oil companies. That's why Trump put him there ... so let's give the devil his due.
Gasoline up to $3.49 a gallon. Thanks Trump!
California gasoline is about a dollar per gallon more than any other state in the union.
You can thank Jerry Brown for that.
CS , BEAT ME TO IT.
Obama cited $ 4.50 a gallon was a result of a growing economy.
$2.47 in Kansas.
We thank him for spending hundreds of millions on infrastructure and reconstruction of 60 year old interstate highways and Los Angeles freeways.
The construction unions are hard pressed to find people to make over $38.00/ hour plus benefits. Thanks Jerry Brown and Obama who handed off an economy that had a record 80 plus months of growth. From an economy losing 800,000 jobs a month under Bush who you drank his bathwater.
$2.81 nation avetage.
Poor like HB hurt by Jerry Brown tax greed.
$5.2 Billion in Jerry Brown Spending.
Why is it alky knows so little?
Just how bad are the Trump polls, well.
"by NEIL MUNRO
6 May 2018
1,925
A poll shows that President Donald Trump’s approval rating has spiked since April 27 — prompting the Reuters/Ipsos polling team to quarantine their data.
“Every series of polls has the occasional outlier and in our opinion this is one,” the pollster announced. “So, while we are reporting the findings in the interest of transparency, we will not be announcing the start of a new trend until we have more data to validate this pattern.”
CHT What is your take?
We thank him for spending hundreds of millions on infrastructure and reconstruction of 60 year old interstate highways and Los Angeles freeways.
And yet no highway infrastructure was done. But you got 1.2 miles of high-speed rail going nowhere fast.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.usich.gov/tools-for-action/map/&ved=2ahUKEwjOw9GLgfLaAhVLulMKHSVtBhcQFjAAegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw3XZ1sQ_VN5CZSqXPEC_IBQ
CA is the Queen of the Home of Homelessness.
HB said the spending was 200 million, only missed by $5 billion.
Yeah, he should use the FBI like Obama did.
But hey, maybe I'm on your's and Coldheart's side and I'm hoping for a cheap victory for the Russians who attacked our election.
Let me ask you a serious question here, WP.
Do you honestly believe that Mueller has more than what he cited from a magazine article? Do you believe that he would have tossed out indictments and summons in the middle of the investigation if he was really truly sitting on secret government intelligence that he knows as a prosecutor would be disclose if it ever came to trial?
If he really had top secret intelligence that he would need to disclose, whey wouldn't he have waited till the very very end of the investigation, when all of that information would have been coming out anyways, so exposing it during trial wouldn't have mattered?
Can you come up with a logical reason why this world class above the fray honest as the day is long really special Special Counsel would have made what appears to be a big fat rookie prosecutor mistake?
CHT What is your take?
These are the same pollster who changed their process and assumptions in the middle of the election when they started to doubt that fact that Trump and Clinton were running neck and neck.
The next week, under the new assumptions, Clinton was back up by a relatively substantial amount.
So... it wouldn't surprise me if they adjusted their Presidential approval numbers either. Donald Trump apparently makes all sorts of people behave in ways they never otherwise would.
Honest answer is they wouldn't have begun prosecution if they weren't ready to go to trial, and if something seems like "a rookie prosecutor mistake" that more likely means that whoever is reporting it either doesn't know something, or is unqualified in the subject.
The tip-off is that it seems too "obvious" to the politico columnist to be a mistake made by seasoned professionals. Even if I had no idea whatsoever, it would be odds-on that the columnist is full of it. But apply the sniff-test here: is it truly plausible that, as surmised by these reports, defendants hiring a lawyer catches the prosecutor by surprise? Any prosecutor, let alone these?
You'd have to dig more deeply into it to figure out what the strategies really are here, and guaranteed it's more involved than what those articles suggest. It's never the game you think it is from casual inspection.
WP...
Your faith in special counsel is... well... special. So far in your eyes, they apparently have done nothing wrong or made any mistakes. Certainly they never would have brought indictments against Russians, thinking for a second that they would not show up.
Obviously this 40+ year litigator with a Harvard Degree gets it entirely wrong here, but I guess for sake of an argument, I will include (his obviously wrong) take on this.
One hates to be in the position of rooting for the Russians, but the Mueller Switch Project is so distasteful that it is hard not to enjoy the prospect of Mueller having to deal with an actual adversary in court. Meanwhile, this is probably the first time in the history of litigation that a plaintiff (here, prosecutor) has told a court that it may not have obtained good service of process on a defendant that has appeared to defend the case on the merits. Mueller to Court: We didn’t really mean it, Judge! We had no idea they might actually show up!
I guess I am curious as to your beef is here? Are you upset that the Judge is requiring Mueller and gang to provide discovery? Or are you just acting as if you think this a raw deal as a matter of sarcasm and irony? Are you so convinced in the infallibility of Robert Mueller, that you are absolutely sure that the attorneys for Concord Management are going to take a legal ass beating in court, and that they were fools to even show up?
CHT Thanks.
"Donald Trump apparently makes all sorts of people behave in ways they never otherwise would."
Yep,
It could be any top professional, when a casual writer purports to have spotted an obvious defect in the professional's work, and it's superficial such as taken off guard by hiring a lawyer, I'm going to default to the writer is wrong. And I'll be right probably to 1 or 2 sigmas.
Whoever you're quoting has expresses such antipathy that he may have gotten carried away with himself, regardless of his background. Looks like a good old bash rant, power to him. Now ask him what's really going on.
I'm not objecting to discovery - I'm all for it, and make it all public. I'm objecting to rooting for the bad guys. I don't care how nasty Mueller is, and I've been writing about his past misbehavior since before he was appointed, but if and when he is prosecuting crooks and enemies of America I want to see that proceed.
"In other words, they are demanding Special Counsel provide them with the evidence that they have against Concord Management. Of course, as a matter of trial law, Concord Management is entitled to see any actual evidence, and Special Counsel it required to provide it."
If this is true, THIS is absolutely chilling going forward.
Unintended consequences?
I don't think so.
Why don't you liberals just drop the ruse.
Putin interfered to cause chaos in this country, liberals fell right into his trap.
Now THIS.
Coincidence? Not likely.
Don't get all in an uproar, 90% they're just playing head games with the defendants' lawyers. (my evaluation) They can get prickly with discovery after this anyway, files of raw data bullshit motions etc, so it's not like they need to or actually want to withhold anything. Nor is any American judge going to say, "OK, you just hold onto it while we get this trial started" (the prediction).
"Rooting for the bad guys".
And the bad guys under US Law are to be denied "discovery" ?
Mueller at the time of these so called charges was said to have done it for show. IF, Mueller follows WP advice it proves that point.
Democrat funded Antifa is flying the Russian flag and burning Trump in effigy. Just your garden variety CA asshole liberal.
"And the bad guys under US Law are to be denied "discovery" ?"
Nope.
"Discovery" is one of the main reasons we had/have Military Tribunals (est. In 2001) when dealing with captured terrorists.
Rosie Odonald broke campaign contribution laws, nothing will be done.
The Chicago Cheap Whore is at it again, how stupid.
"Obama said,”Sorry, in light of this last election, I’m concerned about us as women and how we think. And what is really going on. What is going on in our heads where we let that happen, you know?”
She continued, “When the most qualified person running was a woman, and look what we did instead, I mean that says something about where we are. Forget everybody else. That’s what we have to explore, because if we as women are still suspicious of one another, if we still have this crazy, crazy bar for each other that we don’t have for men. If we are still doing that today. If we’re not comfortable with the notion that a woman could be our president compared to … what, then we have to have those conversations with ourselves as women.”
WP...
You clearly don't see it, but there are many people who simply don't see anyone as wearing the white hats. Robert Mueller perhaps had a chance to be the "good guy" - but he pissed that away with his behavior.
As you pointed out, Mueller has a reputation for bad behavior as a prosecutor, and much of this is more of the same. In the past week, we finally got raw evidence that they withheld exculpatory evidence in the Flynn case, we had a Federal Judge basically call them liars and accused them of making up rules as they go, and now it certainly "looks" like they might be getting played by some Russians, because they seem way more prepared to prosecute Manafort than they seem prepared to prosecute the Russians.
Objectively, there is nothing that prevents Trump sympathizers from believing every little bit of criticism of Mueller. He appears out to gather scalps, out to get anyone associated with Trump, while obviously not actually very serious about getting Russians.
Bottom line: It looks to an awful lot of people like Mueller is just out to make Trump and his team look bad. Hassle them and try to disrupt the Administrative branch of the Government. The fact you see it differently, doesn't change any of that. For that, Mueller and Rosenstein only have themselves to blame.
So if Mueller ends up having to drop his case against Concord Management due to lack of evidence, or otherwise ends up having to give away embarrassing secrets because of this... I have little problems finding it ironic. As I have pointed out, in terms of Reputation, it appears that the President's approvals are on the rise, while Mueller is looking more and more like a bad cop.
"people think Mueller is just out to make Trump and his team look bad."
That I see it differently, and that along with me two thirds of the American public see it differently, doesn't change it but it does put it into perspective. Not like the isolated case struggling against public perception that you imply, rather the opposite of that.
I reckon that an awful lot of those who do think that, think it's a good thing that Mueller wants to make Trump look bad, because they think Trump IS bad. Mueller, bad as he is, still has much higher approval than Trump (as of last month), so bear that in mind when you're talking up Trump's polling.
Yeh, Republicans will tend to think the Special Prosecutor is out to get him, and an enemy of the American Way. That's the nature of the beast. But they need to think twice when they get so far off the beam that they want to see our nation's enemies victorious just to spite him.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
A true American hero, John McCain has said that President Trump is not invited to his funeral.
oh, so NOW he's a true american hero, alky?
i remember back when mcpappy was running against 0linsky... you would not have pissed on the man if he were on fire.
and it takes no courage to disinvite someone from attending an event they had no intention of attending in the first place.
mccain is a clod, is not that bright, and like bernie sanders he would starve if he had to earn a living in the private sector.
But they need to think twice when they get so far off the beam that they want to see our nation's enemies victorious just to spite him.
this assumes that our enemies actually influenced the election to begin with. an assumption that you and mueller seem anxious to validate, but after close to two years of investigating seems increasingly unlikely.
we're not witnessing any sort of a criminal investigation here wp, we're witnessing a fucking coup attempt.
Independents are increasingly skeptical of mueller and rightly so
And they decide elections.
Why is it so important to the 5 liberal stooges of CHT that Trump be Empeachment?
"Discovery" Democrats decided Mueller was failing so they are suing over the butt hurt of the sure thing in the bank ,in a cake walk, landslide, 375 electorate vote , blue wall, history pussy Win.
Now Republicans will get a deep look into everything the Dems have.
That I see it differently, and that along with me two thirds of the American public see it differently,
A Manmouth poll released just last week shows that the number of Americans who believe the Russia investigation should end is up to 43% with 54% wanting it to continue.
A Quinnipiac poll released the week prior shows that only 54% still believe Robert Mueller is conducting a fair investigation. Almost a third now believe it is unfair. 52% call the investigation legitimate. 44% believe it's a political witch hunt.
Those polls were both taken before we had confirmation that Mueller withheld exculpatory evidence from Flynn, and before a Federal Judge chastised Special Counsel for being liars and making up rules as they go.
I am quite certain you are obviously confused by substituting a question about whether Trump should "fire" Mueller with how people are viewing the investigation. I personally have almost no degree of respect for Mueller and his investigation, but I don't thing "firing him" is the right thing to do. That might be difficult for you to understand, but it is becoming a growing opinion.
Sorry WP... but the longer this goes on, the worse Special Counsel looks. Short of Mueller finding what he was supposed to be looking for to begin with (collusion) - his numbers are just going to continue to tank.
I don't know why you'd be quite sure that I confused a poll. I read it directly of a poll from last month which asked specifically about approval of Mueller. Not his investigation, nor whether Trump should fire him, nor another mistake of misreading. The approval for his investigation however is also still high, also higher than Trump's approval ratings. You should keep that in mind as you continue to extol Trump's lousy poll numbers.
"That might be difficult for you to understand, but it is becoming a growing opinion."
It doesn't make you seem smart to be condescending when you express dumb or obvious projections, as the case may be. It's the nature of the beast, that people get tired of these special investigations. It's not hard for anyone to understand.
WP...
I stated that it was a growing opinion that people are not seeing anyone as wearing the white hat, and that Mueller is pissing away the chance to be seen as the "good guy" in all of this.
When only half of the country believes that Mueller is treating Trump and his team "fairly" and 44% are describing the investigation as a "witch hunt" I think that plays along with my opinion.
Again, I see no reason why Trump should fire Mueller or that Mueller should not wallow on. The longer it goes without finding anything, the more people will finally be convinced that there was no collusion. Fire him now, and you will have every neverTrumper out there screaming like Adam Schiff that we just didn't dig deep enough.
So the fact that I don't want Trump or Rosenstein or anyone else fire or end the investigation prematurely is not a sign of support for Mueller, any indication that I feel he is being fair, or any indication that I believe Mueller is a good guy.
When you state that 69% of the country agrees with you and disagrees with me, am I part of that 69% based on that poll? Do you have a way of pulling out the number of people who share my beliefs? Or do you just assume that anyone who thinks the probe should come to a natural end, must therefore believe Mueller is a great guy?
Also, wouldn't the fact that the most recent poll (suggesting that only 54 percent want the probe to continue vs 43 who would like to see it end) sort of overwrite the older poll?
Bottom line: where do you get the idea that 69% agree with you?
"Again, I see no reason why Trump should fire Mueller or that Mueller should not wallow on"
It would be a huge mistake to fire the guy.
Hope Trump doesn't take the bait.
Bottom line: where do you get the idea that 69% agree with you?
You'll have to quote where I said "69%", otherwise I have no idea what you're talking about.
Maybe you meant "two thirds"? That's the number that want the investigation to continue.
Mueller's specific approval rating, to which I referred, was 61%.
You can fuss with derivative numbers all you want, but the fact still remains that by a strong majority, people want to see this investigation through. They do not agree with your witch hunt thesis.
You can fuss with derivative numbers all you want, but the fact still remains that by a strong majority, people want to see this investigation through. They do not agree with your witch hunt thesis.
Quinnipiac University Poll. April 20-24, 2018. N=1,193 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.4.
"Do you think that the investigation into any links or coordination between President Trump's 2016 election campaign and the Russian government is a legitimate investigation, or do you think it is a political witch hunt?"
52% says it's Legitimate
44% says it's a witch hunt
Are you trying to argue that a poll that actually specifically asks the question about a witch hunt is not a legitimate means to argue that a significant portion (44%) of the public sees it that way?
You'll have to quote where I said "69%", otherwise I have no idea what you're talking about.
wphamilton said...
That I see it differently, and that along with me two thirds of the American public see it differently,
Unless you are ready to dispute the laws of math two thirds = 66.66666%
But I'm sure you're going quivel over the 2.3333 percent difference.
However if is disingenuous of you to say you had no idea what CH was talking about.
You knew damn well what he was talking about.
Common...
I meant to type 67% and accidentally typed 69% (which I am sure WP knew)
But that is really what it boils down to these days. Someone like WP will take phrase or a word or a 2% mistake and decide to quibble and argue over that specific piece... rather than participate in the actual larger debate.
It's a sign of weakness. When you are losing an argument, I guess there is no other recourse other than to highlight a couple of words or a single sentence to somehow prove some inconsistency as means to save face.
Mueller argued to the court that the accused have no right to "discovery".
How much longer will the Democrats Support, promote, fund and defend Mueller lawlessness?
"Again, I see no reason why Trump should fire Mueller or that Mueller should not wallow on"
It would be a huge mistake to fire the guy.
Hope Trump doesn't take the bait."
The multiple anchors around the jackals especially necks is dragging the Democrats down.
WP prosecutors must have good poll numbers, wtf, and I thought they needed to follow the US Constitution.
52% says it's Legitimate
Which is down from a high of 60 percent in November 2017
44% says it's a witch hunt
Which is up from 31 percent in the same November 2017 poll, saying it was unfair.
“I know that you are me, and if I can be standing here as your forever first lady, then you can do anything you put your mind to,” Delusional Obimbo Moochelle
Hardly a sign of weakness. I don't use false precision, like saying 67% to mean "about two thirds". When you attribute to me a specificity to 1%, and an incorrect one, I want to clarify what you're talking about. I ASKED you if you meant the two thirds, and I RESPONDED to you on that basis. Don't be such a bozo insinuating that I nitpick 2% error to avoid a larger issue.
You've never seen me do that, ever. And I answered you specifically, with "what gave me the idea" as you asked, and which proved my point.
Your condescending tangent is the true sign of weakness and losing a debate.
"52% Legitimate ... Which is down from a high of 60 percent ... 44% witchhunt up from 31 percent ..."
Yet still a solid majority supporting it, as I said.
The longer it goes on, the more people get tired of it. ALL special investigations have followed that pattern.
Yet still a solid majority supporting it, as I said.
C'mon man!!!
After challenging the difference between two thirds and 69%...
You are then going to turn around and argue that your two thirds comment is reinforced by poll that shows 52% of the public believes the probe is legit to 44% who believe it is a political witch hunt?
You are a math guy, WP. I am sure you can tell us what the actual statistical difference between two thirds (66.67%) and 52% is?
LOL.
"The longer it goes on, the more people get tired of it. ALL special investigations have followed that pattern."
Yeah, that doesn't quite explain...
44% witchhunt up from 31 percent
Okie dokie.
"You are then going to turn around and argue that your two thirds comment is reinforced by poll that shows 52% of the public believes the probe is legit to 44% who believe it is a political witch hunt? "
Different question, different numbers. I wouldn't expect it to be any other way.
If you accept both polls as accurate, for their respective questions, there is a logical hypothesis that reconciles the difference. You can postulate that the difference is accounted by those people who think that the probe is partisan, and still support it.
Someone else opined, "Yeah, that (people getting tired of it) doesn't quite explain ... 44% witchhunt up from 31"
It does explain it, along with human nature. This poll question had only two options: partisan witch hunt or honest attempt to determine criminal wrongdoing. Many of these people will dislike the investigation and accept the poll's reason to explain it, as the best answer. The more people who get tired of it, the more who will answer this poll with "witch hunt".
Looking at it analytically, both answers have elements of truth and neither fully encompasses the actual purpose of investigating Russian interference. Since the Order appointing the Counsel specifies Trump and his campaign staff, by definition it IS partisan to that extent. Since it also specifies crimes, and honest or not Mueller is obviously looking for crimes, that answer must also be at least partly true. Portions of both options are true. The actual choice boils down to deciding between "witch hunt" and "honestly". I don't know about you, but to me that's a false choice - lots of room between those, and lots of ways for different people to understand the question differently.
If I'm really interested in gauging support of the probe, I'll look at a poll that asks directly about supporting the probe. Trying to project from a poll that asks something else, that's never going to work very well.
You are a math guy, WP.
he may be a math guy but lately he is also a troll guy and he is trolling at a 3 dimension, grandmaster level these days.
C'mon man!!!"
Too funny.
Different question, different numbers. I wouldn't expect it to be any other way.
I state that there is a growing number of people who see Mueller in a bad light, and that opinion is shifting towards the belief that Mueller is being unfair and that the probe is becoming a "witchhunt".
You argued that two thirds of Americans disagreed with me and agreed with you based on a poll that didn't address the issues I raised.
You can postulate that the difference is accounted by those people who think that the probe is partisan, and still support it.
As someone who both believes that Mueller is
- being unfair, partisan, and that the entire probe is more likely a witch hunt than an honest hunt for the truth...
and
- that the probe should continue to run it's course...
I can assure you that my first belief is a stronger indication of my "support" of Mueller and the probe... and the second is simply a nod to the reality that if the probe is believed to be "ended" prematurely, that those who are deeply infected with TDS will never get over it, and that it will not actually accomplish what it should accomplish.
So I don't have to postulate why someone would both think that the probe is unfair and a witchhunt, but not want Trump to fire Mueller or otherwise shut the probe down artificially.
Yes... there will come a time when more and more people will being to believe it needs to be done. We can see this happening just in the past few weeks (with the poll you continue to cite showing two thirds believe it should continue and the poll that came out last week that shows a slight majority 54% wanting it to continue with 43% wanting it to end). That number could conceivable reverse itself within the next few weeks, especially when the relatively new factors (Mueller's trifecta of legal problems) are weighed in.
The Left are running fast and furiously From Empeachment, but , why?
You have it all, you have your Criminal, all you're missing is the crime.
One other thing to consider here. There has not (to this point) been any indication from anyone as to exactly how long this probe is supposed to last. We have heard indications from anything to a few more weeks, to talk of months or even years.
However, it seems like the issue of the 2018 midterms is now providing somewhat of a possible deadline... as in there seems to be more and more people suggesting that the American public should either see what conclusions that Special Counsel has made, or that Special Counsel would need to take a leave of absence in order to not unfairly influence the midterms.
Again, when you look at these things, the public might make a slow crawl from one side to the other, or opinion might move quickly based on some new found conventional wisdom that the majority opinion has shifted.
In other words, as soon as you start to see some polling showing a plurality or even a majority of people starting to see the probe negatively or would like to see it ended... a plurality or slight majority could turn into a bigger majority rather quickly.
WP said The NRA is an illegal gun running Organization.
WP said The NRA is an illegal gun running Organization.
If Mueller drops a case because he can't actually prosecuted it, or if he gets one thrown out of court, yeah people will turn on him fast. But those are big "ifs" and what you're calling his legal problems, I don't see most people giving a rats ass about.
During Watergate, the more people heard the worse it got but even then there was fatigue about the investigation. Starr went off the deep end, delving into Clinton's personal peccadillo, and I get the sense that Trump's camp is trying to push perception of Mueller in that direction. Which would be effective, but I don't think they're pulling it off.
There is no deadline. You'd think, midterms politically no way they can sustain it, but that would be wrong. As long as there's perceptible movement, and it's not crazy like Starr, it can go on.
Ken Starr got 15 different people in felony convictions or pleas, and not a one of them was a process crime.
Jim Guy Tucker: Governor of Arkansas at the time, removed from office (fraud, 3 counts)
John Haley: attorney for Jim Guy Tucker (tax evasion)
William J. Marks, Sr.: Jim Guy Tucker's business partner (conspiracy)
Stephen Smith: former Governor Clinton aide (conspiracy to misapply funds). Bill Clinton pardoned.
Webster Hubbell: Clinton political supporter; U.S. Associate Attorney General; Rose Law Firm partner (embezzlement, fraud)
Jim McDougal: banker, Clinton political supporter: (18 felonies, varied)
Susan McDougal: Clinton political supporter (multiple frauds). Bill Clinton pardoned.
David Hale: banker, self-proclaimed Clinton political supporter: (conspiracy, fraud)
Neal Ainley: Perry County Bank president (embezzled bank funds for Clinton campaign)
Chris Wade: Whitewater real estate broker (multiple loan fraud). Bill Clinton pardoned.
Larry Kuca: Madison real estate agent (multiple loan fraud)
Robert W. Palmer: Madison appraiser (conspiracy). Bill Clinton pardoned.
John Latham: Madison Bank CEO (bank fraud)
Eugene Fitzhugh: Whitewater defendant (multiple bribery)
Charles Matthews: Whitewater defendant (bribery)
So in regards to an honest comparison, Mueller has a long way to go before anyone can compare him to Starr or the Whitewater Investigation.
Betting on Mueller to save Democrats in 2018 , running on Remove the President by any means .
Got nut'n else.
So were you happy with his result with regards to Bill Clinton? And Hillary for that matter?
Well WP....
Special Counsels or Independent Prosecutors or whatever you call them at the time are "supposed" to investigate a crime and see who is involved, rather than investigate a certain person or group of people in search of criminal activities.
I think that is where your confusion comes from. Obviously, in your mind Starr got it wrong by finding the criminals involved in the Crime he was appointed to investigate. Whereas Mueller is doing the right thing by working over everyone involved with Trump, trying to drum up some charges.
But that being said....
Starr got to the bottom of the criminal activities and brought a ton of people to justice.
Bill was probably not really involved. Hillary, and McDougal's attorney of record was no doubt involved and probably guilty of much of the same. But when you lose all of the law firm documents, two of your key witnesses pass away, and the third (Susan McDougal) accepts a criminal contempt charge rather than testify, there is not much a prosecutor can do. Probably could have (and in retrospect should have) charged her (or whoever from the Rose Law firm was responsible) with obstruction for failing to turn over subpoenaed information (like a law firm would lose the only copies of their documents and record keeping, and would not have any backups of any sort).
by JOEL B. POLLAK
31 Aug 2017
6,566
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is reported to be working with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman on his inquiry into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential race.
If the report, first published in Politico, is true, it would be the latest fact undermining the integrity and impartiality of Mueller’s inquiry, which Democrats hope will result in the president being impeached and the results of the 2016 election forever called into question."
Mueller’s team all political radical democRATs.
I have to go off topic, to deal with the biggest asshole on the planet. Jimmy the racist rodent bastard has topped off long history of lies and bigotry.
Blogger rrb said...
Blogger Roger Amick said...
A true American hero, John McCain has said that President Trump is not invited to his funeral.
oh, so NOW he's a true american hero, alky?
i remember back when mcpappy was running against 0linsky... you would not have pissed on the man if he were on fire.
and it takes no courage to disinvite someone from attending an event they had no intention of attending in the first place.
mccain is a clod, is not that bright, and like bernie sanders he would starve if he had to earn a living in the private sector.
I supported Obama, because I was more in line with his view of the world. But i had a lot of respect for John McCain. He blew the election with his already weak chance of winning, by choosing Sarah Palin as his VP. He has recently admitted his mistake.
Then here we have exhibit one of why the racist bastard has hit a low. He insulted a true American hero. He's despicable example what is wrong with the Republican party of the Trump era.
USA Today noted at the time that Schneiderman and Trump “have been involved in a years-long public feud.” In April, Schneiderman reportedly hired a liberal, Bernie Sanders-linked consulting group to help generate lawsuits against the Trump administration. Schneiderman also has a history of politically-charged litigation, including an effort to cover up emails that former Attorney General Eliot Spitzer sent from a private account while in office.
NY AG Schneiderman Serial Sexual Battery Asshole.
American servicemen “personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam,” claimed the American, reportedly a U.S. Navy officer.
Such unverified testimony in the hands of the North Vietnamese was a massive propaganda win. And a devastating blow to American POWs, such as John McCain, who was clinging to life in such savage conditions.
Decorated Vietnam War veteran and POW Paul Galanti would later recall that it was the soft, effeminate pronunciation of “Genghis Khan” that tipped him off that the testifying turncoat was none other than John Kerry, who would later become a senator, his party’s failed presidential nominee and eventually one of the worst secretaries of state in U.S. history."
John is now illegally meeting with Iran.
"Then here we have exhibit one of why the racist bastard has hit a low."
And yet, you and James are the only ones to ever use the "n" word.
Hypocrite.
He blew the election with his already weak chance of winning, by choosing Sarah Palin as his VP. He has recently admitted his mistake.
mcpappy didn't lose because of palin. his poll numbers went UP after naming her as his running mate. his defeat had much more to do with his moronic campaign suspension so he could look like he was saving the day during the financial crisis.
mcpappy was and is a rino asshat who had little of substance to offer the american people as a legislator. if you're still trading on your war hero status a full half century later, that tells me you've accomplished little in the meantime.
captain "build the dang fence" married a fucking beer heire$$. good for him.
So when you say that Mueller will have failed if he doesn't charge Trump with something impeachable, and having to do with conspiring with Russia, then why 180 degree turn from how you view Starr's outcome?
He let Bill and Hillary walk away clean from that mess, and it's because he took such a dive into Bill Clinton's personal conduct. Starr went off the rails, and that's fine with you, while public perception of Mueller's investigation is all-important? Why the difference?
C'mon man!!!
That's not what I argued, WP... and you know it.
Mueller will have done his job if he does what he was hired to do. Get to the bottom of how the Russians were involved in the election, and determine whether or not any Americans were involved.
It has zero to do with charging anyone. There may not be (as many people believe) any criminal activity to charge anyone for in regards to the election and there may not be any evidence that anyone from the Trump team colluded with anyone.
If those are the facts, then Mueller's job will be done if he reports those facts.
Charging people for process crimes and prosecuting old inherited cases is not what the American public should expect from someone with a ten million dollar budget. Every second he takes away from what he was hired to do...
And yes, WP... what Rosenstein laid out IN HIS PUBLIC STATEMENT is the scope of his investigation as far as 90% of the country is concerned. If nothing else, that should take 100% precedent over anything else. The fact that he is following through with prosecution of Manafort for a completely unrelated charge in the middle of his investigation tells us his priorities are out of whack. It could waited, or been passed off... while Mueller stuck to the important part of his investigation. You know, what he was hired to do.
Starr was appointed to look into a CRIMINAL CASE!!! You know, how Special Prosecution is supposed to work.
Mueller was appointed to a counterintelligence operation as a means to flaunt the rules of Special Counsel.
So they have different priorities (according to their appointments). Starr had a known crime to solve. He did. Mueller has a counterintelligence probe to solve. So far, he is failing miserably to explain anything about what happened in the 2016 election.
But hey, we all learned a whole bunch about registering as a foreign agent, and about how some people believe Ukrainians are the same thing as Russians.
Flailing
Sure was flailing, that was all over the place!
You've said on multiple occasions that if Mueller doesn't get Trump then he's a failure. Starr didn't get Clinton though ... interesting. You're practically the first person in America that I've heard that didn't accept that Starr went off the deep end. Yet here you are, citing "lots of people" (a minority) have a bad impression of Mueller.
So I gather from that explosion, to you the difference is in their priorities. Because you think that Mueller is only investigating a counter-intelligence operation, or should be, or secretly is, or something. Nailing those Trump officials for money laundering, bank fraud, lying etc, is ... out of scope? Denial? Irrelevant to Trump's campaign that his campaign officials are indicted? I'm just curious, because your perspective is ... entertaining.
Palin was saving McCain's campaign until McCain blew it by not acting like a craven idiot during a national crisis. Now I've heard everything.
You've said on multiple occasions that if Mueller doesn't get Trump then he's a failure.
I've said if he doesn't prove collusion, then he will certainly be perceived by many to be a failure. But we are talking the difference between political ramifications and whether or not he actually did what he was appointed to do. I my mind, if he provided a report saying that they found no evidence of collusion, then "I" would offer that he did his job. But I would also offer that many many people (especially on the left) would belief he failed, and quite certainly many people on the right would go after the whole thing hard. There would be a lot of eating of crow.
Starr was appointed to investigation the Whitewater fraud case. Getting fifteen different people indicted was a successful end to that investigation.
Reno also (as a separate matter) appointed the whole Jones/Lewinski/Tripp matter to Starr. That is when and why Starr got involved in Clinton's personal life. Starr provide a report with evidence that Clinton perjured himself in civil court as well as to federal investigators and that he was guilty of witness tampering by trying to coerce Lewinski into false affidavits and false testimony. We know how that ended.
Overall, Starr did exactly what he was asked to do by Reno. The appointment and expansion were public knowledge. The alleged crimes were well defined. There was no "secret authority" offered behind the scenes or any "inherited cases".
Nailing those Trump officials for money laundering, bank fraud, lying etc, is ... out of scope?
It depends on your scope. If it is what the original appointment stated and what the general American public was told... then it's completely out of scope.
Nailing those Trump officials for money laundering, bank fraud, lying etc, is ... out of scope? Denial? Irrelevant to Trump's campaign that his campaign officials are indicted?
Exactly my point. You see the probe as a matter to go after Trump campaign officials in what ever manner is possible. If it is a cold case from a different jurisdiction, then you open it to prove what exactly? That you believe Trump shouldn't have hired Manafort or Gates because he should have known that they might have an old investigation on file? Or exactly what is the point?
What we can tell for sure. If Manafort had never worked for Trump, he never would have been indicted for the actions in Ukraine. We'll see at the end of the day how good Mueller's case is. Certainly Manafort's attorneys have more than this argument to make pre-trial. Mueller has still not actually proven anything.
But it seems like you believe (at least to some degree) that this was the point of Special Counsel. To go after Trump associates, rather than investigate the 2016 election.
Exactly my point. You see the probe as a matter to go after Trump campaign officials in what ever manner is possible.
You talk a a great deal about the public perception of the probe, how 40-odd percent think that it's partisan. You speculate about how you think *I* see the probe.
I'll tell you how most of the American public understand it. They know that Russia messed with us. Trump seemed to like it, and the Feds decided to look into it. It needed a Special Investigation because it involved the President. That's it CH, as far as most people (including that Judge Ellis) are concerned. Mueller is investigating the President and his people.
Like the idea or not, when Trump's officials are indicted and prosecuted people will say, "Trump's campaign and administration were full of criminals." You say, "but that's out of scope". Maybe, maybe not, but what does that have to do with the greater good of ridding our government of criminals? If they ARE criminals, I don't want them in or near the White House and neither do most people.
So WP...
Your argument that prosecuting Paul Manafor with old charges of failing to register with a foreign agent, works to the greater good of ridding our government of criminals?
If that was the reason, the perception, and the goal (to simply investigate Trump and his associates looking for crimes)... why tell the American public that Mueller was hired to investigate the Russian involvement with the 2016 election?
Oh wait.. I know!
Because it would be fundamentally unconstitutional to appoint a special counsel to simply investigate people associated with a new President to "look for crimes" in order to "rid them from the government".
But I am glad someone here is honest enough to provide their true hope of special counsel intentions. Most liberals still demand that Mueller is on the up and up and still investigating Russia and Russian/Trump collusion.
You know, as they sold it to the American public.
Excellent article on this:
Judges in Virginia and Washington have the special counsel reeling.
Well sure, we filed an indictment. And yeah, we took a victory lap in the big bells-n-whistles Main Justice press conference. But that doesn’t mean we, like, intended to have a trial . . .
That seems to be the Justice Department’s position on its mid-February publicity stunt, the indictment of 13 Russians and three Russian businesses for interfering in the 2016 election.
Let’s back up.
The courts were not kind last week to the Justice Department’s gamesmanship on the Russia probe, also known as the Mueller investigation, an investigation in which the cases prosecutors want to try are not about Russia, and the case about Russia prosecutors don’t want to try.
Judge Ellis and the Manafort Case in Virginia
First, in the Eastern District of Virginia, where Paul Manafort is facing one of the two indictments against him, Judge T. S. Ellis hammered Mueller’s prosecutors over the issues we have been hammering for a year:
(a) In appointing Mueller on May 17, 2017, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein failed to comply with federal regulations that control special-counsel investigations; and
(b) The secret August 2 memo, by which Rosenstein attempted to paper over this dereliction, is so facially uninformative and heavily redacted that the subjects of the investigation, the courts, and the public are still in the dark. The factual basis for a criminal investigation is still unknown, as are the boundaries of Mueller’s jurisdiction — with Mueller’s prosecutors paying lip service to the notion of limits, even as they argue that, essentially, there are none.
___________ it goes on at ____________________
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/robert-mueller-tough-week-court-manafort/
Your argument that prosecuting Paul Manafor with old charges of failing to register with a foreign agent, works to the greater good of ridding our government of criminals?
Wire fraud, bank fraud and defrauding the US government. You denied it when I said that those were alleged in the initial indictment, and coming later, and I guess you're still denying that he's been charged.
That you believe those felony charges to be trivial is beside the point.
If that was the reason, the perception, and the goal (to simply investigate Trump and his associates looking for crimes)... why tell the American public that Mueller was hired to investigate the Russian involvement with the 2016 election?
Those two amount to mostly the same thing as far as Trump is concerned, and in fact the American public WERE told that Mueller would be investigating Trump. I guess you're denying that as well. It's just difficult to figure out WHY you're in denial of these plain facts.
"any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump"
Plain language, right there in black and white, for the entire country to read. No one is going to care that you call it "unconstitutional" when criminals get caught up into that. Because it's obviously not - it's the normal, day to day work of the Justice Department.
If I may ask, where do you even get the idea that it should be unconstitutional for Federal law enforcement to investigate people - anyone - when they see evidence of crimes?
Judge T. S. Ellis hammered Mueller’s prosecutors over the issues we have been hammering for a year: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein failed to comply with federal regulations
You forgot, I'm not going into legal arguments here no matter how baseless and provocative your claims are.
WP...
Are suggesting that the general public is not smart enough to know the difference between the investigation as described by Rosenstein's letter of appointment of Special Counsel... and a basic free for all go after Trump and any and all Trump associates looking for a crime?
Or are you simply suggesting that they don't care?
Because... when a growing number (44% as of last week) of Americans believe Mueller is now conducting a witchhunt, I would offer that they are both smarter than you give them credit for and actually do care if Mueller is investigating what he was supposed to investigate.
But you can certainly take comfort knowing full well than those who agree with you, ARE either too dumb to know the difference or hate Trump enough to not care if the investigation is what it was claimed to be. Good company to find yourself in, huh?
"any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump"
Plain language, right there in black and white, for the entire country to read.
but apparently not plain enough for mueller to read and understand it. when mueller pursues someone such as manafort, the wrongdoing had better track back to RUSSIA. not ukraine or anywhere else.
Because... when a growing number (44% as of last week) of Americans believe Mueller is now conducting a witchhunt, I would offer that they are both smarter than you give them credit for and actually do care if Mueller is investigating what he was supposed to investigate.
More likely they simply were expressing a negative opinion and just chose from the false choice presented to them. You read WAY too much into that poll.
I AM suggesting that the American public is too smart to buy the crap that you're spreading. When anyone can read directly that Mueller is ordered to investigate Trump, and to prosecute anything that pops up, most of the public isn't dumb enough to buy into that being unconstitutional or corrupt.
the wrongdoing had better track back to RUSSIA. not ukraine or anywhere else.
Baloney. The criminal prosecution of anything that arises will be equally as valid regardless.
What blows my mind about the Trump camp, is that the outrage is about anyone even looking into these guys. And even greater outrage that finding a crime to prosecute, they have the temerity to do it.
If it were anyone else, anyone in the USA charged with the same crimes from the same evidence, you'd just shrug and say "gettin what's coming to them". The big difference here is that you're afraid that Democrats will gain from it, and to you that's worse than the crimes.
I AM suggesting that the American public is too smart to buy the crap that you're spreading.
no they're not. you're talking about a society that get's the majority of their news from "the daily show" and "the view." and when they do tune into a regular news show they receive a steady drone of 'trump sucks.'
I AM suggesting that the American public is too smart to buy the crap that you're spreading. When anyone can read directly that Mueller is ordered to investigate Trump, and to prosecute anything that pops up, most of the public isn't dumb enough to buy into that being unconstitutional or corrupt.
So in your mind - Mueller was appointed to:
Investigate Trump and prosecute anything that "pops up"
You do realize, that this is the very definition of a "witch hunt" ?
"So in your mind - Mueller was appointed to: Investigate Trump and prosecute anything that "pops up"
Not in my mind, that's what the Order says. Call that "witch hunt" if you want to, Trump does almost daily, but that's his job. I'm still not sure why you're in denial about that?
Mueller is doing what he's supposed to be doing, and people know it.
Have you actually read the order?
It doesn't mention Trump by name at all. The only mention of Trump is when the order specifically authorizes Special Counsel to investigate:
"links or coordination between the Russian Government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.
So, your argument is factually incorrect. The order does not just allow Mueller to "investigate Trump". Not unless you have some inside track on the "secret authorization".
I just finished quoting it to you, obviously I read it.
You copied the quote. It authorizes him to investigate everyone in Trump's campaign, with respect to collusion. Trump was part of his campaign. That sentence says, plainly and obviously, to investigate Trump and his campaign for collusion with the Russians.
The very next line directs him to prosecute anything that pops up.
What's your problem?
It authorizes them to investigate links between the Russians and Trump...
Which is entirely different than your assertion that they were authorized to simply investigate Trump and his campaign for just "whatever".
Geeze, you just can't be straightforward and honest about it, can you?
Links between Russia and Trump IS investigating Trump for links. What kind of weird non-logic are you going for?
Nobody, and obviously not I, asserted that "they were authorized to simply investigate Trump and his campaign for just whatever." Whatever pops up as they investigate. You can't quote just one word and pretend that's what someone said LOL. Oh man, that's weak.
Whatever pops up, and, in the very next line AFTER that, whatever is in ADDITION to that if he gets the AG approval. Throw buzzwords at that to your heart's content, but it won't change it. Mueller is investigating Trump and his people, everyone in America knows it, and they aren't buying that crap that it's unconstitutional or violates some law or regulation that no one knows about.
Nobody, and obviously not I, asserted that "they were authorized to simply investigate Trump and his campaign for just whatever."
This is your quote WP:
When anyone can read directly that Mueller is ordered to investigate Trump, and to prosecute anything that pops up
Only Mueller was not ordered to investigate Trump. He was appointed to investigate possible links between Russia and the Trump campaign.
There is a difference between having authorization to investigate something specific (links between Russia and Trump campaign) and having authorization to just generically investigate a person Trump or people (his campaign) and then prosecute whatever pops up.
Yes, thanks for quoting me and proving my point.
Anything that arises (per the order), anything that pops up (my quote), are you going to say there is some semantic difference there?
"There is a difference between having authorization to investigate something specific (links between Russia and Trump campaign) and having authorization to just generically investigate a person Trump or people (his campaign) and then prosecute whatever pops up"
Heh, that's why it's in the order specifically, to investigate Trump in his campaign for his links and coordination, and ALSO in the order to investigate anything that pops up.
You're just trolling, trying to prod me into some kind of legal analysis but it won't work, because any fool can read two sentences. Yes, there is a difference, and that's why Mueller is authorized to do BOTH.
Post a Comment