Patterico's Pontifications

7/25/2019

About This Ridiculous Argument that Mueller Inverted the Burden of Proof

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:59 am



I watched some of the Mueller hearings yesterday and realized I have nothing in common with the Republicans any more. They were all up there trying to pretend that this was a giant witch hunt and waxing indignant about how poor Trump was the most oppressed guy ever. Example:

“Mr. Mueller, I want to focus on one word in your report. It’s the second to the last word. It’s “exonerate.”… What I’m putting up here is the United States code. This is where the attorney general gets his power, and the Constitution, and the annotated cases of these, which we’ve searched. We even went to your law school.… I thought maybe your law school teaches it differently. Mr. Mueller, nowhere in these is there a process or description on “exonerate.”… You don’t have the power or authority to exonerate Trump. You have no more power to declare him exonerated than you have the power to declare him Anderson Cooper.” Congressman Michael Turner, R-Ohio

Thanks to Bugg for the quote.

“Let’s pretend different rules don’t apply to the President and then feign indignation” Congressyapping is my favorite Congressyapping. Mueller twisted himself into a pretzel applying the rule that says Presidents can’t be indicted. He took that rule so seriously that when he had a provable obstruction case — one that would get anyone else on Earth indicted — he not only didn’t indict, but he won’t even say the obvious: that he would have indicted absent that rule. But, not wanting to send the false suggestion that he failed to indict because he lacked the evidence, he said that he could not exonerate the president.

Then people like Michael Turner (consistent with his surname) turned that perhaps overly careful example of rule-following on its head, and converted it into an example of Mueller supposedly being unfair to Trump.

And the people who love conservative talk radio applauded.

If you can’t see that Mueller is bending over backwards to be fair to Trump here, you might be a redneck hopeless partisan.

Don’t fret. You have plenty of company.

Let me put it a different way: if you really think Mueller is being unfair because he’s not applying all the standard rules to Trump regarding the burden of proof, then I’m sure you’ll agree with me when I say: let’s apply all the standard rules to Trump — including the one that says that guilty people get prosecuted. How about we apply the rule when a prosecutor builds a mountain of evidence against you showing your obstruction of justice, you get indicted. Let’s see how well that works out for poor oppressed Mr. Victim of a Witchhunt then.

Until then, save your complaints. They don’t convince anyone whose judgment has not been clouded by partisan politics.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

167 Responses to “About This Ridiculous Argument that Mueller Inverted the Burden of Proof”

  1. They’re angry about it because the results for Trump aren’t what they wanted. If he had said it “did” exonerate him they’d love it and dem’s would complain that he shouldn’t have used that word. Most of the people harping on this are not worth listening to.

    Time123 (b0628d)

  2. Mueller did bend over backward, too far backward, IMO. Since he doesn’t have the power to indict and therefore potentially deny the president his freedom, it seems to me that Mueller could have opined quite a bit further than “not exonerated” or, to phrase it another way, not not guilty. Instead, he let the facts speak for themselves and it’ll be a blot on Pelosi’s career that she didn’t do her duty and take the ball that Mueller passed to her.

    Paul Montagu (dbd3cc)

  3. 2. On the other hand, since when was Nancy Pelosi ever concerned about doing the right thing? The behavior of both Democrats and Republicans over in Babylon-on-Potomac makes perfect sense when you realize they see everything through the lens of partisan politics.

    Gryph (08c844)

  4. @Patterico: You are a lawyer… yes? I don’t know what specifically you practice, but I’d imagine that you would know this.

    Have you ever heard of any other federal/local prosecutor go around a publicly announce that they did not exonerate the target of the investigation?

    whembly (51f28e)

  5. On the other hand, since when was Nancy Pelosi ever concerned about doing the right thing?

    You understand that none this actually has anything to do with Nancy Pelosi, she wasn’t in the party party that nominated Trump, defended his actions. She wasn’t in the majority in the house, she wasn’t in the administration that appointed Mueller.

    I know it feels good to blame democrats, or at least yell whatabout, but this is a republican party issue, wholly owned by the the republicans.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  6. one that would get anyone else on Earth indicted

    Well, other than Hillary Clinton, or Bill Clinton for that matter.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  7. The bottom line — and ironically this is one of the reasons why Trump was elected — is that powerful but guilty people in DC (and elsewhere) do NOT get indicted.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  8. Our esteemed host wrote:

    If you can’t see that Mueller is bending over backwards to be fair to Trump here, you might be a redneck hopeless partisan.

    He’s certainly attempting to be fair, and to not go beyond what was said in the report with which he doesn’t seem all that familiar. :) But, please, it ain’t jus’ us rednecks that who wants ta see him re’lected. :)

    The rednecked Dana (822212)

  9. Our honored host wrote:

    let’s apply all the standard rules to Trump — including the one that says that guilty people get prosecuted.

    Thing is, they aren’t guilty until they are prosecuted, and convicted.

    I know, I know: as a prosecutor, you must sincerely believe that someone is guilty of something before you prosecute him, and you must believe that you have sufficient evidence to win a conviction. But not all factually guilty people get prosecuted, and not all prosecuted people turn out to be guilty.

    Come January 21, 2025, I’m sure there will be a lot of people who will be yelling that it’s OK, now prosecute the son of a bitch. I’m sure that President Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will agree.

    The Dana who isn't an attorney (822212)

  10. Let’s make a list. I’ll start. Guilty people who were never indicted:

    Bill Clinton: Sexual assault (multiple), witness tampering (multiple), perjury, obstruction (multiple). Conspiracy to obstruct justice (AG Lynch).

    Hillary Clinton: Multiple violations of the Espionage Act (18 USC 793) that carry long sentences. Multiple instances where emoluments were received. Probably obstruction and witness tampering as well.

    AG Holder: Obstruction and conspiracy to obstruct.

    AG Lynch: Obstruction and conspiracy to obstruct.

    James Clapper: Lying to Congress

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  11. I’m sure that President Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will agree.

    Not that anyone will object from the Camps.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  12. You understand that none this actually has anything to do with Nancy Pelosi…

    It’s been about Pelosi since the day Mueller report went public. The power to indict a sitting president is in her hands, and the facts supporting multiple cases of provable obstruction of justice are in her hands.

    Paul Montagu (dbd3cc)

  13. Have you ever heard of any other federal/local prosecutor go around a publicly announce that they did not exonerate the target of the investigation?

    whembly (51f28e) — 7/25/2019 @ 8:49 am

    Did you miss this, the part where he wrote that prosecuting a sitting President is different?

    “Let’s pretend different rules don’t apply to the President and then feign indignation” Congressyapping is my favorite Congressyapping. Mueller twisted himself into a pretzel applying the rule that says Presidents can’t be indicted. He took that rule so seriously that when he had a provable obstruction case — one that would get anyone else on Earth indicted — he not only didn’t indict, but he won’t even say the obvious: that he would have indicted absent that rule. But, not wanting to send the false suggestion that he failed to indict because he lacked the evidence, he said that he could not exonerate the president.

    Mueller indicted and prosecuted other people. It isn’t that he doesn’t know the rules. There is a different rule for sitting Presidents.

    DRJ (15874d)

  14. Redneck? LOL.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  15. The conservative case for Bob Mueller. The conservative case for Jerry Nadler. The conservative case for Adam shriff.

    Well done!

    rcocean (1a839e)

  16. What is the fiscally conservative case for Trump?

    DRJ (15874d)

  17. It’s all right to say that there is ordinarily no such thing as a prosecutor exonerating people, but in his prepared statement May 29 Mueller stated:

    “As I said forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime.”

    Now, maybe there is a question if he could really have said so. I think he could have. His reoort to the Aiiorney General could go beyond what is usual.

    Interestingly, he implied an exoneration on the question of an underkying crime, but didn;t say so.

    Sammy Finkelman (27cd2c)

  18. a country boy can survive youtube
    Rather be a country redneck than some city slicker

    mg (8cbc69)

  19. They’re angry about it because the results for Trump aren’t what they wanted. If he had said it “did” exonerate him they’d love it and dem’s would complain that he shouldn’t have used that word.

    This. And in the first comment too. 😉

    The Trumpkin Creed:
    1. Love Trump with all your heart, and all your mind, and all your soul.
    2. Profess your love for Trump at all times or be cast into the outer darkness, where there will be much weeping and wailing and gnashing of meatloaf.

    nk (dbc370)

  20. Opinions are like… ELBOWS! Everyone has ‘em.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  21. 19… oBAma!!!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  22. Well then go on and set your trout lines!!!

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  23. when he had a provable obstruction case — one that would get anyone else on Earth indicted

    He outlined ten things and the Democrats on the committee focused on five or three.

    Their strongest case was that Donald Trump had tried to get the White House staff secretary, Rob Porter, to write a letter to White House counsel Don McCahn to lie (retract his true testimony) that he, Donald Trump, had tried to get McGahn to deliver a message to Attorney General Jeff Sessions to fire Robert Mueller. (The defense would be that Donald Trump didn’t remember things that way, or didn’t properly understand what McGahn had testified to, or didn’t want McGahn to commit actual perjury.)

    That is a circumstance where you wouldn’t need an underlying crime to prove corrupt motive,

    Of course this is a couple of steps from anything actually happening, and concerns aperipheral sissue, and the only reason McGahn had testified in the first place is that Trump had waived executive privilege (MCGahn had made clear to him attorney client orivilege didn’t apply)

    Sammy Finkelman (27cd2c)

  24. Well… how about that. Some folks at the NYT did some investigatory work!

    “Soon after the special counsel’s office opened in 2017, some aides noticed that Robert S. Mueller III kept noticeably shorter hours than he had as F.B.I. director, when he showed up at the bureau daily at 6 a.m. and often worked nights.
    He seemed to cede substantial responsibility to his top deputies, including Aaron Zebley, who managed day-to-day operations and often reported on the investigation’s progress up the chain in the Justice Department. As negotiations with President Trump’s lawyers about interviewing him dragged on, for example, Mr. Mueller took part less and less, according to people familiar with how the office worked.

    That hands-off style was on display Wednesday when Mr. Mueller testified for about seven hours before two House committees. Once famous for his laserlike focus, Mr. Mueller, who will turn 75 next month, seemed hesitant about the facts in his own 448-page report. He struggled at one point to come up with the word “conspiracy.”

    Mueller ”was unmistakably shaky. Roughly 15 times, he asked for a question to be repeated. He repeatedly said, “If it’s from the report, yes, I support it” — a line that seemed to suggest that he did not know what the report actually said. He seemed to struggle to complete his sentences, and not always because he had been interrupted.

    …Had Mr. Mueller delivered a commanding performance — even if he said little — he might have cemented that impression. Instead he may have ignited a whole new set of questions about whether he was too old for the job he took on, whether he delegated too many decisions to his top deputies, and whether he was reluctant to testify because he was not up to it.

    In fact, those suspicions already had some currency. In Senate testimony this year, Attorney General William P. Barr suggested that in a March 5 meeting, Mr. Mueller did not clearly articulate his reasoning about why he declined to decide whether President Trump had committed a prosecutable crime.

    …But what has dribbled out suggests that Mr. Mueller’s wobbly performance might not have come as a surprise to his subordinates.

    The calendars of one of the team’s top prosecutors, Andrew Weissmann, suggest that he met infrequently with Mr. Mueller, except for daily 5 p.m. meeting, which typically lasted 45 minutes.

    Instead, the calendars cite Mr. Zebley’s initials 111 times, often next to “team leader” meetings, suggesting he may have led them.”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/us/politics/mueller-hearings-performance.html

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  25. ubl – after I skin a buck!!

    mg (8cbc69)

  26. “What is the fiscally conservative case for Trump?”
    DRJ (15874d) — 7/25/2019 @ 9:43 am

    Looks like the Whattabout buffet table is open!

    Munroe (0b2761)

  27. So lay off Mueller, this was clearly a Weismann-Zebley Production.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  28. I am so glad I have never been a republican, Mueller makes Republicans look so stupid being the yes man for the democrat party.

    mg (8cbc69)

  29. Poor President Snowflake!

    Dave (1bb933)

  30. Patterico: “How about we apply the rule when a prosecutor builds a mountain of evidence against you showing your obstruction of justice, you get indicted.”

    Right on! And, how about when we don’t have that mountain of evidence yet, we concoct a wild conspiracy theory that doesn’t pan out but opens a path to collecting that mountain of evidence?

    Applied across the board, not just to presidents we don’t like, it’s literally a prosecutor’s wet dream.

    Munroe (0b2761)

  31. we don’t have that mountain of evidence yet,

    Read the report, Munroe. The evidence is overwhelming.

    Dustin (e01605)

  32. In the meantime Donald Trump said before the testimony started that, if Robert Mueller said something that it was being reported he was going ti saym he would be committing perjury yesterday

    Donald J. Trump

    It has been reported that Robert Mueller is saying that he did not apply and interview for the job of FBI Director (and get turned down) the day before he was wrongfully appointed Special Counsel. Hope he doesn’t say that under oath in that we have numerous witnesses to the…

    5:18 AM – 24 Jul 2019

    Donald J. Trump

    ….interview, including the Vice President of the United States!

    5:18 AM – 24 Jul 2019

    Sammy Finkelman (27cd2c)

  33. Bruce Ivins and talameo say hi.

    Narciso (aa2efd)

  34. What Muekler said was that the meeting did not concern the idea of him becoming FBI Directir again himself, but was a discussion of what kind of person should be FBI Director.

    You have to try to look for early statements (or sworn testimony) to try to resolve this,.

    Sammy Finkelman (27cd2c)

  35. Looks like the Whattabout buffet table is open!

    Munroe (0b2761) — 7/25/2019 @ 10:06 am

    Ask rcocean. It was his point.

    DRJ (15874d)

  36. You know, Mueller’s argument on why he never addressed whether Trump should be prosecuted was in full view in the Mueller Report.

    We considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person’s conduct “constitutes a federal offense.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor’s judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.

    I disliked the argument at the time, because the American people are parties to this case, just as much as Trump is. We deserved better. Trump has had no problem putting his argument out there. Maybe Mueller is operating under the assumption that our Constitutional government is still operating the way designed by the framers. Maybe he thought the People’s interest in the issues of the case would be handled by Congress.

    As for people claiming that Mueller’s refusal to address issues being unfair to Trump — well, Mueller did say, in the report, he had the power to exonerate Trump if the evidence clearly indicated he did not obstruct justice. And he declined to do so. There is nothing stopping Trump in addressing the Mueller Report charges seriously. He has the microphone. He has the Twitter feed. The media will let him say his piece — live, even.

    Appalled (d07ae6)

  37. Excellent comment, Appalled.

    DRJ (15874d)

  38. This was certainly reported rather early:

    https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/337182-trump-considered-mueller-for-fbi-director-before-he-was-named-special

    Trump considered Mueller for FBI director before he was named special counsel: report

    BY BRANDON CARTER – 06/09/17 05:04 PM EDT

    President Trump was considering former FBI Director Robert Mueller to replace James Comey atop the bureau before Mueller was named as special counsel to oversee the investigation into Russian election interference, NPR reported Friday. …

    The locus classicus:

    https://www.npr.org/2017/06/09/532286723/special-counsel-robert-mueller-had-been-on-white-house-short-list-to-run-fbi

    Special Counsel Robert Mueller Had Been On White House Shortlist To Run FBI

    June 9, 2017 4:35 PM ET

    The Trump White House had been considering Robert Mueller as a top candidate to lead the FBI before the deputy U.S. attorney general changed course and tapped Mueller to serve as special counsel investigating Russian interference in last year’s election, two sources familiar with the process told NPR.

    Mueller had gone so far as to meet with Justice Department leaders and White House officials about the FBI job, which opened after President Trump fired Director James Comey on May 9. But that idea went by the wayside after Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein instead reached out to Mueller to run the politically sensitive Russia probe, which is examining ties between Russians and Trump campaign aides, the sources said…..

    Now, notice here, being on the short list, and actually interviewing for the job are two different things.

    This is consistent with my theory that Rod Rosenstein wanted to be put Robert Mueller in charge of the FBI investigation into Trump for firing Comey which Andrew McCabe had opened, and tried to get Mueller nominated by Trump to be FBI Director, and when that failed, named him special counsel, becase he didn’t want McCabe running such an investigation but also didn’t want to shut it down on his own authority.

    This is entirely possible even if neither Mueller nor the White House was truly interested in him getting the FBI job.

    Sammy Finkelman (27cd2c)

  39. The first link was about what Mueller concerned himself with, that was extraneous to the investigations like ties to Israel. The second was about how akhmetshin was an asset for fusion against trump re the meet in June 16 and against browder.

    Narciso (aa2efd)

  40. @37. My own feeling is that this was a case of verdict first, argument afterwards.

    It is a bad argument. It’s not like anyone is going to take whatever Mueller says on faith, although Democrats pretend to.

    I think there was an internal disagreement between different members of Mueller’s team about some or all of the possible obstruction counts. This was a way of listing them all.

    Sammy Finkelman (27cd2c)

  41. Rosenstein signed off on the last fisa application knowing it was bogus which was a predicate for the investigation Comey said he wasnt conducting, the Comey memo served to rationalize muellers appointment even they concerned classified info.

    Narciso (aa2efd)

  42. Why did zebley testify, if he actually managed the investigation?

    Narciso (aa2efd)

  43. It seems scalias dissent in Morrison was well born out

    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/07/reviewing-the-mueller-miasma.php

    Narciso (aa2efd)

  44. What is the fiscally conservative case for Trump?

    DRJ (15874d) — 7/25/2019 @ 9:43 am

    Tax cuts. Reducing federal regulations. Massive growth towards energy independence. All create better economic growth.

    NJRob (e9f024)

  45. It’s been about Pelosi since the day Mueller report went public. The power to indict a sitting president is in her hands, and the facts supporting multiple cases of provable obstruction of justice are in her hands.

    Paul, from that perspective sure, but the reality is that an impeachment indictment in the house means little. I can see no fact pattern that has Senate republicans doing anything with it.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  46. #46 —

    Launching an inquiry at least puts the charges front and center and, if handled like the Watergate Hearings, allows them to be treated seriously in a public forum.

    I get Pelosi’s argument. I also think she figures a Trump without something to whine about will be a weaker candidate in 2020.

    Appalled (d07ae6)

  47. I think being objective from Starr to Mueller, I don’t think independent counsels work or even should work.

    Narciso (aa2efd)

  48. I can see no fact pattern that has Senate republicans doing anything with it.

    This is true, but the Constitution doesn’t say that the House cannot impeach a president unless there’s an assurance that a conviction will occur, which means that Pelosi is all about the politics and not about the multiple crimes this president committed.

    Paul Montagu (dbd3cc)

  49. Face it; our Captain is beating the raps.

    What’s to argue– if the DOJ rule of thumb is ‘you can’t indict a sitting president,’ the obvious option is to impeach.

    But Nancy ain’t inclined to do that– even with a report in hand oozing evidence to initiate proceedings. A ‘report’ BTW, few Congresscritters have actually read. And make no mistake, it is their job and their responsibility to read it– not yours, nor any other average American, busy with working and living their lives.

    IMO, Pelosi’s failing to permit impeachment proceeding to begin betrays her own so called ‘oath of office’– worse than anything, aside from Helsinki, novice Trump has done. With her decades of Washington experience, she should know better– and it all makes a mockery of this so called ‘rule of law’ – the double, triple, quadruple-standards, average Americans have known to be bogus for years. There are better people driving nails and school buses than operating this government.

    Rather then slug it out in the House and lose in the Senate- if McConnell allows it to come up anyway– Pelosi expects the voters to do her dirty work for her and reap the benefits at the ballot box. An inside-the-beltway-bubble-strategy that is foolish and doomed–and lazy. Nobody wants to be used as a tool.

    Trump will wear any impeachment effort- particularly when it fails- as a badge of honor, anyway, entertaining Americans at rally after rally, win re-election and beat the rap. OTOH, sure, in the unlikely event one of the weenies wins out over a Trump steak, they can try to indict when he’s out of office – if he doesn’t pardon himself first. So sure, ‘look back in anger’– try to go after an old man; an ex-president. Given the sluggish pace of America’s legal system, he’ll win by beating them to the grave and be on a postage stamp first. Yes, how ironic it will be; Trump postage stamps… you can’t lick’em.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  50. 45… great summary and comment, NJ Rob!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  51. Well said, DCSCA, especially about Pelosi abdicating her Constitutional responsibilities and foisting them onto the voters.

    Paul Montagu (dbd3cc)

  52. #50

    Nice comment, and I mostly agree. I do think defecting soccer Moms, a surplus of angry Dems, and the pitiful troops of the NeverTrump brigade will be enough to defeat “the Captain”. (I prefer “El Caudillo” myself).

    I have real probems with Pelosi’s conduct — she does know what she should do, and refuses.

    Appalled (d07ae6)

  53. which means that Pelosi is all about the politics and not about the multiple crimes this president committed.

    I guess…I can’t believe we’re at the point that Nancy Pelosi is the one we’re hoping to save the conservative movement from itself. There’s a primary, there’s a senate majority, but Nancy Pelosi is a hope to save the republican party.

    Of course, the base of the republican party doesn’t seem to want to be saved, hence a moron who lies more than any other human that has ever existed, who doesn’t know anything, about anything, can do no wrong. Praise be to Trump.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  54. Trump considered Mueller for FBI director before he was named special counsel: report
    BY BRANDON CARTER – 06/09/17 05:04 PM EDT
    This, along with doing business with a crooked guy like Paul Manafort and an incompetent buffoon like Michael Cohen, do not speak well of President Trump’s judgment.

    Bugg (47841b)

  55. 54 —

    We are at that point — though I tend to think that impeaching Trump saves the country, and any effect at sanitizing the GOP is incidental, and far from assured.

    Appalled (d07ae6)

  56. I doubt that, since he had already served his mandatory 12 years, the longest in post hoover memory, because trump relied on stay puft Christie, he chose chris wray, who was the least worse of likely candidate, but still a cabal player since 2004 or earlier, at the time of the Enron task force,

    narciso (d1f714)

  57. Professional query, sir.

    Have you, in your experience, ever announced that a suspect (or person of interest), or defendant has been exonerated? Do you know of any prosecutor who has?

    I, in my professional experience, have never witnessed that, or heard of it happening. My experience is, even when there is overwhelming evidence that a criminal complaint is unsupported by any evidence, the county attorney will merely dismiss the complaint (without prejudice), and nothing else.

    If you have a different experience, or your office has a policy that announces exonerations, I would be interested to know.

    Please note, I am not asking about post-conviction proceedings, whereby an individual wrongly convicted has been exonerated by new evidence.

    Thank you.

    Advocaat (33a09d)

  58. When you’ve gone so far left you think Pelosi is your conservative salvation.

    NJRob (e9f024)

  59. SCOTUS Ends Trump Charges
    by Adam Liptak, The New York Times | June 21, 2025

    In an unexpected and abrupt defeat for President Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Supreme Court held that former President Donald Trump cannot be tried on criminal charges. Writing for an 8-0 majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett stated that, “There is no way on God’s green earth that an impartial jury could be convened to try” the former two-term President. “Sixty percent of Americans love Mr Trump, and 58 percent hate his guts, and thus convening an impartial panel is for all intents and purposed impossible. Any group of twelve Americans who had heard so little of President trump as to not have a pre-existing, strong opinion would be just too plain stupid to serve on a jury.”

    Attorney General Rashida Tlaib expressed her displeasure with the sudden ruling, stating that “It was those damned Jews on the Court which caused this!” Justices Stephen Breyer and Elana Kagan are Jewish, and voted with the majority.

    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg is also Jewish, but has been in a persistent vegetative state since President Trump’s re-election in 2020, and has not participated in Court decisions since then. During her brief moments of lucidity, Justice Ginsberg has refused to resign, not until a Democrat takes the White House.

    Patrick Fret, Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, who had forwarded the case to the Supreme Court early, stating that there was no one in the Ninth Circuit impartial enough to rule on the case, said that, “Well, I can’t say that this decision was unexpected. Mr Dershowitz had argued a very strong case, and, well, the Justice Department’s Solicitor General, Elizabeth Warren, was simply and boneheadedly unprepared.

    Hillary Clinton, the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, made an appearance to say something, though the recordings were unclear due to the spittle which coated the microphones. Mrs Clinton did appear to be unhappy with the decision.

    The clairvoyant Dana (822212)

  60. I see the Never trumpers in the comment section are still whining about Trump for the 1,000 time in a row.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  61. Now we know why Mueller wasn’t hired as FBI Director. He’s senile. I kept expecting Mueller to ask to be excused so he could go home and watch Matlock.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  62. Go for it Democrats, media and catchfart NeverTrump. Do your worst!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  63. Gosh darn it, I hit the “t” instead of the “y” in the name of the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit!

    The Dana who isn't a touch typist (822212)

  64. on an unrelated note, google affirmately tried to block search results of tulsi gabbard, that’s down right unamerican, if you ask me, hence she’s suing them for 50 million,

    narciso (d1f714)

  65. Russian TV gives two big thumbs up to the Mueller hearings.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYTfzfsbiUI

    Paul Montagu (dbd3cc)

  66. #13 Mueller indicted and prosecuted other people. It isn’t that he doesn’t know the rules. There is a different rule for sitting Presidents.

    DRJ (15874d) — 7/25/2019 @ 9:31 am

    Can you show me those rules? And please don’t bring up the OLC guidance… that’s a red herring.

    There’s nothing stopping Mueller from explicitly stating that he has enough for indictment. Then it would be up to the DoJ’s heads, including AG Barr, to assert that the OLC doesn’t allow it. Mueller’s only job, is to assert that the evidence warrants indictments.

    He did that with the Conspiracy/Collusion of vol 1 of the report.

    He failed to render a prosecuturial judgment of Obstruction of Justice.

    Here’s the irony: Mueller gave his reasons why he didn’t render a judgement on obstructions. Fine. Then why did he render judgement on Collusion/Conspiracy? His job isn’t to exonerate. It’s to determine if the facts warrants indictment.

    His job wasn’t also to write the report for Congressional consumption for potential impeachment proceeding, as it was patently the case by Mueller’s SC team. His report was supposed to be a confidential report to AG Barr and then shut up. FWIW, Barr should’ve keep the obstruction of justice deliberation in vol 2 redacted due to regulations against talking/publishing the conduct of someone(ie, Trump) who hasn’t been indicted or even been accused of a crime. Yet, for all those critics of Barr handling this ordeal, I’ve yet to see these folks give Barr any kudos for releasing the whole damn thing.

    This sets an awful precedent in the future.***

    The biggest issue I see with this whole process, is that many conflate the Special Counsel with the Independent Counsel regulation.

    Latter is altogether different than the former.

    The NR nailed it, in this blurb:
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/bob-muellers-bad-day/
    …He’s [Mueller] already violated, at minimum, the spirit of the special-counsel regulations that were meant to closely tether special counsels to standard Justice Department operating procedures rather than empower them to serve up de facto impeachment referrals to Congress. This is what Mueller’s office did anyway (with Justice Department officials hesitant to exercise proper supervision lest they, too, be accused of obstruction of justice). It’s even more inappropriate for a special counsel to go and talk about the conduct of someone, in this case, the president of the United States, who hasn’t been indicted or even accused of a crime.

    The special counsel is not the proper resource to conduct investigation on the actions by the head of the executive branch.

    That’s the sole domain of Congress, and democrats should sack up and start impeachment proceedings…

    ***Future hypothetical precedent: what’s to stop a GOP administration from initiating a Special Counsel post-election to peripherally investigate an incoming Democratic campaign/administration? Then, expand the scope as new evidence is presented. Can you imagine the political fallout if the incoming administration ended that investigation upon arriving to power? And if it is not ended when in power, even if the process doesn’t garner any convictions (unlikely since process crimes seems to be aggressively investigated in one-sided manner)…but since AG Barr released damn near 99% of the report, the pressure would be there by the public to air out the dirty laundry of the incoming administration.

    If the past is any indication, I’m not so sure I’m crying wolf here…

    whembly (51f28e)

  67. “hence a moron who lies more than any other human that has ever existed, who doesn’t know anything, about anything, can do no wrong.”
    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c) — 7/25/2019 @ 12:17 pm

    He knew enough not to fire Mueller. Most genius move ever.

    Munroe (0b2761)

  68. Mr Munroe wrote:

    He knew enough not to fire Mueller. Most genius move ever.

    But, but, but, we were told, over and over and over again, that President Trump was going to create a constitutional crisis by firing the Special Persecutor! :)

    Who knows, maybe he was really, really going to do it, and cooler heads prevailed, but damn, it sure does look like Mr Trump snookered almost everybody, again.

    For someone we’ve all been told is just dumb as a box of rocks, he sure has outsmarted a lot of people.

    The other Dana (822212)

  69. “The Lord watches over fools and drunkards – and I don’t drink!” – Gomer Pyle

    felipe (023cc9)

  70. The self-moronization of NeverTrump continues apace…

    Colonel Haiku (33489e)

  71. Can you show me those rules? And please don’t bring up the OLC guidance… that’s a red herring.

    Please explain this. The OLC Guidelines apply to all DOJ prosecutors, including special counsels.

    DRJ (15874d)

  72. He knew enough not to fire Mueller. Most genius move ever.

    Actually, no:

    Attempts to fire Mueller and then create false evidence

    Despite being advised by then-White House Counsel Don McGahn that he could face legal jeopardy for doing so, Trump directed McGahn on multiple occasions to fire Mueller or to gin up false conflicts of interest as a pretext for getting rid of the Special Counsel. When these acts began to come into public view, Trump made “repeated efforts to have McGahn deny the story” — going so far as to tell McGahn to write a letter “for our files” falsely denying that Trump had directed Mueller’s termination.

    Firing Mueller would have seriously impeded the investigation of the President and his associates — obstruction in its most literal sense. Directing the creation of false government records in order to prevent or discredit truthful testimony is similarly unlawful. The Special Counsel’s report states: “Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent scrutiny of the President’s conduct toward the investigation.”

    DRJ (15874d)

  73. 45.

    What is the fiscally conservative case for Trump?

    DRJ (15874d) — 7/25/2019 @ 9:43 am

    Tax cuts. Reducing federal regulations. Massive growth towards energy independence. All create better economic growth.

    NJRob (e9f024) — 7/25/2019 @ 10:55 am

    Tax cuts may or may not be good policy but they are not fiscally conservative by themselves.

    Curbing federal regulations are very good, but they don’t balance the federal budget. They can help businesses cut costs but they will need that to pay higher taxes to the IRS when we have to pay the bill for debt like this.

    Finally, please do not give Trump or any President credit for the energy sector. Obama and Trump have claimed credit but it is the oil and gas sector that did that, not government:

    This remarkable transformation in the U.S. was brought about by American entrepreneurs who figured out how to literally force open rocks often more than a mile below the surface of the earth, to produce gas and then oil. Those rocks — called shale, or source rock, or tight rock, and once thought to be impermeable — were opened by combining two technologies: horizontal drilling, in which the drill bit can travel well over a mile horizontally, and hydraulic fracturing, in which fluid is pumped into the earth at a high-enough pressure to crack open hydrocarbon-bearing rocks, while a so-called proppant, usually sand, holds the rocks open a sliver of an inch so the hydrocarbons can flow. A fracking entrepreneur likens the process to creating hallways in an office building that has none and then calling a fire drill.

    In November 2017, production topped the 10 million barrel a day record set in 1970, back in the last gasp of the legendary oil boom. This year, U.S. oil production is expected to reach almost 11 million barrels a day, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The country’s newest hot spot, Texas’ Permian Basin, now ranks second only to Saudi Arabia’s legendary Ghawar oil field in production per day, according to oil company ConocoPhillips. Stretching through northern Appalachia, the Marcellus Shale could be the second largest natural gas field in the world, according to geologists at Penn State. Shale gas now accounts for over half of total U.S. production, according to the EIA, up from almost nothing a decade ago.

    Last year, the U.S. imported less than one-third of its daily oil demand, and the Energy Information Administration says it’s possible the U.S. will become a “net petroleum exporter,” meaning that the amount of exports will more than offset the amount of imports, by 2022.

    The Permian Basin is now number 1 and it has nothing to do with Obama or Trump. These technologies and properties have taken decades to develop.

    DRJ (15874d)

  74. DRJ (15874d) — 7/25/2019 @ 3:06 pm

    Trump fired Mueller then. I stand corrected.

    Munroe (0b2761)

  75. whembly,

    You want Mueller to say it?

    Former special counsel Robert Mueller confirmed in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday that President Trump directed staffers to falsify records connected to Mueller’s investigation.

    Asked by Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.) whether it was “fair to say” Trump “tried to protect himself by asking staff to falsify records relevant to an ongoing investigation,” Mueller responded, “I would say that’s generally a summary.”

    Richmond then asked if, in giving the order, Trump intended to “hamper the investigation.” In response, Mueller referred Richmond back to his office’s report.

    The Louisiana congressman went on to specifically ask Mueller about Trump’s attempts to get then-White House counsel Don McGahn to create a written record falsely asserting Trump had not directed him to fire Mueller, which McGahn refused.

    Richmond asked if the attempts “were related to President Trump’s concerns about your obstruction of justice inquiry,” to which Mueller responded, “I believe that to be true.”

    “So it’s accurate to say the president knew that he was asking [Don McGahn] to deny facts that McGahn ‘had repeatedly said were accurate.’ Isn’t that right?” Richmond asked Mueller, with the special counsel responding in the affirmative.

    The exchange between Trump and McGahn was one of 10 episodes Mueller’s team investigated as possible obstruction of justice, a frequent topic during the marathon hearing.

    Mueller, who wrote in the report that the probe could not exonerate Trump on obstruction, repeatedly demurred on whether the behavior described in the report met the legal definition during the hearing.

    Mueller thinks that is as far as he can go under the rules. Mueller told Trump’s attorneys that. Former prosecutors agree. Why is everyone wrong?

    DRJ (15874d)

  76. Trump fired Mueller then. I stand corrected.

    Munroe (0b2761) — 7/25/2019 @ 3:32 pm

    He tried.

    Attempts count as much as success when it comes to obstruction.

    DRJ (15874d)

  77. Blind orange hog prevented by McGahn from eating poison acorn; piglets praise hog’s genius.

    nk (dbc370)

  78. mcgahn assumed mueller was honorable,

    https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/25/shaffer-mueller-comey/

    narciso (d1f714)

  79. “Attempts count as much as success when it comes to obstruction.”
    DRJ (15874d) — 7/25/2019 @ 3:39 pm

    Except that now, Trump’s failure to fire Mueller is starting to seem like obstruction of justice by the impeachment crowd.

    And, there was no attempt. Trump, the dictator wannabe as we’re lead to believe, makes an order then shrugs his shoulders when it’s not carried out. So Putinesque.

    Munroe (0b2761)

  80. … starting to seem like …

    Most of us noticed it when Mueller’s Report was released.

    DRJ (15874d)

  81. And, there was no attempt.

    Because Trump’s lawyer lied but Trump doesn’t, right?

    DRJ (15874d)

  82. Tax cuts. Reducing federal regulations. Massive growth towards energy independence.

    The tax cut part has been fact-checked, and they’re the opposite of fiscally conservative. The other two, yes.

    Paul Montagu (dbd3cc)

  83. Folks are pretty forked off that the coup attempt suffered another setback.

    And it’s not just the Left.

    harkin (0f62bd)

  84. There’s a primary, there’s a senate majority, but Nancy Pelosi is a hope to save the republican party.

    I don’t hold out that hope because the Senate won’t remove him.

    Paul Montagu (dbd3cc)

  85. If Rod Rosenstein recommended Mueller for this slot, he should be asked why. The man is clearly not in full control of his faculties. And the Democrats who requested these hearings had to be fully aware he was not up to it. Shame on them.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  86. #76 Mueller thinks that is as far as he can go under the rules.

    Right. Doesn’t mean he’s always right to believe so.

    Mueller told Trump’s attorneys that.

    And they’ve obviously disagreed.

    Former prosecutors agree. Why is everyone wrong?

    And? Ever heard the phrase that prosecutors can indict a ham sandwich?

    Now throw in political animus into the mix. (see Weissman)

    That’s why we have courts, so that the prosecutors and defendent can hash it out with a structured process that protects the rights of the defendent.

    Otherwise, as even the Mueller report mentioned (that is, they hedged it), it would be unfair to essentially publicize un-indicted’s dirty laundry.

    Furthermore, other former prosecutors disagrees…. like Andrew McCarthy.

    Can we at least agree this ordeal is a mess?

    Basically, Mueller and his aggressive partisan team wrote the report, believing that it’d eventually be released to the public (or hoping that Barr upholds his confirmation promise). So, it’s jammed packed with goodies for Trump’s political opponents to make hay with that. A direct violation of DOJ regulations that is supposed to keep these gooey details confidential of un-indicted targets.

    The process has been abused. My worry that if its not sufficiently called out, it sets a dangerous precedent.

    whembly (4605df)

  87. I disagree with the OLC opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted. The rationale is that forcing a president to defend himself in court would distract him from performing his duties as chief executive. Well, what the hell do you think a sitting vice-president is for? Is it not to perform executive duties when the president is unavailable or incapable? The logic is specious. There is an order of succession in the Constitution. When the president is unavailable or incapable, the vice-president takes over executive duties, and when the vice-president is unavailable or incapable, the speaker of the House takes over executive duties, and so on.

    The OLC opinion is just another example of making the presidency a monarchy. Congress has been delegating powers to the president, that he doesn’t have under the Constitution, for decades. Executive orders, declarations of a national emergency and of war, for example, that allow the president to do whatever the hell he wants. The reason why is because members of Congress do not want to take the time to debate and vote on a resolution, out of fear not being re-elected if they do. It’s also why Congress has created all of these agencies to pass regulations with the full force of law. The members didn’t want to vote on record.

    This is all a complete failure of the people’s House. I refer to Mark Twain: “First, God created the Idiot. That was for practice. Then he created Congress. Imagine you were an Idiot. Imagine you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.”

    In defense of Mueller, he is an old man, worthy of distinction for his service, hard of hearing, halting in speaking, but he is not senile. He was a poor witness to be sure, because the “Mueller” report was not his. It was the Special Counsel’s office’s report. I seriously doubt he wrote a word of it, which is why he kept asking for citations. He delegated responsibility to the lawyers, chosen for their expertise on legal matters, and to the FBI agents for fact finding. It was they who wrote the report, not Mueller. All he did was oversee the investigation, and he chose a good team and ran a tight ship.

    The report itself is damning. But Mueller followed the OLC opinion and DOJ guidelines. Under those, since he could not indict the president, he decided early on not to make a determination on whether or not the president committed a crime. His team gathered the evidence, wrote the legal opinions, and submitted a report. It was handed over to the Attorney General, to be forwarded to Congress. That was the mandate.

    Mueller’s legal theory is nuanced, but he is a Constitutionalist. He believes the proper venue for deciding whether to indict a president resides with the DOJ, and whether to impeach resides with the House of Representatives. So he accumulated evidence and filed a report, then submitted it to the proper authorities.

    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/07/24/mueller-testimony-legal-experts-analysis-227419

    The Democrats made a mistake calling Mueller first. If they had read the report, which many of them did not, they would have called the writing attorneys. It would have made for a much more forceful hearing.

    They’re subpoenaing McGahn; they’re subpoenaing everybody concerned. But what good will that do? Since everyone is ignoring subpoenas and denying document requests?

    Pelosi is reluctant to start impeachment proceedings. She’s smart. She wants more committee hearings, she wants more witnesses, she wants to build an iron-clad case.

    I get that. The evidence against Trump is damning, but the sentiment to convict him is small, underwhelming. So her position is to build a case that the public cannot deny.

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  88. Maybe the Dems just believed all the fake news about man-in-charge Bulldog.

    harkin (0f62bd)

  89. 85… they are beyond frustrated, harkin. They have only so many acts of heroism in them. And their reserves of horseschiff are seriously depleted.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  90. ban yourself, Col.

    mg (8cbc69)

  91. I thoroughly denounce myself, mg and narciso!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  92. Any of you people “Calvin and Hobbes” comic strip fans? You notice any similarities between Calvin and Trump?

    nk (dbc370)

  93. Is that like Mueller’s similarity to Mr. Magoo?

    Munroe (0b2761)

  94. Re 92:

    The DOJ wiped text messages between former FBI employees, Lisa Page and Peter Strozk, before the Office of the Inspector General could review them.“
    _

    Like, with a cloth?

    harkin (58d012)

  95. Any of you people “Calvin and Hobbes” comic strip fans? You notice any similarities between Calvin and Trump?

    Does Hobbes count as a p*ssy cat? If so, then yes.

    Dave (1bb933)

  96. “I guess…I can’t believe we’re at the point that Nancy Pelosi is the one we’re hoping to save the conservative movement from itself. There’s a primary, there’s a senate majority, but Nancy Pelosi is a hope to save the republican party.”

    Pelosi thinks Trump is actively working for the Russians (she as much as said this today), so you are right there with her, klink. Two peas in the crazy pod.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  97. Re 92:

    “The DOJ wiped text messages between former FBI employees, Lisa Page and Peter Strozk, before the Office of the Inspector General could review them.“
    _

    Like, with a cloth?

    Ohmigosh! And on top of indications that Mueller is senile! We need to reopen the Russia investigation! From the beginning!

    nk (dbc370)

  98. For the lawyers: did the Mueller team have a responsibility under the Code of Professional Conduct to get approval from an Ethics officer for their participation? If I understand it correctly, even the appearance of a potential for ethical problems would be grounds… no?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  99. 2018 election meddling… I give a fvck all about the Russians, this was the goal of these sh*tbirds

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  100. Everyone involved in this traveshamockery must be thoroughly investigated and – if appropriate- held accountable.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  101. 60. No federal court has ever said that a defendant can;t be tried because it is impossible for him to get an impartial jury. hey do’t like that kind of conclusion. The Supreme Court wouldn’t rule that way 8-0.

    And in particular I can’t imagine Chief Justice Roberts doing that. He’d find some other excuse to avoid a trial, like an imporpperly impaneled grand jury. Of course in a joke, we can have improbabilities, and every paragraph here is a separate joke.

    “Well, I can’t say that this decision was unexpected. Mr Dershowitz had argued a very strong case, and, well, the Justice Department’s Solicitor General, Elizabeth Warren, was simply and boneheadedly unprepared.

    You forgot to close the quotation. Also, it may even be against the code of conduct or something for a federal judge to talk this way. And finally, Alan Dershowitz would be about 86 or 87 years old when he made that argument. Possible. You also have AOC getting elected president at the minimum age of 35. I guess that would help her pay off her student loans.

    Sammy Finkelman (27cd2c)

  102. Colonel Haiku @104:

    I think the only bias that the Code of Professional Conduct is concerned about is bias > in favor of somebody, not against.

    Sammy Finkelman (27cd2c)

  103. Gawain’s Ghost (b25cd1) — 7/25/2019 @ 5:27 pm

    The Democrats made a mistake calling Mueller first. If they had read the report, which many of them did not, they would have called the writing attorneys. It would have made for a much more forceful hearing.

    Who actually wrote the report is officially a secret, I think.

    Sammy Finkelman (27cd2c)

  104. Sammeh if you have to explain satire, it loses its bite, no hes not senile hes Tom connelly fron the blacklist,

    Narciso (aa2efd)

  105. He didn’t write the report, so how could barr ga e mischaracterized it.

    Narciso (aa2efd)

  106. You know, when a case goes before an appellate court with so many flaws and so many unanswered questions in the record, the court orders a new trial. That’s why the right thing to do here is to junk the Mueller report and order a new investigation.

    nk (dbc370)

  107. You know, when a case goes before an appellate court with so many flaws and so many unanswered questions in the record, the court orders a new trial. That’s why the right thing to do here is to junk the Mueller report and order a new investigation.

    I agree.

    We need a professional prosecutor with years of experience and unquestioned personal integrity to head the investigation, and to ensure they’re not beholden to either of the tribes in Washington, they should come from outside Washington – as far from Washington as possible. Maybe a tough state district attorney from the West Coast.

    Anybody know someone like that?

    Dave (1bb933)

  108. Not me. I don’t know anybody who has given me reason to hate them that much.

    nk (dbc370)

  109. Which is worse?

    1) The FBI and CIA using a thoroughly discredited dossier – commissioned by Clinton and the DNC through a law firm cutout and compiled for them by a former British spook, who had either been fed disinformation by bad actors from the very country our very capable IC has accused of meddling in our elections, or just made it up – as the basis to open a counter-intelligence operation and fraudulently obtain a FISA warrant for the purpose of over-turning the election of a duly-elected president (don’t you DARE call it a coup!). Next, when a dubiously appointed special counsel can’t prove collusion/conspiracy using all the resources at his disposal for spying and entrapment (Mr. Mueller – depending on his mood I suppose – says the two are/aren’t colloquially synonymous for legal purposes, further burnishing my admiration of prosecutors) he sadistically pursues every associate and family member of his target with guns drawn, no-knock raids, with the sole goal their ruination, bankruptcy, and imprisonment. Apparently taxi medallions are within his purview, NOT FusionGPS. Process crimes mostly, prosecuted for the sole purpose of satisfying an evil thirst for power. Where do those that were steamrolled get their reputations back, Mr. Mueller? The prosecutorial misconduct over the past few years is breathtaking and nothing new….Enron, Arthur Andersen, the Whitey Bulger case, etc.
    2) Trying to defend yourself from the sub-human POSs coming after you on the basis of completely false charges and narrative. You’re being railroaded, so you fight back and lie because you think that’s your only defense after you’ve seen what they have done to your staff and family. And this wouldn’t have happened if the FBI/DOJ/IC/State Department/Democrats had an ounce of integrity.

    We all know most Americans, the fair ones, choose #1. Only the NeverTrumpees and their new friends on the extreme left, having been driven insane by their hatred of President Trump, choose #2. We know this because the #2s on this blog never express their outrage and disgust at the treasonous cabal described in #1.

    Lenny (c48a26)

  110. Lenny (c48a26) — 7/25/2019 @ 9:47 pm

    The dossier contained a great deal of accurate information. Get over it.

    And Trump’s son, son-in-law and campaign manager actively conspired with the Russians to influence the election. We have their confessions and electronic records; there is no doubt about it.

    Finally, there was nothing false about the crimes committed by Russian agents on Trump’s behalf that he attempted to cover up. Nixon didn’t commit the Watergate break-in either – he tried to cover it up after the fact because it was politically damaging and embarrassing for him. Trump tried to do the same.

    Dave (1bb933)

  111. Bring back sock puppet fridays in honor of Bob Mueller. He is the supreme Sock Puppet.

    mg (8cbc69)

  112. The money Mueller stole from the tax-payers on this hoax has to be a crime. Waiting for some lawyer to charge this dolt for theft.

    mg (8cbc69)

  113. Well, Mr Finkelman, you can argue that it was poor satire, but it was satire nevertheless. I do admit to the typos, however.

    Part of it relies on President Trump appointing our host to the Ninth Circuit; yeah, that’s going to happen!

    The satirical Dana (822212)

  114. But it does raise an obvious question: opinions about President Trump are so widespread and he is so widely loved and widely vilified that finding twelve impartial jurors to try him in a criminal case would be virtually impossible. Any American who hasn’t heard enough about Mr Trump to not have a prejudiced view concerning him is going to be so incredibly unaware and just plain stupid that we wouldn’t want him judging a petty shoplifting case, much less an obstruction one.

    The Dana who isn't an attorney (822212)

  115. Any American who hasn’t heard enough about Mr Trump to not have a prejudiced view concerning him is going to be so incredibly unaware and just plain stupid that we wouldn’t want him judging a petty shoplifting case, much less an obstruction one.

    See, that’s where you go wrong. Not only is being “incredibly unaware and just plain stupid” not a legal bar to jury service, those are the jurors lawyers pray for.

    nk (dbc370)

  116. Still splitting atoms with your mind, Dave, no you sanction the attorneys who disnt bother to check that mifsud worked for an Intel training center or that disnt examine the servers themselves, or evaluate the dossier properly.

    Narciso (f848af)

  117. Btw Madigan zelinsky who’s left in the assembly.

    Narciso (f848af)

  118. I think you are confusing inflammatory prejudice about Trump with inflammatory prejudice about Trump’s alleged obstruction crimes. Trump is only entitled to a jury that is impartial as to whether he committed specific charged crimes. He is not entitled to jurors who know nothing about him.

    There have been many well-known, high-profile defendants who were tried in federal courts. The test for whether venue must be moved due to prejudice involves several factors. One is whether the crime was committed recently and the details have been widely reported and known. For instance:

    132 Skilling, 561 U.S. at 383 (“[U]nlike cases in which trial swiftly followed a widely reported crime, over four years elapsed between Enron’s bankruptcy and Skilling’s trial.”); In re Tsarnaev, 780 F.3d at 22 (“The nearly two years that have passed since the Marathon bombings has allowed the decibel level of publicity about the crimes themselves to drop and community passions to diminish.”); United States v. Philpot, 733 F.3d 734, 741 (7th Cir. 2013); United States v. Nelson, 347 F.3d 701, 709 (8th Cir. 2003); United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 155 (2d Cir. 2003).

    Clearly Trump is well-known and always will be, but that isn’t the standard. What matters is whether the facts underlying the alleged crimes are well-known. I suggest very few people have actually read the Mueller Report or read/watched reports about the details of any potential obstruction charges, and knowledge about those facts will quickly fade over time. If Trump is ever tried for obstruction (which I doubt for political reasons, not legal reasons), it will be at least 2 or maybe 6 years from now.

    DRJ (15874d)

  119. What was the underlying crime again?

    Btw guess what they found about the new boss in Puerto rico?

    Narciso (f848af)

  120. Ah, yes, thank you, narciso. There are two more hurdles that a criminal prosecution must overcome.

    The initial one: At the time of trial, does the defendant have the mental capacity to understand the nature of the charges against him and to assist in his own defense?

    The final one: At the time of the offense, as a result of mental disease or mental defect, did the defendant lack substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct?

    Trump will walk.

    nk (dbc370)

  121. There isnt any, the solution is get yourself a candidate that doesn’t smell of elder berries, if you want to defeat him.

    Narciso (f848af)

  122. Which ties in with the shadowban of tulsi, she has most of the party mindset, she doesn’t want to go to war with Russia or Venezuela, but does the base want to, they want their free stuff.

    Narciso (f848af)

  123. Only one HUGE problem with your assertion.
    There was no legal opinion anywhere, from anyone, that Mueller could not indict Trump’s subordinates or associates for Obstruction of Justice, if it really occurred.

    Sure, Trump could pardon them. That would be instantly-strong grounds for impeachment.

    If he didn’t, it would make it clear that Trump ordered his subordinates to obstruct justicce, which again, would be instantly-strong grounds for impeachment.

    And if still not, it would lay out the expectation that Trump would be indicted as soon as he stepped down.

    There was NOTHING stopping Mueller from indicting/charging Trump’s subordinates.

    He did not.

    That is extremely strong evidence that Trump himself is not guilty of Obstruction of Justice, and that, in fact, Mueller was unfair to Trump and applying an upside-down standard that is not applied to anyone else.

    gitabushi (9d23b9)

  124. New day, new name huh?

    There was no legal opinion anywhere, from anyone, that Mueller could not indict Trump’s subordinates or associates for Obstruction of Justice, if it really occurred.

    Is that why the Mueller investigation sought indictment, charged, prosecuted, and convicted a bunch of people?

    If he didn’t, it would make it clear that Trump ordered his subordinates to obstruct justicce, which again, would be instantly-strong grounds for impeachment.

    Yeah, the 10 instances documented in the report.

    And if still not, it would lay out the expectation that Trump would be indicted as soon as he stepped down.

    Yeah, he can be.

    There was NOTHING stopping Mueller from indicting/charging Trump’s subordinates.

    He did not

    Actually, yeah, he did.

    That is extremely strong evidence that Trump himself is not guilty of Obstruction of Justice, and that, in fact, Mueller was unfair to Trump and applying an upside-down standard that is not applied to anyone else.

    No, since literally everything you said was a lie, it isn’t.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  125. The prosecutorial misconduct over the past few years is breathtaking and nothing new….Enron, Arthur Andersen, the Whitey Bulger case, etc.

    You know you’re reading a true-believing Trump loyalist when he trots out the discredited narrative that Mueller was involved with sending four innocent men to prison to protect Bulger. And someone tell me how Mueller’s motives were an “evil thirst for power” when he resigns from his job instead of takes power somehow.

    Paul Montagu (dbd3cc)

  126. Discredited by who, Paul?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  127. Ripping FBI special counsel Robert Mueller as a political “zealot,” Harvard law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz reminded staunch Mueller supporters about the former FBI director’s role in protecting “notorious mass murderer” Whitey Bulger as an FBI informant.

    “I think Mueller is a zealot,” Dershowitz told “The Cats Roundtable” on 970 AM-N.Y. “. . . I don’t think he cares whether he hurts Democrats or Republicans, but he’s a partisan and zealot.

    “He’s the guy who kept four innocent people in prison for many years in order to protect the cover of Whitey Bulger as an FBI informer. Those of us in Boston don’t have such a high regard for Mueller because we remember this story. The government had to pay out tens of millions of dollars because Whitey Bulger, a notorious mass murderer, became a government informer against the mafia . . . and that’s regarded in Boston of one of the great scandals of modern judicial history. And Mueller was right at the center of it. So, he is not without criticism by people who know him in Boston.”

    —- Alan Dershowitz

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  128. I don’t think it was a coincidence that Trump’s Bureau of Prisons transferred Whitey Bulger from the relative safety of Sumterville to Hazelton, the most murderous of federal prisons, so he could be killed before Mueller could question him about the Trump and Kushner criminal families’ Mafia connections. I don’t think it was a coincidence at all.

    nk (dbc370)

  129. Mueller never explained (not that he was going to explain anything about his invstigation) why they never investigated the question if the information in the Steele dossier was itsekf a form of Russian interference in the eklection. He said that was under investigaton (by others) in the DOJ and the FBI. But it wasn’t under investigation during mos of his tenure and it wss right to the point.

    Now I can say the steele dossier information was not Russian interference because they didn’t know Steele was working for Americans but thought he was working for British conservatoves or MI6. But I don’t know if Mueller’s team reached that conclusion. If they did they would have had to really understand a lot about Fsion GPS and Steele.

    Sammy Finkelman (27cd2c)

  130. And I further think that the reason a lifelong lib like Alan Dershowitz climbed aboard the orange wagon is for political protection from his activities with Jeffrey Epstein. Good luck with, Alan!

    nk (dbc370)

  131. We really to reopen this investigation from the beginning. No special counsel necessary. The House can form a House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) with its own chief counsel, its own investigators, and its own subpoena power. No grand jury needed, either — the committee will fulfill that role.

    nk (dbc370)

  132. Dershowitz briefs in his boxers.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  133. 135. nk (dbc370) — 7/26/2019 @ 10:20 am

    135.I don’t think it was a coincidence that Trump’s Bureau of Prisons transferred Whitey Bulger from the relative safety of Sumterville to Hazelton, the most murderous of federal prisons, so he could be killed before Mueller could question him about the Trump and Kushner criminal families’ Mafia connections. I don’t think it was a coincidence at all.

    What did thay have to do wi th Whitey Bulger?

    Now Massachustts Democrats and Republican governor (and possible Trump challenger for he 2020 Republican nomination) William Weld, who attempted to be appointed Ambassador to Mexico by Bill Clinton, and later toyed with running for Senator from New York State, and was the Libertarian candidate for Vice President in 2016 – yes.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/six-degrees-whitey-bulger/352111

    https://www.bostonherald.com/2016/08/10/carr-once-upon-a-time-weld-really-was-a-republican

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L98h9xdtwpA

    And Mueller too maybe in some way. At least incompetence.

    The people who sent Whitey Bulger to his death were career eople in the Bureau of risons.

    Sammy Finkelman (27cd2c)

  134. “I think Mueller is a zealot,” Dershowitz told “The Cats Roundtable” on 970 AM-N.Y. “. . . I don’t think he cares whether he hurts Democrats or Republicans, but he’s a partisan and zealot.

    Parse this sentence for me, will you? The only way it makes sense is if Mueller is neither a Democrat or a Republican but a Jewish resistance fighter under Tito (the Yugoslavian not Jackson).

    nk (dbc370)

  135. There was no legal opinion anywhere, from anyone, that Mueller could not indict Trump’s subordinates or associates for Obstruction of Justice, if it really occurred.

    The possible attempted obstruction by Trump is mostly trying to get them to do some things (like arranging to gte Mueller off the case) which they didn’t do, or tweets by Trump. No co-conspirators.

    Sammy Finkelman (27cd2c)

  136. After a couple days of insisting Mueller nailed it, they are throwing in the towel:

    House Dems grudgingly admit Mueller stunt backfired — big time

    https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/07/26/wapo-house-dems-grudgingly-admit-mueller-stunt-backfired-big-time/

    According to the report, aides started asking questions about Mueller’s energy and ability almost from the start, as well as his decision to delegate most of his inherent authority to deputies. Mueller’s condition might not have been common knowledge, but the special counsel office was under the purview of the House Judiciary Committee as part of its oversight of the Department of Justice. Are we to believe that Jerrold Nadler never once checked in on the office’s operation, including whether Mueller was an engaged special counsel?”

    Wonder if the anti-Trumpers actually running this investigation gave up on the perjury/obstruction trap when there was no ‘there’ there regarding conspiracy/collusion and decided to throw figurehead boss to the wolves.

    harkin (58d012)

  137. Sammy @140. Atlantic City casinos come to mind right off, Sammy, among any number of other things, but we’ll never know now I guess.

    nk (dbc370)

  138. neither … nor

    nk (dbc370)

  139. 115. Lenny (c48a26) — 7/25/2019 @ 9:47 pm

    1) The FBI and CIA using a thoroughly discredited dossier – commissioned by Clinton and the DNC through a law firm cutout and compiled for them by a former British spook, who had either been fed disinformation by bad actors from the very country our very capable IC has accused of meddling in our elections, or just made it up – as the basis to open a counter-intelligence operation and fraudulently obtain a FISA warrant for the purpose of over-turning the election of a duly-elected president

    Problems with this assertion:

    1) CIA involvement has not come to light.

    2) They like to point out that the Steele dossier was not the basis to open a counter-intelligence investigation. That was the Alexander Downer report of a conersation with George papadoppolous. But the Steele dossier was much of what they were checking out – and Adam Schiff still wants to check this out. (Trump’s supposed financial ties to the Russians)

    3) It wasn’t to overturn an election – this started before the election.

    Sammy Finkelman (27cd2c)

  140. harkin @141. So maybe Trump supporters stop looking at gift horse in mouth, eh?

    nk (dbc370)

  141. 133… thanks for the reminder… I forgot to buy more Reynolds Wrap Aluminum foil for this weekend’s barbecue.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  142. Weld had the authority then, Mueller had it by the time the lawsuits came to fruition

    Narciso (f848af)

  143. Apparently miss butina was making soecial orders from overstock if you get my drift.

    Narciso (f848af)

  144. The earlier link was donnie Deutsch doing his full cardinal fang impression. And how the ignorance of fusion GPS is improbable since it was a prime source, none of that is interesting apparently

    Narciso (f848af)

  145. Likewise, Democrats should remember that Mueller had Trump pooping in his pants for two years, and stop whining about their half loaf.

    nk (dbc370)

  146. #141

    While we tend to blame the GOP for the Congressional tendency to outsource everything remotely controversial to everyone else, the Democrats did that with impeachment. They hoped Mueller would give them something. He actually did. But he didn’t tell them that they had to start impeachment proceedings. There’s no cover for the Democratic meek — which seems to be most of the caucus.

    So, it’s the old floperoo. Nancy has proven more ineffective then John Boehner. Which has got to sting.

    Appalled (c9622b)

  147. DRJ at 76

    The Louisiana congressman went on to specifically ask Mueller about Trump’s attempts to get then-White House counsel Don McGahn to create a written record falsely asserting Trump had not directed him to fire Mueller, which McGahn refused.

    Richmond asked if the attempts “were related to President Trump’s concerns about your obstruction of justice inquiry,” to which Mueller responded, “I believe that to be true.”

    As far as I am aware, Trump instructed McGahn to create the false report in order to discredit the NY Times. Trump did not tell McGahn to lie to the Special Counsel. Barr testified to Congress that the episode came after McGahn had testified to the SC. Barr said “It’s not a crime to lie to the NYTimes.”

    Stu707 (43d474)

  148. The failure of any leadership surfacing in this mess is just astonishing.

    The report says it all: initiate impeachment proceedings. There’s no need to take six weeks off and ‘poll the constituents’ on whether or not to do their jobs and uphold their oaths of office. That’s not leadership. It’s up to them– read the damn report and decide; that’s what they were ‘hired’ to do.

    As Nixon said to Ike back in the day: ‘Sh!t or get off the pot.’

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  149. 152. Stu707 (43d474) — 7/26/2019 @ 12:27 pm

    As far as I am aware, Trump instructed McGahn to create the false report in order to discredit the NY Times. Trump did not tell McGahn to lie to the Special Counsel. Barr testified to Congress that the episode came after McGahn had testified to the SC. Barr said “It’s not a crime to lie to the NYTimes.”

    So this was supposed to be leaked to the New York Times or another newspaper, not turned over to the special counsel? And it is the Democrats’ spin that Trump intended to fool Mueller.

    So that would be similar to Trump’s misleading statement about the Trump Tower meeting which contradicted the emails. Trump was confident that Mueller would not leak the emails. And apparently that it would not be mentioned in any report. (or that if it would, nobody would notice or care by that time that the statement was misleading and anyway it would be buried.If he thought so far ahead.)

    Except that it was implausible that DJT Jr had agreed to the meeting to hear a lobbyist petition about Russian adoptions. And Jared Kushner had made the emails available or something, so Donald Trump Jr released the entire email chain and then Donald Trump Sr praised him for his transparency.

    And then Democrats tried to sort of pretend that some derogatory information on Hillary had actually been supplied. Or that it would have been a crime if it was. And they should ahve called the FBI before or instead of agreeing to the meeting.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  150. 154 Sammy Finkelman

    Trump’s efforts to shape public opinion with false or misleading information is reprehensible. Congressional Democrats are no better.

    In the Report Mueller (Weismann?) concedes that the episode came after McGahn had testified. The report makes the claim that it might have influenced McGahn in some future testimony which did not in fact occur.

    Stu707 (43d474)

  151. DRJ wrote:

    Clearly Trump is well-known and always will be, but that isn’t the standard. What matters is whether the facts underlying the alleged crimes are well-known. I suggest very few people have actually read the Mueller Report or read/watched reports about the details of any potential obstruction charges, and knowledge about those facts will quickly fade over time. If Trump is ever tried for obstruction (which I doubt for political reasons, not legal reasons), it will be at least 2 or maybe 6 years from now.

    But that’s just it: all of the credentialed media sources have been telling us what is (supposedly) in the Mueller Report, with varying degrees of, and slants, of accuracy. You don’t have to have read the Mueller Report to “know” what’s in it.

    The Dana who isn't an attorney (822212)

  152. Necro’ing this because of Andrew McCarthy’s excellent articles:
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/the-mueller-reports-fundamental-dodge/

    Part deux:
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/the-olc-guidance-against-indicting-a-sitting-president/

    …and here’s the pertinent part to the host’s post:

    Well, Justice Department protocols prohibit prosecutors from prejudicing suspects by publicizing the evidence against them unless and until they are formally charged. The idea is that the government must refrain from speaking until it files an indictment. For at that point, the person becomes an “accused” under the Constitution, vested with all the due process guarantees our law provides: assistance of counsel, confrontation of witnesses, subpoena power — the full array of rights to challenge the government’s indictment.

    From this commonsense proposition, Mueller’s staff leapt to an untenable conclusion: Because the OLC guidance prevents the Justice Department from formally charging a sitting president, poor President Trump would have been denied his due process protections if Mueller had recommended an indictment: It would be as if the government slimed him by publicizing the evidence but denied him his day in court to clear his name.

    If this doesn’t insult the intelligence, nothing will. Sliming the uncharged president by publicizing the evidence is exactly what Mueller’s team did.

    The special counsel’s staff wrote a 448-page tome, overflowing with details about a traitorous collusion plot that never happened and the obstruction of an investigation that was never actually impeded in the slightest. Even though the regulations call for a confidential report from the special counsel to the attorney general, the Mueller report was patently written with the intention that it would be transmitted to Congress and the public. (Indeed, even before the report was submitted to the Justice Department, various industrious publishers planned to make it available for sale.) Moreover, when AG Barr undertook to announce only the special counsel’s bottom-line conclusions, Mueller’s staff threw a fit, grousing to the media that Barr was wrongly withholding the report and denying the public the condemnatory narrative in which they had couched these benign conclusions.

    Another of many reasons the Mueller staff’s claim to be protecting Trump is laughable: If Mueller and his staff were actually playing by the rules, they would have demanded that their report to Barr be kept confidential — like a normal consultation between a prosecutor and a supervisor about whether an indictment should be sought. If they had done that, there would have been no need for their touching expression of concern about the president’s rights. Any recommendation to indict or other prosecutorial deliberations would have remained non-public; only the indictment, if one were ever filed, would become public. But Mueller’s staff wrote a report that was patently intended to be the antithesis of confidential. Due process is protected when the regulations are followed, not when they are flouted.

    whembly (fd57f6)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5883 secs.