Patterico's Pontifications

3/29/2019

Smollett “Deal”: Not Normal

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 5:30 pm



I have a piece on the Smollett deal at Arc Digital:

[I]t doesn’t seem normal to me. Granted, in my job as a Los Angeles County deputy district attorney, I don’t run across fake hate crimes that often. Most of my career has been spent prosecuting gang members for murder. (I speak here as a private citizen and not on behalf of my office.) But I have also spent my career in courthouses alongside Deputy D.A.s prosecuting a spectrum of crimes, from driving on a suspended license on the low end, all the way up to child molestation, sex trafficking, and serial murder — and everything in between. And I can tell you that it is not typical in my experience for 16 felonies to be dismissed for essentially nothing.

Smollett’s disposition is especially unusual given the resources put into this case. Keep in mind: “24 detectives were removed from regular cases, expending up to 1,000 hours” of police time, not including overtime. This was a major effort, and simply dismissing all charges contributes to the increasing suspicion on the part of regular citizens that there are two tiers of justice: one for the rich and famous, and another for the rest of us.

I save the trolling for the end.

229 Responses to “Smollett “Deal”: Not Normal”

  1. Great piece, Pat. I especially loved those last couple of ‘graphs.

    Gryph (08c844)

  2. Good piece except for the gratuitous insult to readers at the end. Was jarring and had nothing to do with the piece.

    NJRob (f44426)

  3. I read it. I saw no “insult to readers.” Please quote the language you contend to have been an insult directed toward readers, NJRob.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  4. I’m sorry, Patterico, but I don’t believe that Trump put in the fix to have Robert Mueller whitewash the charges by using his connections with former First Lady Laura Bush to influence Ronna McDaniel (the Chairwoman of the Republican National Committee) whose political machine elected Robert Mueller to his position as special counsel and from whom Mueller takes his orders.

    I don’t believe that for a moment.

    nk (dbc370)

  5. As a career big-city prosecutor, I don’t see anything super-abnormal about deciding to put a first-time non-violent offender into a diversionary program. I personally think this incident warrants some jail time and a permanent conviction, but I can see Cook County prosecutors being able to claim that diverting this case wasn’t completely out of the norm. However–BIG however–nothing else about this disposition can be considered “normal” course of business. A defendant EARNS his way into a diversionary program by appearing in court, entering a guilty or a no-contest plea during which he admits that he did what he is charged with, and accepting a period of probation with conditions demanded by the prosecutor such as drug treatment, community service, payment of fines and costs etc. At the end of the probation, after fulfilling all of these conditions, he can have his conviction nullified and his record expunged. None of that happened here. It stinks to high heaven and it’s scary that they are just openly flouting the norms and then lying about it in public statements.

    RigelDog (9a84b7)

  6. “I save the trolling for the end.”

    Which he did.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  7. 2. What you call an insult, I call a clever trolling that made me LOL. YMMV.

    Gryph (08c844)

  8. 5. The prosecutor *claimed* that Smollett did community service, to which I call BS.

    Gryph (08c844)

  9. I am looking forward to the next Sunday’s Bach cantata being tied to Trump somehow.

    kaf (8a536b)

  10. Smollett’s highly visible and thoroughly racist in-your-face escape from the punnishment he clearly deserved is yet another example of the cynical slight-of-hand Dems, Obama co-conspirators, and their presstitute accomplices routinely employ to divert public attention away from ever mounting evidence that none other than Barack Obama and his gang of cut-throats and criminals attempted to subvert the nation’s counterintelligence apparatus first to undermine Trump’s candidacy, and later to overthrow our duly elected President.

    Now, how will the evil doers seek to minimize the damage? Why, by golly, they’ll just go back to what’s worked before.

    Look, a shiny squirrel! Stop what you’re doing! There’s a shocking travesty of justice unfolding right before your eyes! What ya gonna do? Whine over yesterday’s nothingburger, or stand up for law and order?

    ropelight (1f708f)

  11. Foxx knew she was wrong but did it anyway. She never consulted the police before her dismissal. This is a big no-no as I’m sure Patterico would attest. The matter was secretly put on calendar without notice to the public. Her office moved to seal the file so that the facts might be hidden. Smollett’s attorney said that Smollett may have misidentified his assailants because one of them once wore white-face. Under his mask?

    There were reports that Obama associates were in contact with Foxx prior to the dismissal. I wouldn’t be surprised to see big campaign contributions to Foxx’s next move to higher office. Go Chicago!

    AZ Bob (885937)

  12. Beldar,

    Intentional trolling is to insult the reader. Do you disagree?

    NJRob (f44426)

  13. Toni Preckwinkle, Chairwoman of the Cook County Democratic Party, had to be in on it. Kimberly Foxx is her girl — Toni got her elected.

    nk (dbc370)

  14. And we know that former First Lady Michelle Obama’s former chief of staff was in on it, too.

    nk (dbc370)

  15. And Trump was exonerated on the charge of collusion. How anyone can claim obstruction when there is no collusion is beyond me. He wasn’t hiding anything to obstruct.

    Saying people “bleated” about exoneration because they haven’t read a report that isn’t out, but neglecting to mention why they are doing so since the left and the Kristol’s of the world have screamed collusion and that Trump was going to be impeached and Muller would save them is beyond me.

    NJRob (f44426)

  16. What these Chicago shenanigans parallel with is the investigation of Hillary’s emails. Not Mueller’s investigation of Trump.

    And I definitely do not mean the political parties involved. I mean the corrupt exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

    nk (dbc370)

  17. Nk, that’s why you cant play around this coming Tuesday…there could be an eclipse on the quad/black voters playing possum maneuver in the works and et-niks/city workers (the Jerry Joyce voter, although you mentioned vallas as most sane) sitting out might get the taller one in undeservedly.

    urbanleftbehind (1d6fde)

  18. Lori is doubtlessly Rahm’s girl. She cannot be any cleaner than Toni, or she would not be where she is. It’s the nature of Chicago politics.

    nk (dbc370)

  19. Epstein, bulger, smollett, yes his luck ran out eventually but still.

    Narciso (2ce53b)

  20. Smollett would have been happy if innocent white people had been tried and sent to prison.

    Smollett got a better deal than Ted Kennedy did after Chappaquiddick. Teddy was required to plead guilty to “leaving the scene of an accident” in return for no jail time. Smollett didn’t even have to plead guilty.

    Smollett’s deal went beyond the “rich and famous” trope.

    DN (116571)

  21. @ NJ Rob, who asked (#12):

    Intentional trolling is to insult the reader. Do you disagree?

    Absolutely not, nor could anyone else who understands the term “reader.” I was a reader when I read Patterico’s piece. I agree with him; I was not the victim of even this extremely mild “trolling.”

    If someone is stupid enough to believe that a prosecutor’s decision not to prosecute always means that the subject is absolutely innocent, then perhaps one might feel “insulted” — although that’s not at all the word I’d choose — upon being disillusioned from that stupid belief. Surely however, you, NJ Rob, were already smart enough to understand this distinction, in which event you ought not have felt “insulted,” but reminded of the obvious, when you read Patterico’s essay.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  22. To be absolutely clear: Intentional trolling is absolutely not insulting the reader, and I absolutely disagree with you that it is, NJ Rob. The reaction depends upon the reader, and not all readers are the same, and any presumption that they are is wrong from its beginning.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  23. I’d have described our host’s conclusion to his essay as mild teasing of a particular subset of particularly stupid Trump fans — for he’s not even as teasing all Trump fans, just those stupid enough to think that Trump’s been somehow “proven innocent.”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  24. to be insulted, you have to take the insultee serious.
    only never trumpers take never trumpers seriously.
    lmao

    mg (8cbc69)

  25. Not when theres actual evidence photographic, of course the fix is in for the prince of Oakland as it was for the winter hill gang for 40 years, with weld and Mueller holding the whiphand

    Narciso (527a57)

  26. 23. “Stupid” suggests that this subset of Trump fans doesn’t know any better. I believe they do. They just don’t care.

    Gryph (08c844)

  27. The better comparison is between the Smollett and Clinton email investigation but that doesn’t let anyone score points on Trump supporters. But this and the Trump investigation both reveal that we’ve got some serious corruption inside of our institutions. I would like to see more of that unwound and pulled into the sunlight.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  28. Yes huma mills and co, are all immunized, Weiner gets a slap of a sentence, the top level of the bureau blocked the examination of the laptop.

    Narciso (71ac3f)

  29. for he’s not even as teasing all Trump fans, just those stupid enough to think that Trump’s been somehow “proven innocent.”

    Bingo. If anyone feels insulted by that passage, it’s probably because they are the type to go around believing and repeating things that aren’t true because they hear them in highly partisan outlets. Things like Barr has said Mueller found no evidence of wrongdoing by Trump, or that Mueller has exonerated Trump on obstruction. These are things that are clearly false but that I keep reading here from some. I suppose the people reapeating those falsehoods might feel insulted that I don’t let them get away with their falsehoods.

    Patterico (22d4e6)

  30. 31. I didn’t feel insulted one single bit. But it’s something I could have written if I were somewhat more eloquent.

    Gryph (08c844)

  31. The reason he hasn’t been found innocent is that the Deep State isn’t giving up. And the obstruction argument is based on the novel idea exercising the duties of the office of president can be illegal.

    AZ Bob (885937)

  32. Then there’s the type that keeps holding on to yesterday.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  33. 33. Given that we do not know what is in the complete report, those assertions are pure speculation bordering on bull****. It may be true, but you have no way to know that any more than I do.

    Gryph (08c844)

  34. “Right, we’ll see. But the fact that he couldn’t get to probable cause on collusion for anyone — not Trump, not Don Jr, not Mike Flynn, not even a guy like Paul Manafort who’s otherwise dripping with Russian sleaze — suggests this wasn’t a close evidentiary call.”

    —- Allapundit

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  35. I wonder how many of you superTrumpers even read Pat’s piece in its entirety.

    You boo Jussie Smollett’s “exoneration.” You cheer Donald Trump’s “exoneration.” And when the irony is pointed out to you in very matter-of-fact terms, you cry “INSULT!”

    Gryph (08c844)

  36. 36. “…this wasn’t a close evidentiary call.” != NO EVIDENCE.

    Gryph (08c844)

  37. 38… you did see the “suggests” immediately before that, no?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  38. it’s like ground hog day all over again, isn’t it coronello,

    narciso (d1f714)

  39. 40. I did. More idle speculation with absolutely no basis in known fact.

    And as for MK Ham, I will remind superTrumpers once again that I would be thrilled at Mueller’s failure to find indictment-worthy evidence if I believed that Donald J. Trump was otherwise a morally sound and upright individual. I do not. So while I may grudgingly concede that it’s probably a good thing there will be no more drama from any further indictments, I take just as much pleasure in saying

    Donald Trump was not exonerated

    as you superTrumpers take in saying

    Hillary will never be president

    Gryph (08c844)

  40. Some need to remember the second Rule of Holes…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  41. 43. The second rule of holes is,

    When you stop digging, you’re still in a hole.

    I might actually care if your opinion of me meant anything to me.

    Gryph (08c844)

  42. Some don’t much care about the turmoil or what else the country is put through as long as their personal hatred and vindictiveness is fed. That’s a type that needs to be exposed.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  43. 45. You’ve noted the “personal hatred and vindictiveness” of people such as Pat and myself on numerous occasions here. You’re about as likely to change any minds as I am — which is to say, probably not at all.

    Gryph (08c844)

  44. narciso – I’ve found humor in the never trumpers hate. How can you not laugh at Schiff and company?

    mg (8cbc69)

  45. well what exactly is the point, it’s not a distinctive view,

    https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/282575/jews-center-stage-in-ukraine-elections

    we know the left wants to abolish what remains of the constitution, that includes speech and self defense, that was the intent of the shooter,

    narciso (d1f714)

  46. Barr has said Mueller found no evidence of wrongdoing by Trump,

    I believe that was mine, and in my haste I mis-wrote. I neglected to include that I was referring solely to the investigation of collusion, not the suspicion of obstruction — which, yes, Mueller apparently waffled on with not “sufficient evidence.” Presumably we all soon will be able to read what he considered insufficient evidence.
    My bad, and apologies for being sloppy in my comment. ‘Tis true that haste makes waste….

    Question for the group: I checked around last evening, and could find no source other than Comey’s own memo and testimony to Congress for the Oval Office scene and quote where Comey says that Trump asked him to [paraphrased if not quite accurate] go easy on Flynn, which has been interpreted by some as obstruction. Does anyone else know of another source for that information?

    ColoComment (b48a15)

  47. 47… I’m talking about a type of NeverTrumper. Patterico is not one.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  48. CREDIBLE
    adjective
    capable of being believed; believable:
    a credible statement

    INCREDIBLE
    adjective
    so extraordinary as to seem impossible:
    incredible speed.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  49. 41… yes, it is, narciso. With less laughter.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  50. What the Jussie Smollett fiasco is, is a good argument for jury nullification. Extra-legal, capricious, whimsical, ulteriorly-motivated, jury nullification. If a prosecutor can do it, why not a juror?

    nk (dbc370)

  51. well Stephen tobolowskys character, who is the foil for murray,

    narciso (d1f714)

  52. Why is this posted at Arc and not PJ Media?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  53. Hey! How about Alex Jones confessing that he’s psychotic? Who knew, right? I mean besides Twitter and Facebook and YouTube and me and 89% of the population and ….

    nk (dbc370)

  54. BREAKING NEWS! Stones postpone tour as Jagger receives treatment for a hitch in his giddyyup.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  55. 57… hey… since when is that a disqualifier for social media presence?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  56. Trump’s not been proven “innocent”. OTOH he’s been proven “not guilty”. Fixed it for Patterico and Beldar.

    Skeptical Voter (9d65cd)

  57. 51. I didn’t vote for Trump — at all — in 2016. And I don’t intend to in 2020 either. Here I stand; I can do no other.

    Gryph (08c844)

  58. @26 and @23 I think the group of stupid and immoral Trump fans is small. We’ve beaten to death the idea that innocent is not a legal term and it definitely doesn’t spring automatically from “not guilty”, or in this case a failure to indict. I don’t think many people really misunderstand that. Innocent is a term associated with a moral decision, not a legal one. In this case I’m willing to give someone the room to use “innocent” as short hand for some longer formulation like “I’ve looked at what came out of the Mueller investigation and I don’t think Trump did X”. You can then debate the quality and quantity of the evidence or just decide that the evidence you see means he did X and that someone else disagrees. But this focus on restrictioning how people use “innocent” comes across as saying someone can’t make their own moral decisions

    It’s also possible to separate each of these things. Someone can think he didn’t collude but did obstruct, or didn’t do either but paid hush money as a campaign violation. There is a difference in the evidence for collusion versus obstruction but a common phrase seems to be collusion and obstruction. Keeping everything lumped together so that the stink from the known immoral but not necessarily illegal can waft over everything while telling people they have to be very careful and precise about word choices has its own stink.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  59. I thought he was lazy and stupid, but jones attacked glenn beck and palin, when a real case was being made against Obama,

    narciso (d1f714)

  60. 60. By way of clarification, he’s been proven not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That doesn’t necessarily mean that no doubt remains. “Innocent until proven guilty” is an evidentiary standard.

    Gryph (08c844)

  61. Razor
    @hale_razor
    Obama’s FBI used a bogus file of fiction bought by Hillary’s campaign to mislead a judge so it could spy on the nominee for the other party and then pressure a probe after GOP victory, but this isn’t a scandal about the corruption of Democrats or DOJ because shut up bot.
    9:36 PM · Mar 27, 2019

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  62. 62. I figured Trump was, is, and always will be unfit for the position of city dog catcher. I said so while Mueller was in the throes of his investigation. And I said back then, the results of the investigation would not change that opinion.

    Feel free to change my mind.

    Gryph (08c844)

  63. Alex Jones would be the “objective” of my first letter of marque

    urbanleftbehind (78495b)

  64. we know why kim foxx gave the prince of Oakland his walking papers, maybe it will backfire and you’ll be able to chose the right lizard, I’m not terribly confident in that prognosis,

    narciso (d1f714)

  65. @66 You’ve the right to your own mind and don’t have any desire to convince you he’s fit.

    @64 and @60; No. He has not been proven not guilty by the Mueller report or anything else. At best the Mueller report points to a failure to indict. Even if he was impeached and not removed I’m not sure the term not guilty would apply.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  66. Yes, Narciso, the same demographic playing possum until actual November election day was the kill shot against Romney in 2012.

    urbanleftbehind (78495b)

  67. well it worked for Sharpton, in fact it was his path to success,

    https://thefederalist.com/2019/03/29/dropping-jussie-smollett-charges-says-okay-lie-youre-woke/

    narciso (d1f714)

  68. I think the sentiment of the department is clear here:

    https://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/

    narciso (d1f714)

  69. Smollett is the only one saying he was exonerated. Mueller said there was no evidence of Russian collusion. Mueller also said he could not make a decision on an obstruction charge because he thinks that firing the FBI direction could be obstruction despite being within the powers of the President.

    AG Barr wrote prior to his appointment that firing of Comey cannot be considered obstruction when it is withing the constitutional powers of the President. Mueller knew what Barr’s position was when he said he leaves it to the AG to decide what to do with the obstruction issue. This is all the media and Deep State needs to hang on to something.

    This term obstruction has been thrown around to the point that its meaning has become vague. There has never been an allegation that Trump told anyone to lie unlike what Bill Clinton did during his investigation. The only fact that I have heard to support a charge of obstruction against Trump was his firing of Comey, which is a constitutionally authorized act. I cite Alan Dershowitz as authority here.

    AZ Bob (885937)

  70. Well, they say “justice is blind.” Actually, she’s not, and that would imply she cannot see. Rather, she is blindfolded, implying she doesn’t want to see.

    The statue of Justice, blindfolded and holding a scale, is modeled after Athena, the Goddess of Wisdom. The idea and symbolism goes way back to Aeschylus and his trilogy of dramatic tragedies, the Oresteia; the first play, Agamemnon, purportedly portrays the first trial by jury in ancient Greece, for the most heinous of crimes, matricide.

    Before departing for Troy, to avenge Helen’s betrayal of her husband, King Menelaus, Agamemnon sacrificed his daughter. When he returned, a conquering hero, ten years later, his wife, Clytemnestra murdered him. Then her son, Orestes, murdered her, to avenge the death of his father. The Greeks, not knowing what to do about this unimaginable crime, the murder of a mother by her son, convened the first jury and held the first trial to determine what sort of punishment Orestes deserved. He was clearly guilty. And Athena, who had sided with the Greeks in the Trojan War, intervened and basically bribed the jury to guarantee his acquittal. So he walked.

    A wife cheats on her husband, a father murders his daughter, a horrific war is waged, a mother murders a father, and a son murders his mother. Athena certainly saw it all, as she was actively involved. But when it came time to convict and punish Orestes, she put on a blindfold, because she didn’t want to see what humans would do now, while weighing the scales of justice in his favor.

    You learn a lot by reading the Classics. Literature is the revelation of the human condition. Law, however, has always been about logic puzzles and word games, and yes jury manipulation.

    Smollett is clearly guilty of staging a hate crime and worse solely for the purpose of personal publicity. Yet the prosecutors declined to prosecute him and strangely did not exonerate him.

    Paterrico says, “this is not normal.” Of course it is. How could it not be normal, when these kinds of shenanigans have been going on for thousands of years? Orestes walked, OJ walked, of the only two presidents to be impeached, Johnson and Clinton both walked. It is not proper.

    So Smollett forfeits his bail bond, $10,000, performed a couple of hours of community service, and 16 felony counts are dropped. Decline to prosecute but do not exonerate. Decline to convict but do not exonerate. It’s the same all around, but if you want an exact analogy, look up Hales v. Petit (1554) and read the gravedigger’s scene in Hamlet (1604). You can find it in Mark Alexander’s “Shakespeare” By Another Name.

    I don’t know what went on in the Smollett case, but I agree with the former Cook County prosecutor that someone higher up was involved, who did not want to be implicated. That is the Chicago way.

    As to the Mueller investigation, he certainly found evidence of conspiracy and obstruction,, but he declined to prosecute and did not exonerate. His was originally a counter-intelligence investigation, but as evidence emerged of underlying crimes committed by various participants, he prosecuted them, accepted guilty pleas and achieve court convictions. But when it came to indicting and prosecuting a sitting president, he deferred to DOJ policy and referred the matter to the Attorney General and to Congress. Since we have not read the report on his findings, merely a summary, none of us can do other than speculate on Trump’s guilt or innocence as to the charges against him.

    He sure is acting guilty though. Not prosecuted but not exonerated, this is where the court of public opinion convenes. The election, the determination, the ruling will be held in 2020.

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  71. I noticed the defense of Charles logan, here,

    https://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=85901

    narciso (d1f714)

  72. Man will never be free until the last bureaucrat is strangled with the entrails of the last activist “do-gooder”.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  73. Anyone want to put odds on how long it takes for SDNY to take the place of the Mueller investigation? No one wants to leave the church but the pulpit is currently empty. That can’t go on for long.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  74. The joke will be on them – Bush 43’s reelection was both electoral and popular as will be Trump’s.

    urbanleftbehind (78495b)

  75. 23. “Stupid” suggests that this subset of Trump fans doesn’t know any better. I believe they do. They just don’t care.

    Gryph (08c844) — 3/30/2019 @ 5:30 am

    I agree. If they really believed Mueller’s Report exonerates or even helps Trump, then they would be clamoring for its release and would want the world to know everything it says. But instead they and Trump want everyone to ignore the details and move on to the next TOOT (Trump’s Outrage Of The) Minute/Hour/Day/Week.

    PS – Great comment Gawain’s Ghost 77.

    DRJ (15874d)

  76. Gawain,

    Mueller did exonerate on the claim of collusion. That is indisputable.

    NJRob (015495)

  77. I think most of those who view the Barr letter as a positive development agree that the release of the Mueller Report will be helpful. Are there examples of commenters/comments here that state otherwise?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  78. You read the Report?

    DRJ (15874d)

  79. DRJ,

    Are you calling the AG a liar?

    NJRob (015495)

  80. NJ Rob, have you read Mueller’s Report? That’s the only way you could say you know it exonerates Trump on collusion. Barr’s summary says collusion was not established. That could mean exoneration or it might not.

    Haiku, ok, show me examples. I’ve said I want to see the Report. So has Patterico, Gryph (I think), and probably Beldar. The Democrats really want to. The Republicans?

    DRJ (15874d)

  81. Some have dismissed him as a Trump appointee, as if he’d go out of his way to ruin his heretofore stellar reputation on both sides of the aisle, Rob.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  82. Examples of people that I’ve described that want to see the report? I can’t think of anyone that has said they don’t need/wouldn’t want to see it.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  83. I do… I think it will be helpful. I look forward to its release. Can’t be soon enough.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  84. I think NJ Rob, narciso, and several others who consider the Barr letter to also be helpful do, as well.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  85. Did Barr put out a false summary? Why would he do that knowing that the report would and will be leaked eventually. Mueller has yet to dispute Barr’s summary. I suppose some may think that Hillary’s $10 million opposition research from Russian sources is accurate.

    AZ Bob (885937)

  86. 95… careful where you tread…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  87. So, unless someone affirmatively states that he wants to see/read the Report, it will be interpreted as not wanting to see/read it? That’s kind of turning silence on its head, but ok, yeah, put me down in the “Wanna see it” column, if we’re keeping score….

    ColoComment (b48a15)

  88. Queue Frankie Goes to Hollywood…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  89. I am glad so many people want to see the Report. I do, too.

    DRJ (15874d)

  90. I also want to see the FISA warrants.

    DRJ (15874d)

  91. Does anyone here not want to see the report?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  92. I also want to see the FISA warrants.
    DRJ (15874d) — 3/30/2019 @ 12:53 pm

    …goes without saying. Oh darn. We do have to say it, don’t we. Yes, let’s see everything.

    ColoComment (b48a15)

  93. I’m not on board with publicly disclosing grand jury evidence as a general rule. In this case I think we need a little more adult supervision than we’ve seen from the crew in congress demanding full and immediate release.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  94. You have many balls to come here and say that Frosty!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  95. Sorry… I’m watching the “Barry” marathon on HBO and got carried away…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  96. @82. Meh. W/his lifestyle, diet and at his age, he’ll beat any looming raps and out run blind justice, as he has all his life, by dying in office near the end of Term Two, get his big military parade w/t yuuuuuge state funeral [first dibs- won’t be attending; have a lawn to mow] then stick America w/t bill— and get a postage stamp. 😉 His whole life has been one of lucking out w/babes, business and bankers. Trump Luck is in the air: by a lottery ticket.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  97. “Someone else has been mowing your lawn for a long time…”

    Roy Munson in “Kingpin” 1996 from Rysher Entertainment

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  98. “Did not establish” does not have a precise legal definition (that I know of) but generally it means not proven. I think Barr said the Report:

    “… did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

    Saying the investigation did not prove there was collusion is not the same thing as saying the investigation proved there was no collusion or evidence of collusion.

    in addition, we don’t know without reading the Report but I think the use of the phrase “did not establish” is Barr’s words, not Mueller’s, because Barr did not put the phrase in quotes as he did with other words in the obstruction section of his letter. If so, then “did not establish” is Barr’s interpretation of Mueller’s Report. Why does this matter? Barr is Trump’s AG, so I expect him to be an advocate for things that help Trump, but he also has a duty to advocate fairly and accurately. I am not questioning his summary, I am questioning whether we can read it as completely exonerating Trump since we don’t even (apparently) have any quotes from Mueller’s Report regarding collusion (unlike with obstruction).

    I think the Report is good news for Trump but that there will be facts that don’t make Trump look good and that he won’t like.

    DRJ (15874d)

  99. NRA gunman wayne lapierre says the nra will soon go out of business. our thoughts and prayers for their families.

    lany (4aba09)

  100. “WHAT’S IN THE MUELLER REPORT? The Last Refuge undertakes an analysis based solely on the character and actions of the principal players in the anti-Trump campaign. By way of preface, Refuge notes:

    “The most overlooked aspect is how the 2016 DOJ/FBI investigative unit that existed to investigate Trump before the election, is the same group of people who transferred into Mueller’s probe in 2017 to continue investigating Trump after the election. It always seems odd to me that people don’t realize this very basic point.

    “If what the investigators were doing in 2016 was unethical, corrupt and likely unlawful, it is not wise to think they suddenly became bastions of investigative moral integrity just because they transferred into the Mueller probe in 2017. In fact, the reality is, those same people held/hold a motive to cover-up for their prior conduct; and, for the purposes of Robert Mueller, their corrupt motives were perfectly aligned.”

    It’s essential reading and will make for a fascinating comparison when the Mueller Report becomes public.”

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/326090/

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  101. 107, please tell me that line wasnt from ten minutes in when Munson had to, uh, pay the rent 🤮

    urbanleftbehind (78495b)

  102. Others don’t care about all that up-front early stuff because they believe “the evidence of that claim is overstated, to put it very mildly.”

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  103. I’m glad we all want to read the Report, and also that we agree saying X,Y,Z want to read the Report does not mean A,B,C don’t want to read it, too.

    We might even agree it is like saying “did not establish” (a negative statement) is not the same as “exonerated” (an affirmative statement).

    DRJ (15874d)

  104. @104 Ha! I’m not saying I don’t want to read it. I’m just not so sure about a long list of other chuckleheads.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  105. Can we use innocent or exonerate in a colloquial sense?

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  106. How about “skate”?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  107. @109. Comrade Lapierre won’t miss a meal; just like any brother oligarch sponsored from the ol’CCCP.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  108. @07. That’s Eric, Donnie, Ivana and Tiffany’s excuse. Barron’s plan; outlive ’em all and play Daddy in the movie..

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  109. ^107

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  110. who reveals himself to be a tool of Russia, by blocking our access to arctic oil,

    https://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/Judge-rejects-Trump-plan-for-road-in-Alaska-13727407.php

    narciso (d1f714)

  111. @119. Postscript- Ivana, Ivanka; what’s the difference; he’d date’em both.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  112. @121. Road to Alaska: Trump had Hope but Judge double-crosby’d. Lamour it.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  113. I have so often lately been in substantial disagreement with Andrew McCarthy that I’m somewhat surprised to be in at least partial agreement with him, in the concluding paragraphs of his current essay entitled No Winners in the ‘Collusion’ Wars (link his):

    Trey Gowdy is a perceptive former federal prosecutor and congressman. This week, Gowdy told Fox News he is in the minority of people opposed to disclosure of the Mueller report. In law enforcement, investigative subjects either get charged or they don’t, and when they don’t, the evidence in the case should not be disclosed. If it is released into the court of public opinion, there is no judge there to enforce standards of proof and police the lawyerly manipulation of ambiguous terms like “collusion.”

    Gowdy is right. In this instance, alas, what is right is politically unrealistic: There is no way the Mueller report will be withheld. That is why, to my mind, there is no point fighting disclosure, even though we know it will be abused. Better to push for disclosure of everything that would be revealed in a judicial case — the full report spelling out the prosecutor’s evidence, plus all the relevant investigative documents that would tell us why and how the probe was conducted. If we’re going to have at it, let’s have at all of it.

    But let’s not pretend there is anything edifying in further plumbing the depths of “Trump–Russia collusion.” When the Mueller report is published, we’ll still be talking past each other, selectively mining the details so one side can say “no collusion,” and the other side can say “boatload of collusion.” No judge, no resolution . . . just fatigue.

    Missing from McCarthy’s essay is the word “obstruction,” which is what I think most of the argument will continue to be about.

    But I actually started out where Gowdy is — that is, against the release of the underlying Mueller report en toto. That would have been the principled thing to do, and it would have avoided the bad, awful, terrible, destructive, invidious, nasty precedent that’s being set, which is that the public must be told the details of every law enforcement investigation of every POTUS, including the ones whom the DoJ has found insufficient evidence either (a) to indict, or (b) to report to Congress that indictable conduct occurred (but that the DoJ adheres to its policy that it may not indict a sitting POTUS).

    In other words, the precedent being set here is that the traditional rule of total investigational secrecy for prosecution declinations is, henceforward, turned upside down for the POTUS. What Jim Comey did that should have gotten him fired — blabbing to the public about the details of an investigation that hadn’t resulted in an indictment — is now standard operating procedure when the target has been the POTUS.

    And if that is indeed the new rule, that is going to substantially change things. For one thing, if a prosecutor knows that his digging is going to become public even if there’s never an indictment (or its counterpart via a report to Congress), does the prosecutor do the same amount of digging? Does a POTUS who knows that his Attorney General is going to be in the position of a compelled whistle-blower even when there’s nothing indictable still going to be able to trust his AG? Is it possible to restrict this new rule to just investigations of the POTUS, or will it be extended to all investigations undertaken by a special counsel? By all investigations involving public servants?

    But as McCarthy — and Barr — have recognized, insisting on that legal propriety and wisdom and avoidance of a bad precedent would have been politically indefensible. Barr might have won the fight in court, but ended up being impeached and removed from office himself, had he tried to stonewall that which, as a matter of principle, ought to be stonewalled.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  114. Actually McCarthy having learned nothing from the plame follies, is wrong here again, the parallels are inexact, manafort was tried in lieu of libby, whose dismissal was under as murky circumstances as general Flynn, Rosenstein takes comey’s place, mueller takes fitzs, wray takes Mueller’s. the pretext for the former was the espionage act, the latter the logan act, strzok’s 302s cover for eickenrodes,

    narciso (d1f714)

  115. Just remember, folks:

    Barr could have complied with the special counsel regulation in full by sending the Chairs and Ranking Members of the Senate & House Judiciary Committees a two-sentence letter which read:

    Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 600.9(a)(3), I hereby notify you that Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation has concluded. In connection with such notification, I confirm that on no occasion did I, or any of my predecessors as Attorney General or Acting Attorney General, conclude “that a proposed action by [this] Special Counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued. I further confirm that in the exercise of discretion conferred upon me by 28 C.F.R. § 600.9(c), I have determined that the release of this notification and report to you is in the public interest, and I therefore will disclose the letter to the public after delivering it to you.

    The regulations don’t require him to make public any information at all about prosecution declinations (or their equivalent in the case of the POTUS) — not names, not subject matters, not evidence found or absent, bupkis.

    Of course, that would have made everyone’s head explode — but for political, rather than legal and jurisprudential, reasons.

    As is, from Barr’s letter, it’s clear he’s already largely on-board with the “release everything that can conceivably be released under the law” approach, which is still short of the “release every single thing, period, no exceptions” approach that other politicians, pundits, members of the public, and even the POTUS seem inclined toward.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  116. (I guess that’s actually three sentences.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  117. the fisa applications would be most interesting, it would show among other things if the court cares to reprimand the most basic due diligence,

    narciso (d1f714)

  118. I referenced this yesterday:

    https://www.toddstarnes.com/show/back-off-texas-ag-warns-san-antonio-city-council-over-chick-fil-a-ban/

    well this is where julian castro comes from isn’t it,

    narciso (d1f714)

  119. you would pay money for a hot take like that:

    https://thebulwark.com/why-do-we-love-to-hate-james-comey/

    narciso (d1f714)

  120. When Barr releases such portion of the Mueller report as he deems possible to release without violating the law – a standard which implies all discretionary calls have essentially already been made, and in favor of release – he will likely include some statement of justification for what’s been withheld or redacted. If, for instance, he’s maintaining the secrecy of grand jury transcripts, he’ll say so, and cite the law that he believes to compel that result.

    He may also – and I hope he does – include some further statement attempting to limit any legal precedential effect for the future. He might say, for instance, something like:

    The discretionary decisions which have all been resolved in favor of public release have been based on the specific, unique circumstances of the 2016 election and the specific factual inquiries made by the Special Counsel with respect thereto; those decisions likewise have included considerations regarding the public interest which are necessarily unique to these facts and circumstances; and therefore, the public release of this report shall not be deemed to waive the Department of Justice’s traditional rules, regulations, and practices with respect to investigative privileges and confidentiality with respect to any other inquiry or investigation or proceeding.

    Footnote fodder, but perhaps useful someday, if there’s a return to the sanity of historic practices.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  121. Footnote fodder, but perhaps useful someday, if there’s a return to the sanity of historic practices.

    I think some form of octopus is most likely to be the next dominant species. I wonder if we can leave them anything helpful.

    frosty48 (ad787d)

  122. They learned to play the drums in aquaman, so anything is possible

    Narciso (dcc704)

  123. Beldar, Congress still has constitutional oversight over the executive branch. If Barr holds back on the Mueller report, they’re still within their rights to request or subpoena the report, no? Also, part of the Mueller investigation involved counterintelligence, which means at minimum the Gang of Eight is entitled to access to this information. And just in general, since it’s already established DOJ policy that a president is immune from indictment while in office, the place to decide on indictment is the House.

    Paul Montagu (d49d0a)

  124. “WHAT’S IN THE MUELLER REPORT? The Last Refuge undertakes an analysis based solely on the character and actions of the principal players in the anti-Trump campaign.

    LOL. Insty linking Conservative Treehouse. There was a time when someone like me could argue that they didn’t realize what an insane hotbed of conspiracy theory bullshit that site actually was. That time has long passed.

    Anyone linking or quoting that site now *should* be embarrassed.

    Patterico (f1931c)

  125. Does anyone here not want to see the report?

    When the partisan fight over withholding parts of it commences, you will take the pro-Trump side. That is my answer to your question.

    Patterico (f1931c)

  126. Let’s see how it stacks up against the report before the recriminations. There are too many center-right pundits and reporters on the opposite side of this issue from you to totally discount info that may disagree with you.

    Colonel Haiku (ab961c)

  127. Let’s see how it stacks up against the report before the recriminations. There are too many center-right pundits and reporters on the opposite side of this issue from you to totally discount info that may disagree with you.

    I know how to read a four-page letter. I’m sorry so many don’t.

    Patterico (f1931c)

  128. But what does Conservative Treehouse say about the letter???

    Patterico (f1931c)

  129. Does anyone here not want to see the report?

    Depends. Is there another “Phineas and Ferb” special in the works?

    nk (dbc370)

  130. I am glad to see other websites posting your opinions.

    DRJ (15874d)

  131. I’m an unapologetic partisan. No excuses made.

    Colonel Haiku (ab961c)

  132. lol – that report would never satisfy never trump.

    mg (8cbc69)

  133. Think of it; some day, some kids, some place, are going to graduate from a Donald J. Trump High School and will have the value of their education and validity of their diplomas questioned for life.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  134. Thanks, DRJ. I do look for sites that post opinions that align with what’s posted here on this specific issue and usually only find them on leftwing sites.

    Colonel Haiku (ab961c)

  135. @145. Ivana didn’t. Marla didn’t. Melania hasn’t- even as assorted girls-from-the-chorus in-between have tried.

    But then, he hasn’t dated Ivanka.

    Yet.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  136. Haiku,

    I think the trolling part of P’s post bothered you, but to me his post was really about Smollett and not Trump. I think the Smollett case is interesting, important, and strange, and P has a perspective that is relevant. I am glad to see other websites linking and/or inviting him to post.

    DRJ (15874d)

  137. No, it didn’t bother me. Nothing much does, now that I’m retired. So far, so good.

    Colonel Haiku (ab961c)

  138. Smollett is protected because he is connected to Harris and Obama and even Angela Davis, who hates prisons but you would think they wouldn’t be so blatant about it, but rightly they dont see they would punished for it, preckwinkle is the apotheosis of the left entitlement state.

    Narciso (e06d37)

  139. I hear you. Sometimes I get my feelings hurt but it never lasts because I keep coming back.

    DRJ (15874d)

  140. Just as in California where the average citizen doesn’t matter, but criminals illegals and subsets of each do. Here again we see skadden arps tied to Ukraine running interference for Michigan state

    Narciso (e06d37)

  141. And of course the NAACP is awarding smollett, because identity politics triumphs over justice or basic human decency,

    Narciso (e06d37)

  142. Just like the 9th circus yet again kicking Kate steinles family in the face, you see the big picture.

    narciso (d1f714)

  143. 36.blockquote> “Right, we’ll see. But the fact that he couldn’t get to probable cause on collusion for anyone — not Trump, not Don Jr, not Mike Flynn, not even a guy like Paul Manafort who’s otherwise dripping with Russian sleaze — suggests this wasn’t a close evidentiary call.”

    —- Allapundit I gave an analysis of this in he (as of now) last comment in the Video: Trumpers Cheering for QAnon Conspiracy thread.

    I read Barr’s letter very carefully, and, based on the idea he was honest, and intended to release everything that can conceivably be released without violating the law or impacting an ongoing investigation or revealing national security information, and that he is a careful lawyer – meaning it is important what he could say, but does not say, or goes out of his way to avoid saying, and that nobody was indicted for anythng that could be described as collusion…

    It is clear to me that Mueller DID find evidence of collusion with Russia by some U.S. persons with regard to the hacking or the leaking, most probably just the leaking, just not by Trump or anybody in the Trump campaign.

    And he says nothing about other forms of collusion with Russia.

    Barr writes that Mueller says:

    [T]he investigation did not find that members of the Trump campaign, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities

    This applies BOTH to the sock-pupppeting, AND to the hacking and leaking, but does not apply to collusion with Russia in anything not considered election interference, such as getting Trump to take public positions in favor of Russian foreign policy, or revealing inside campaign information to Russia, or spreading lies not reasonably associated with the election.

    AND

    Barr also says:

    the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts

    This applies ONLY to the sock-puppeting.

    Note only here do we have “any U.S. person” or “[Trump] associate.”

    Reading between the lines, this therefore means that Mueller did find some evidence that some U.S. person(s) which may include some Trump associate (like Roger Stone, who was not in he camaign for very long and thsus maybe on;y an associate) DID conspire or co-ordinate with the Russian government in the hacking or leaking.

    And since Putin would have every reason not to take any Americans into his confidence when hacking, this is probably limited to the leaking. For instance in setting up a leak site, or telkling a false story to Wikileaks, or even spreading the Seth Rich story.

    And this is also most likely based on information obtained SOLELY through the grand jury.

    Since no one is indicted, and Mueller is unlikely to have farmed this out, it mght be testimony granted on condition of immunity. It could also be withheld on intelligence grounds.

    Sammy Finkelman (e70ce9)

  144. There’s a difference between the no exoneration of Muller and the Smolett prosecutors.

    The lead Smolett prosecutor said Smolett was guilty. Muller gave arguments pro and con.

    Sammy Finkelman (e70ce9)

  145. DRJ @ 108;

    “… did not establish that conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

    Saying the investigation did not prove there was collusion is not the same thing as saying the investigation proved there was no collusion or evidence of collusion.

    in addition, we don’t know without reading the Report but I think the use of the phrase “did not establish” is Barr’s words, not Mueller’s

    No, that’s Mueller’s. And in the original the word “The” that precedes “did not” was not capitalized, indicating that it was not the beginning of a sentence.

    As I noted above, this applies BOTH to the sock-pupppeting, AND to the hacking and leaking, but does not apply to collusion with Russia in anything not considered election interference; and neither does it apply to any other U.S. persons or Trump associate not in the campaign, except for the sock-puppeting by the Internet Research Agency to which Barr can say (that part is not in quotes) that not only did members of the Trump Campaign not conspire or knowingly coordinate with them, but also no Trump associate or ny U.S. person did.

    Which means that some person or persons in those categories did possibly collude either in the hacking or the leaking, (as opposed to the sock-puppeting by the IRA) but they were not indicted, either because they were granted immunity, or because the collusion was not considered a crime or because there was no enough proof. And I think hacking has to be ruled out on grounds of probability, so it’s the leaking. And since the word knowingly is used in with regard to the sock-puppeting, it has to do with concealing the Russian origin of the material.

    Sammy Finkelman (e70ce9)

  146. “And so, as Trump superfans screamed in triumph, along came the Smollett decision, as if it was a prank from a giant Jokester in the Sky, to remind them: a prosecutor’s decision not to prosecute is no guarantee that the suspect didn’t do it.“

    If Trump had been prosecuted and found guilty, what would this guarantee?

    Munroe (339e7e)

  147. I demand to see the FISA warrants.

    AZ Bob (885937)

  148. 162. The FISA warrants would be useful to see. But they ddi not authtorize any spying on the Trump campaign, just on Carter Page, who was no longer affiliated with the campaign and was selected by the FBI for that reason:

    https://www.cnn.com/2.146.6/static/unsupp.html

    Now there were other things.

    1) A counter-intelligence investigation into Russian contacts with the Trump campaign, to which the dossier was added as evidence some months later.

    2) A criminal investigation into Donald Trump, started by Andrew McCabe after James Comey was fired. Rosenstein decided to take that away from McCabe and give it to Mueller. He had first hoped that Trump would nominate Mueller for FBI Director. Mueller proceeded, among other things, to check out what was in the dossier.

    Sammy Finkelman (e70ce9)

  149. 77. Gawain’s Ghost (b25cd1) — 3/30/2019 @ 9:57 am

    Smollett is clearly guilty of staging a hate crime and worse solely for the purpose of personal publicity…

    … don’t know what went on in the Smollett case, but I agree with the former Cook County prosecutor that someone higher up was involved, who did not want to be implicated.

    I don’t think Smolett did this merely for the purpose of personal publicity but someone else was involved in this stunt, and did not want to be implicated, and still considers it mportant that he not be implicated.

    I think you mean implicated in the decision to drop the charges, but it makes sense the other way.

    Sammy Finkelman (e70ce9)

  150. 163. Sorry. The redacted version of the Cater Page FISa warrant is here:

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/22/politics/read-carter-page-fisa-documents/index.html

    Trump has indicated he’s disposed to release the whole thing.

    Sammy Finkelman (e70ce9)

  151. @ Paul Montagu, who wrote (#136):

    [1] Beldar, Congress still has constitutional oversight over the executive branch. If Barr holds back on the Mueller report, they’re still within their rights to request or subpoena the report, no? [2] Also, part of the Mueller investigation involved counterintelligence, which means at minimum the Gang of Eight is entitled to access to this information. [3] And just in general, since it’s already established DOJ policy that a president is immune from indictment while in office, the place to decide on indictment is the House.

    Let’s take those one at a time:

    [1] Yes, Congress has oversight power, and can issue a subpoena. There are two problems with that, however. First, I know of no precedent which holds that Congress is entitled, by virtue of its general oversight power, to overcome DoJ policy on a specific investigation, which it is not entitled to oversee.

    What gives Congress the power to override investigative privilege? Courts routinely uphold that against attempts by other outsiders (typically criminal defendants, but also sometimes media or special interest groups). I’m not aware of this having ever been addressed or litigated in the context of investigative privilege, but in the parallel area of executive privilege, the DoJ has taken the position that although it may have other remedies, Congress can’t seek contempt sanctions for subpoena noncompliance when the target is a member of the Executive Branch who’s attempting to prevent a compelled waiver of executive privilege, as this Congressional Research Service memo recognizes (at page 34 of the .pdf; footnotes omitted):

    Although the DOJ appears to have acknowledged that properly authorized procedures for seeking civil enforcement provide the preferred method of enforcing a subpoena directed against an executive branch official [— even though, as a footnote concedes, that’s never actually been tried —], the executive branch has consistently taken the position that Congress cannot, as a matter of statutory or constitutional law, invoke either its inherent contempt authority or the criminal contempt of Congress procedures261 against an executive branch official acting on instructions by the President to assert executive privilege in response to a congressional subpoena. Under such circumstances, the Attorney General has previously directed the U.S. Attorney to refrain from pursuing a criminal contempt prosecution under 2 U.S.C. §§ 192, 194.

    My guess is that Congress loses this fight in court on the merits.

    Second, guess who is responsible for making applications to the courts to enforce Congressional subpoenas? That’s right, it’s … the DoJ. By statute, the Congressional subpoena enforcement process requires that the Speaker of the House or Senate Majority Leader make application to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, who of course reports to the Attorney General.

    So I don’t think it’s at all a foregone conclusion that Congress could get the Mueller Report via subpoena if Barr had chosen to stand on the normal DoJ regs and policies. To the contrary, the Speaker or Majority Leader would have to trod untrod ground and make new judicial precedent to prevail.

    [2] The “oversight” argument is much stronger for the foreign intelligence portions of the report, at least as to the portions thereof which don’t overlap with any criminal investigations. But what the Dems really want to see is not the counterintelligence stuff — these are the same guys who thought Obama was right to mock Romney with his “the 1980s are calling and want their foreign policy back” debate wisecrack — but the criminal investigation into Trump and his closest associates & family members.

    [3] There certainly is an existing DoJ policy against indicting a sitting POTUS. But since the expiration of the independent counsel law, there’s been no clear answer to the question of “What does the DoJ do if a special counsel says, ‘But for this policy, I would have indicted the POTUS’?” Under the prior law, Starr gave his conclusions to Congress for such action on Clinton’s possible impeachment, if any, as the House and Senate might find appropriate. I think everyone, probably including Mueller, Rosenstein, and Barr, were working on the assumption that the DoJ would do likewise if Mueller had decided that he wanted to indict and would have (except for the DoJ policy). But I’m not aware of any current law or regulation which would compel that same result, and I think that technically, it’s still an open question as a matter of law.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  152. To complete my thought in #166:

    And it will remain an open question, because as noted above, for political reasons, Barr has already effectively decided not to assert investigative privilege.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  153. The boundaries haven’t been tested or resolved through court decisions or otherwise, but there are limitations on Congress’ “oversight powers” based on separation of powers concerns. Congress can concern itself with the general operations, even the general policies, of executive departments. It can’t micromanage individual departmental actions, though, under the rubric of “oversight,” lest by so doing, Congress trample the constitutional authority of the Executive.

    I think the current SCOTUS would hold that an attempt to pierce the investigative privilege in a particular case would be exactly such an overreach, and that it would decline to enforce a Congressional subpoena designed to pierce that privilege.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  154. The invasion is here, Texas is Blue and voter fraud will rule…
    Nice knowing ya.

    mg (8cbc69)

  155. Beldar @166 and 167.

    as noted above, for political reasons, Barr has already effectively decided not to assert investigative privilege.

    Investigatory privilege is the release of grand jury information, and that’s not what you said would remain an open question as a matter of law. Rather, you said Congress would lose that fight ro overcome it in court.

    What you said would remain an open question, and what Barr decided not to do, is, for political reasons, not to say ‘But for this policy, I would have indicted the POTUS’.”

    (That’s probably one of the legal questions Mueller left hanging. Barr and Rosenstein decided they could decide against indicting POTUS for obstruction of justice without getting into that.)

    By the way, Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill) said on Meet the Press today that grand jury information has been released in the past, and was in the case of both Clintons, and Barr could and should apply in court for a waiver.

    Also, the second ranking Dedmocratic Party member of the House intelligence committee defended Adam Schiff’s statement that Trump could be indicted on the day he leaves office (that he said before Mueller ended his investigation) by saying there is an investigation going on in the Southern District of New York.

    Sammy Finkelman (e70ce9)

  156. Barr will apparently redact the Mueller report on three grounds and there is one ground he won’t use.

    He wants to redact it

    1) On the basis of grand jury information,

    2) Intelligence information

    3) And information that might be embarassing to third parties.

    Bbut not to redact anything on the basis of executive privilege, since Trump has said he wants the whole thing released. So, as long as Trump maintains that position, a copy of what Barr wants to make public won’t be sent to the White House for review before its release.

    Sammy Finkelman (e70ce9)

  157. 136. Paul Montagu (d49d0a) — 3/30/2019 @ 5:03 pm

    Also, part of the Mueller investigation involved counterintelligence, which means at minimum the Gang of Eight is entitled to access to this information.

    I think House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has indicated she won’t accept any information abot this under the condition of maintaining confidentiality.

    Sammy Finkelman (e70ce9)

  158. Hot Air linked your post at Arc Digital. Congrats!

    DRJ (15874d)

  159. I support cleaning up the voter rolls, mg, but they also have to be able to show they did it correctly.

    DRJ (15874d)

  160. First, I know of no precedent which holds that Congress is entitled, by virtue of its general oversight power, to overcome DoJ policy on a specific investigation, which it is not entitled to oversee.

    I was looking at this CRS piece regarding executive privilege, but your link noted Fast & Furious, which Congress was able, finally, to what they wanted.

    Paul Montagu (d49d0a)

  161. There’s a whole series of hate attacks hoaxes going on in Portland Oregon, mainly against lesbians.

    https://nypost.com/2019/03/30/inside-the-suspicious-rise-of-gay-hate-crimes-in-portland/

    The first was on February 10.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  162. 173… that’s great! What happened to the gig at PJ Media?

    Colonel Haiku (3decd7)

  163. “You have always been loyal to your nation. And now you have a President who is loyal to you — 100 percent.”
    “You rejected the failed political establishment that shipped away your jobs, sold out your sovereignty, and tied us down in endless foreign wars, which we’re now winning and getting out…. You stood with me…. You took back your country. You recaptured your destiny. You defended your dignity. And you proudly reclaimed your freedom. Maybe for a second time. You have always been loyal to your nation. And now you have a President who is
    “You have always been loyal to your nation. And now you have a President who is loyal to you — 100 percent.”
    “You rejected the failed political establishment that shipped away your jobs, sold out your sovereignty, and tied us down in endless foreign wars, which we’re now winning and getting out…. You stood with me…. You took back your country. You recaptured your destiny. You defended your dignity. And you proudly reclaimed your freedom. Maybe for a second time. You have always been loyal to your nation. And now you have a President who is loyal to you — 100 percent. The Democrats took the people of Michigan for granted. But with us, you will never ever be forgotten again. You will never be take for granted — ever ever ever.”

    This is President Trump’s argument to the people of Michigan, why they should vote for him again in 2020. What counterargument can the Democrats make to Michigan (and who among the Democrats can make it)? Listening to Trump’s pitch, I felt it was so upbeat, so admiring and praising of people who usually hear that they’re washed up and pathetic. Democrats seem only to offer empathy for their predicament — all their losses, their bad water, their victimhood. But Trump is building them up. They’re the best people, the smartest people, the most loyal people.

    I wish I had a transcript of the entire speech so I could count how many times Trump said “loyal.” He combined loyalty to country with readiness to vote again for Trump. And he expressed loyalty to the country and loyalty to the voters.”

    https://althouse.blogspot.com/2019/03/you-have-always-been-loyal-to-your.html

    Colonel Haiku (3decd7)

  164. Well I’m parked out on the corner in Tucson Arizona
    A Walmart under a shady tree
    My wife and mom-in-Law on a shopping spree
    They’re gonna take advantage of me

    Take it easy, take it easy
    Don’t let that tattooed gal wearin’ pajamas
    Drive you crazy

    Colonel Haiku (3decd7)

  165. Close the borders, stop all immigration for 5 years until the fiasco is dealt with.

    mg (8cbc69)

  166. NeverTrump wants Mueller’s report to be made public when they didn’t care that the FBI report on Kavanaugh and his accusers never was — because Brett is of the right Ivy League pedigree, or a legal eagle, or whatever….

    And, the fact that Kavanaugh was never prosecuted “is no guarantee that the suspect didn’t do it”, though oddly we couldn’t get him confirmed and put his investigation in the rear view mirror fast enough. Funny how that works.

    Munroe (a55b55)

  167. “He combined loyalty to country with readiness to vote again for Trump. And he expressed loyalty to the country and loyalty to the voters.”

    Loyalty is a trait Trump finds useful in others.

    Davethulhu (9847a2)

  168. Ya hasta lurv teh Left!

    OUT: Mueller Votive Candles

    IN: Mueller Voodoo Dolls

    Colonel Haiku (3decd7)

  169. There are many out there that still kiss this man’s backside to get a DM from him on Twitter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2yJsvrSvU0

    Colonel Haiku (3decd7)

  170. Did you see that at the local swap mert next to Santa Muerte and Malverde – you trying to out-swarthy Crazy Uncle Joe, Colonel?

    urbanleftbehind (78495b)

  171. No, but now that you mention it, that Chiquita Slow Joe was nuzzling was fairly swarthy.

    I hadn’t been to Tucson since October of ‘02, so we figured it would be good to visit my in-laws here before it gets too hot. My FIL is the hardest working man I know, they live on 1.5 acres which he keeps looking like a well-kept park. The man is 85 years old.

    Colonel Haiku (3decd7)

  172. you think it was a coincidence the national guard attacked there

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/03/31/indigenous-pemon-targeted-deadly-battle-riches-venezuelas-el/

    narciso (d1f714)

  173. so chris rock did a mild rebuke, well big surprise

    https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/31/chuck-ross-russia-collusion-hoax/

    narciso (d1f714)

  174. So let me get this straight. As Smolett, as Trump, as everyone, no one is innocent. Only not guilty depending on prosecutorial discretion.

    This is our legal system now?

    Very disconcerting…

    lee (bfabc4)

  175. 191. @lee

    No, it doesn’t mean no one is innocent. Just that you cannot say, by virtue of a prosecutor not charging someone, that someone is innocent.

    To what extent some action by a prosecutor can be taken as proof of innocence, depends on the details. Sometimes, for instance, a case might be dismissed “in the interest of justice.”

    Sometimes, especially in California, an arrest is voided, after fingerprints have been sent to the FBI, and re-classified as a detention.

    If the prosecutor explicitly makes a statement about inocence, then you could cite the prosecutor as authority for that, But then, of course, that could be wrong, or deliberately false.

    In the case both of Trump and Smolett the prosecutor did not mean to totally clear either of them.

    In the case of Trump, the invstigation “did not establish” that conspiracy or coordination occured with Russia with respect to hacking, leaking or sock-puppeting, but Mueller had arguments both ways for charging obstruction, on grounds which we do not know; and in case of Smolett the prosecutors were standing by the grand jury indictments – it was just a highly irregular end to the case, which they pretended wasn’t so very irregular.

    Sammy Finkelman (e70ce9)

  176. 34% at The Michigan rally were Democrats.

    https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2019/03/34-at-trumps-michigan-rally-were.html

    Colonel Haiku (162b37)

  177. Still more false equivalence.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  178. 195. Instead of argumentum ad assertum, how about you tell us exactly why you think this is false equivalence.

    Gryph (08c844)

  179. 191. Way to twist words there, Sport. Our trial system is adversarial. It does not and can not establish exactly what happened, as no one has a time machine with which to witness events after the fact. It can only establish that there is enough evidence (guilty) or not enough evidence (not guilty) to know beyond a reasonable doubt that a certain crime was committed by a certain individual.

    In re: the Mueller report, Mueller established that while a crime may or may not have been committed by the individual(s) under investigation, there was not enough evidence for him to recommend going forward with indictments given the information he had.

    In re: the Smollett case, the prosecutors gave up prosecuting for reasons unknown, some time after charges had been filed.

    In neither of these cases were the individuals in question exonerated, as Pat pointed out.

    Gryph (08c844)

  180. “The irony of the entire Russian collusion hoax is that accusers who cried the loudest about leaking, collusion, lying, and obstruction are themselves soon very likely to be accused of just those crimes.

    Now that Robert Mueller’s 674-day, $30 million investigation is over and has failed to find the original goal of its mandate—evidence of a criminal conspiracy between the Trump presidential campaign and the Russian government to sway the 2016 election—and now that thousands of once-sealed government documents will likely be released in unredacted form, those who eagerly assumed the role of the hunters may become the hunted, due to their own zealous violation of the nation’s trust and its laws.

    Take Lying
    Former FBI Director James Comey’s testimonies cannot be reconciled with those of his own deputy director Andrew McCabe. He falsely testified that the Steele dossier was not the main basis for obtaining FISA court warrants. On at least 245 occasions, Comey swore under oath that he either did not know, or could not remember, when asked direct questions about his conduct at the FBI. He likely lied when he testified that he did not conclude his assessment of the Clinton illegal email use before he had even interviewed Clinton, an assertion contradicted by his own written report. I guess his credo and modus operandi are reflected in the subtitle of his recent autobiography A Higher Loyalty: “Truth, Lies, and Leadership.”

    Andrew McCabe currently is under criminal referral for lying to federal investigators about leaking to the media. He and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein each have accused each other of not telling the whole truth about their shared caper of trying to force President Trump out of office by invoking the 25th Amendment.

    Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has admitted to lying under oath to Congress—and since lied about his earlier admission of that lying. His recent sworn congressional testimony of not having leaked information about the Steele dossier to the media is again likely to be untrue, given that Clapper had admitted to speaking to CNN’s Jake Tapper about the dossier’s contents. CNN, remember, would in turn go on to hire the mendacious Clapper as an analyst. And once on air, Clapper would insist that Trump was both a Russian asset and thus guilty of collusion crimes greater than those of Watergate. Lies. All lies…”

    —- Victor Davis Hanson

    Read it all: https://amgreatness.com/2019/03/31/the-tables-turn-in-russian-collusion-hunt/

    Colonel Haiku (162b37)

  181. Leaking the memo to Richman and wittes was indeed illegal, but the dossier reminds me another episode from the past, Howard hunt wanted to make clear that JFK was more hands on toward diems removal so he took some cables and spliced them together

    Narciso (f373a9)

  182. The FISA warrants would be useful to see. But they ddi not authtorize any spying on the Trump campaign, just on Carter Page, who was no longer affiliated with the campaign and was selected by the FBI for that reason:

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but (to my admittedly vague recollection) did not the issuance of the FISA warrants on Page also allow the feds to examine his communications, of all types, out two more layers or levels? That is, to examine not only Page’s communications, but those of the persons on the other end of his communications, and also those of the persons on the other end of those?

    If that is indeed correct, then it was a very wide net set to catch a lot of fish. If I am in error, then apologies.

    ColoComment (b48a15)

  183. Instead of argumentum ad assertum, how about you tell us exactly why you think this is false equivalence.

    Again?

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  184. It was a crooked conspiracy that dropped all charges against Smollett, who was obviously guilty. THis is different than an investigation that did not favor Trump fining no reasonable basis to bring charges. The latter IS “exoneration” (insufficient evidence to bring charges) the former is a crooked Chicago deal. Yet they are being falsely posed as equivalent acts.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  185. 202. That’s not the comparison that was made, however. Go back and re-read Pat’s entire piece. Trump’s spiking of the ball bears a striking resemblance to Jussie Smollett’s. Neither were exonerated. That is not a false equivalence. That is verifiable, provable fact.

    Gryph (08c844)

  186. “Neither were exonerated. That is not a false equivalence. That is verifiable, provable fact.”
    Gryph (08c844) — 4/1/2019 @ 7:46 am

    When you’re the target of a witch hunt in search of a crime — three years running — with federal departments of law enforcement, cultural elites, and virtually all of print/broadcast/internet media arrayed against you, plus the pitchfork and torch mob, and then you’re ultimately charged with nothing — waiting to be “exonerated” would seem anticlimactic.

    That scenario applies to only one of the two cases.

    Munroe (713ba7)

  187. Well, Sarah, the resolution of that case proves that the marginal difference makers are who you know, money, and relative fame, considering Barriss and Smollett are of similar, er…., composition.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  188. Trump was not quite exonerated, and Barr does not make clear what it was that Trump was specifcally not exonerated from. This was a very thorough investigation, at least into the issues of Russian hacking, leaking, sock-puppeting and advertising in connection with the 2016 presidential election.

    In the case of Smolett, the man in charge of the prosecution actively insists that they think he was guilty.

    Meanwhile, there’s a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece today about the Chicago mayoral election which says that Lightfoot demanded a “fullsome explanation” (as they say, that word fullsome does not mean what she things it means) and that it was demoralizing to police; and even Preckwinkle said that there are a lot of questions, and that the state’s attorney should be allowed to give a fuller explanation as time goes on, and if there is some more transparency and accountability the public can get some confidence that justice was done. (collapsing different comments they made.)

    The bottom line of the Op-ed piece is that while both candidates do not appear likely to stop the city’s spiral into insolvency, Lightfoot could stop its descent into cynicism and racial animosity, which is equally important.

    @nk: Which one of them again is cyanide (I assume cyanide is better.)

    Sammy Finkelman (e70ce9)

  189. The FISA warrants would be useful to see. But they did not authorize any spying on the Trump campaign, just on Carter Page, who was no longer affiliated with the campaign and was selected by the FBI for that reason

    What is the basis for this? The FISA application says “the FBI believes that the Russian Government’s efforts are being coordinated with Page and perhaps other individuals associated with Candidate #1’s campaign.“. It’s full of information making associations between Page and the campaign. There’s a section about news reports speculating that Trump is taking a “milder” approach toward Russia because of the influence of Page.

    Assuming this was a good faith FISA request, it’s going to be hard to understand Russia’s influence on the election in general via Page’s influence on the Trump campaign without also collecting information on other people within the campaign.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  190. The New York Post article about the Portland, Oregon hate crime hoax epidemic this year (that eventually grew to 15 cases, most, if not all, not reported to the police, but only in various ways online, although there were claims of having reported it to the police) says that someone wrote a whole book called “Hate Crime Hoax”

    Avalable on Amazon as a hardcover, kindle, audiobook, MP3 and CD.

    Hate Crime Hoax: How the Left is Selling a Fake Race War by Wilfred Reilly (a Kentucky State political science professor)

    Publication date: Feb 26, 2019.

    An earlier book, from 1994, Crying wolf: Hate crimes hoaxes in America by Laird M Wilcox, is out of print. It may be possible to buy it secondhand, if there;s not too much interest, and there are free downloadable copies. As of 2016, one reviewer found it the only book on the subject.

    There’s also a short 82-page book: Hate-Crime Hoaxing For Fun And Profit by Michael Rolls (Kindle edition dated January 9, 2016, being sold for $3.99) It is not really an instruction manual – it is satire. It has no reviews on Amazon, as of yet.

    Sammy Finkelman (e70ce9)

  191. 208. The FISA warrant authorized sppying on Carter Page, not anybody else, and Page was not involved with the campaign by then.

    ColoComment @200 says

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but (to my admittedly vague recollection) did not the issuance of the FISA warrants on Page also allow the feds to examine his communications, of all types, out two more layers or levels? That is, to examine not only Page’s communications, but those of the persons on the other end of his communications, and also those of the persons on the other end of those?

    If that is indeed correct, then it was a very wide net set to catch a lot of fish..

    My understanding is that you don’t need a FISA warrant for non-U.S. communications of non-U.S. persons, but if they wanted to listen to calls or intercept communications by any other U.S. person, they’d need a separate FISA warrant for that.

    I don’t know – maybe they could get the identities of people who people in communication with Carter Page themselves communicated with, even if it was a U.S. persons. I also don’t think that whatever they can obtain on third partes would need to be in the FISA warrant application, as that would go with the territory.

    Victor Davis Hanson, quoted @198, wrote that Andrew McCabe falsely testified that the Steele dossier was not the main basis for obtaining FISA court warrants, but I am not that could be considerd a lie. Frst, it is a matter of opinion, and second the steele dossier would only be seds to corroborate that Russia was interested in the outcome of te election, and Russia was, even though the dossier was false. It was dinformation supplied to Christopher Steele as to why Russia favoed Trump, supplemented apparently by Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS with material derived from old Wall Street Journal reporting about Donald Trump and Deutche Bank. The excuse for teh warant howeverm was material about Carter Page.

    The Steele dossier was not the initial thing used to start a counter-intelligence investigation of Trmp and Russia in 2016, which was called “Crossfire Hurricane” but the dossier was added at some point.

    The criminal investigation into Trump himself for obstruction of justice and any nderlying matters was opened up by Andrew McCabe after FBI Director James Comey was fired, and that apparently did use the dossier as a basis. entatively,

    I think what happened was that that Rod Rosenstein thought that was not good, but didn’t feel free to kill it. And he decided to take that away from McCabe and give it to Mueller. He had first hoped that Trump would nominate Mueller for FBI Director. When Trump rejected him, Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel. Mueller proceeded, among other things, to check out what was in the dossier. He used a number of Trump opponents in the FBI, (who had been involved in the counter-intelligence investigation) not being familar with their attirtude, or told about it, but McCabe was cut out of it immediately.

    Sammy Finkelman (e70ce9)

  192. Trump’s spiking of the ball bears a striking resemblance to Jussie Smollett’s

    It’s a good comparison to show the limit on assumptions that can be made around prosecutorial discretion. It doesn’t do much beyond that. Sure, now we’ve got another mark against Trump because Smollett spiked the ball and Trump spiked the ball and do you really want to be associated with these awful ball spikers, etc. But this is just a version of ‘Hitler was a vegetarian’.

    Neither were exonerated. That is not a false equivalence. That is verifiable, provable fact.

    Yes, “not indicted” is not equivalent to “innocent” or “exonerated”. One is a statement of legal fact and another is a statement of a moral condition. The fact that they aren’t equivalent doesn’t mean much outside of this debate over the meaning of these two terms. I know a lot of this is still fresh and it will take time to process but holding on to this “you can’t say he’s innocent” mantra is just being stuck in denial.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  193. 210
    I’ve been trying to find good clear explanations & so far have failed. As I recall, McCarthy went into great detail in one or more posts about the differences between one kind of FISA warrant and another, the broadest being issued under Sec. 702, where the target is suspected of being a foreign agent or spy and an expectation or possibility of future activity.

    This morning I find this:
    The case of Carter Page represents a sorry chapter in the investigation. He was subjected to surveillance intended to be reserved for agents of foreign governments about to commit serious crimes. The FBI and Department of Justice took out a FISA warrant on Page in October 2016. The warrant was renewed three times. The surveillance on Page and his contacts and their contacts extended over the period of a year. According to the FBI and the Department of Justice, probable cause existed to believe that Page was a Russian agent knowingly engaging in clandestine intelligence activities. (emphasis added)
    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/04/the-case-of-carter-page.php

    As Johnson notes and notwithstanding all the surveillance on him, Page has not been charged with anything, not even a process crime.

    I’m still looking for the McCarthy piece I think I read…. Or maybe I’m just irrevocably brain-damaged trying to understand all the moving parts to the story.

    ColoComment (b48a15)

  194. There a big difference between a case with a true verdict and charges laid (and serious ones) and a case when there was not enough evidence to bring any charges at all.

    They as much as said (as all know is true and week supported by overwhelming evidence) Smollet was guilty. He at least leais down some money. They said he and his crimes were dropped because reasons having nothing to do with how solid the case was, implying elsewhere that the penaties that might be imposed by a jury were too severe for the crime committed, and that the harm done didn’t justify prosecution. It’s clear other factors made a difference, but the takeaway is a good case with charges brought dropped despite and probably because he would be found guilty.

    This is not at all the same as a case where there was false evidence and/or insufficient evidence to even bring charges.

    SarahW (08f5d7)

  195. @ColoCmment: It could be you can’t find the MCcarthy piece because one detail in what you’re looking for is wrong. Perhaps you think it mentions a word, but asynonym is used instead, or it mentions the term “Section 702” but it doesn’t. Or perhaps McCarthy is quoted in it but didn’t write it. But you might find its second cousin.

    Sammy Finkelman (e70ce9)

  196. So Sarah… you’re saying it’s a false equivalency?

    Colonel Haiku (162b37)

  197. @SarahW: As I think Patterco wrote, you might justify diverting a case, but you’d never see that without some admission of responsibility. (the reason, I think, is that otherwise the authorities open themselves up to a lawsuit for false arrest.)

    Sammy Finkelman (e70ce9)

  198. In the meantime I found this: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/trump-fisa-warrant-comments-lack-of-hearings-not-problem/

    I see from another article that the Steele dossier was used to implicate Carter Page. It contained some special allegations against Carter Page. (I think, therefore, that Carter Page’s name was leaked to Steele by the Russians, and it was leaked precisely because he was NOT a Russian agent knowingly engaging in clandestine intelligence activities.

    That’s why the Russians gave the name away!

    Sammy Finkelman (e70ce9)

  199. There are a lot of articles that mention Andrew McCarthy, the FISA warrant application, and Carter Page.

    Here’s one non-Natioal Review article:

    https://www.wlfi.com/content/national/488828911.html

    Each article I find may have a little fact about something or other. Here’s another non-National Review source:

    https://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/news/politics/2018/07/22/carter-page-fisa-warrant-application-confirms-dossier-role-circular-reporting/

    Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee, had made public statements sourced in the dossier during the campaign, well before it was first published by BuzzFeed. Multiple sources tell PPD that Mr. Schiff, a notorious leaker, sought to hide the funding revelation from members of the committee.

    Note: Fusion GPS was quite serious for a very very long time in trying to claim that Steele was first hired by a Republican – he was not.

    The Washington Free Beacon was later revealed as the Republican source) They hired them for something much simpler, a public records search, whch did not payment for any kind of private detective work, and Steele was hired while the Washington Free Beacon was still a client /b> of the washington Free Beacon. Perkins Coie did not take anything over.

    In the FISA warrant, it wss said merely that political opponents of Trump had hired Steele, and it was claimed Steele had a long record of honesty.

    Sammy Finkelman (e70ce9)

  200. And Putin smirked…

    Colonel Haiku (162b37)

  201. Well Simpson certainly was not so encumbered

    Consider the bros of the emir of ras al khalmah
    https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-raven-media/

    Narciso (f373a9)

  202. CNN
    State of the Union
    3/31/19
    9:02 am EDT
    MICK MULVANEY: We need to figure out what went wrong with the Mueller report, why, in all fairness to your network, why the media got it so wrong for so long.Bu it is time to talk about health care. It is time to talk about trade. It is time to talk about other things, while at the same time talking about why it came down the way that it did. It was so thorough and yet so accurate, how did the media get it so wrong? I think the President is venting the same frustration a lot of people had when the Mueller report came out and it turned out exactly like he said that it would. So, as usual, you take the President at his word in his tweets.
    JAKE TAPPER: He wants it released. But I’m not sure what you’re saying the media got wrong. The media reported the investigation was going on. Other than the people in the media on the left, not on this network, I don’t know anybody got anything wrong. We didn’t say there was conspiracy. We said Mueller was investigating conspiracy.

    MULVANEY: That’s fine, if that’s your recollection of history, that’s great. Face it, the media got this wrong. It’s okay. People get stuff wrong all the time, just not at this level.

    https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/mark-finkelstein/2019/03/31/tapper-mueller-cnn-not-left-dont-know-anything-msm-got-wrong

    Colonel Haiku (3d7222)

  203. MICK MULVANEY: We need to figure out what went wrong with the Mueller report, why, in all fairness to your network, why the media got it so wrong for so long

    What they got wrong, or didn’t correct partisan Democrats on, was the idea that Mueller was hiding some big revelation, or was on the road to discovering something. As long as Mueller wasn’t about to close up shop, the could anticipate that something was going to be revealed in some time.

    But Mueller periodically released indictments, and it was highly unlikely he’d have some charge against Trump that would wait for his report because DOJ policy, which he felt bound by, wasa not to indict asitting president – that that would be true but there would be no co-conspirator to indict. You had some people looking for clues.

    Sammy Finkelman (e70ce9)

  204. 223. I have a refrubished Windows XP computer that didn’t change time automatically – but now did when according to the old law, it should have.

    Sammy Finkelman (e70ce9)

  205. Correction: No it didn’t update. I just thought it was one hour earlier. I can always change the time manually. I expected it to co-ordinate automatically with some website on the Internet, but it seems like it doesn’t do that.

    Sammy Finkelman (e70ce9)

  206. Commentary: Kim Foxx: I welcome an outside review of how we handled the Jussie Smollett case
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-kim-foxx-jussie-smollett-20190329-story.html

    Neo (61269e)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2195 secs.