FBI raids office of Michael Cohen, personal attorney to Donald Trump

[Limbo Pete]

Do you believe that any investigation that finds criminal activity would be acknowledged to be nonpartisan by Trump and his defenders (Dershowitz being one)?



So your view is that all "wielding of executive authority" is equal?

Any view is possible through a powerful enough tribalism lens

 

[MikeMcMann]

Yes, although I would prefer that it be suspended so that a nonpartisan commission could take over. That's Dershowitz's suggestion.

...

Does non-partisan only = trump innocent?

Have not most or all of the people investigating this been republican and if they cannot put aside their preferential bias then what can a true nonpartisan (what is that btw?) do?

 

[waiguoren]

Do you believe that any investigation that finds criminal activity would be acknowledged to be nonpartisan by Trump and his defenders (Dershowitz being one)?

The answer to the question as stated is, "no" (surely there are some such investigations that Trump and his defenders would call partisan). However, I think you meant to write,

"Do you believe that there are any possible investigations that uncover criminal activity which would be acknowledged to be nonpartisan by Trump and his defenders?"

I cannot predict Trump's behavior. With regard to Dershowitz, I believe the answer is "yes". I think Dershowitz would accept a commission whose composition is similar to that of the 9/11 commission.

So your view is that all "wielding of executive authority" is equal?

No. I am responding to your statement that firing Mueller would be an attack on the rule of law. To attack the rule of law, a political leader must perform exta-legal action. Firing Mueller is legally permissible.

While not condoning such a firing, I do think our system needs reform and the young institution of special counsel ought to be replaced. Reform requires catalyst. Firing Mueller would be such a catalyst, as it would lead millions of unaware citizens to realize that there fundamental flaws in the current system.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Ah so Trump would be doing us a favor by firing Mueller
Lmao, jesus man
Chriiiiiiiiist on high

 

[Strychnine]

This is an entirely new level of bizarre and I just can't turn away.

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

Ah so Trump would be doing us a favor by firing Mueller
Lmao, jesus man
Chriiiiiiiiist on high

Astounding that level of trolling he doesn't get carded lok

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

My greatest fear is that he cans Mueller and too many people can't be bothered to give a shit. Too many people have simply accepted that we have a president who casually lies every day.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Astounding that level of trolling he doesn't get carded lok

It's important to read what the extreme POV is, even if it's programmed thinking

 

[waiguoren]

Does non-partisan only = trump innocent?

Have not most or all of the people investigating this been republican and if they cannot put aside their preferential bias then what can a true nonpartisan (what is that btw?) do?

The "nonpartisan" part is intended to contrast with congressional investigative committees like the House Select Committee on Benghazi, which are perceived as politically partisan. It's not meant to contrast with special counsel.

The problem with the institution of special counsel is that the head investigator/prosecutor has skin in the game. If he can't secure any indictments, he looks like he just wasted millions of dollars of taxpayer money. Thus he may feel pressure to go behind his purview. In my view, the Starr investigation exemplifies this problem.

An investigative commission feels no such pressure. It does not have the power to issue indictments. If it uncovers evidence of wrongdoing, it may refer that evidence to a prosecutor's office. It can also make public recommendations.

 

[Jack V Savage]

No. I am responding to your statement that firing Mueller would be an attack on the rule of law. To attack the rule of law, a political leader must perform exta-legal action. Firing Mueller is legally permissible.

Only because of an oversight in lawmaking, no? If the president is using his powers to stop his own corruption from being investigated, that is an attack on the rule of law, even if he's not technically violating the law in that process. I don't think you'd regard that statement as objectionable if it weren't for the fact that someone you consider to be in your tribe is facing the investigation.

While not condoning such a firing, I do think our system needs reform and the young institution of special counsel ought to be replaced. Reform requires catalyst. Firing Mueller would be such a catalyst, as it would lead millions of unaware citizens to realize that there fundamental flaws in the current system.

So you don't condone it, but if he does it, you will consider it to be a heroic act that benefits the country. OK.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The "nonpartisan" part is intended to contrast with congressional investigative committees like the House Select Committee on Benghazi, which are perceived as politically partisan. It's not meant to contrast with special counsel.

The problem with the institution of special counsel is that the head investigator/prosecutor has skin in the game. If he can't secure any indictments, he looks like he just wasted millions of dollars of taxpayer money. Thus he may feel pressure to go behind his purview. In my view, the Starr investigation exemplifies this problem.

An investigative commission feels no such pressure. It does not have the power to issue indictments. If it uncovers evidence of wrongdoing, it may refer that evidence to a prosecutor's office. It can also make public recommendations.

Your theoretical objection obviously does not apply in this case, as Mueller has already received indictments. Anyway, we agree that Mueller's investigation should be allowed to continue, and anyone found to have committed criminal acts should be dealt with appropriately so this is all moot.

 

[waiguoren]

Only because of an oversight in lawmaking, no?

That's one way of looking at it.

If the president is using his powers to stop his own corruption from being investigated, that is an attack on the rule of law

It's a problem of definition. Instead of arguing about the meaning of "rule of law", let's just agree that it's a terrible thing for a president to use his power to stop his own corruption from being investigated.

I'm also not saying that it will necessarily benefit the country. I think it's wrong to ignore that possibility. However, if you think the Office of Special Counsel is a fine institution (I'd like to hear your view on the Starr investigation), then our disagreement runs deeper.

So you don't condone it, but if he does it, you will consider it to be a heroic act that benefits the country.

Never did I use the term "heroic", nor would I. My point is that that the institution of special counsel is fundamentally flawed. I hope that it can be reformed. I fear that most Americans do not even realize that the president has the authority to fire Mueller. It's a bad system.

 

[waiguoren]

Your theoretical objection obviously does not apply in this case, as Mueller has already received indictments

Other than Manafort, very low-level indictments---and Manafort would have been investigated regardless of Mueller's involvement.

The most likely outcome of the Mueller investigation is multiple indictments of low-level campaign officials and millions of dollars of taxpayer money wasted. No one will be satisfied. Mueller will have missed the big fish, Trumpies will cry that Mueller was unfair, and Democrats will whine that Mueller didn't look in the right places.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

Impractical? What's impractical about dividing the Justice Department into prosecutorial and advisory wings? The UK and Israel do the same thing.

Rosenstein did not "have to" do anything. Most of the voting public was already upset about the Comey firing. A nonpartisan commission could have been set up by the acting AG and Congress. This would have been similar to the 9/11 commission in scope, authority, and transparency.

Impractical in the sense that he couldn't divide the JD, that is Dersh's ivory tower pontifications.

And do you have an links to a discussion about setting up a nonpartisan commission? Back when Mueller was selected though, you heard bipartisan support for him as a man that they all knew as a man of ability and integrity, and you still have prominent Republicans like Grassley and Graham continuing to express their strong support and confidence in him. And given all that has come out of the Mueller investigation, particularly in terms of Manafort and Gates, I think Rosenstein saw the need (particularly given how the WH tried to use him as a patsy in the firing of Comey) and knew what he was doing by appointing a special prosecutor that couldn't be impeded by politics.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

Somebody is done playing this game

 

[waiguoren]

Back when Mueller was selected though, you heard bipartisan support for him as a man that they all knew as a man of ability and integrity, and you still have prominent Republicans like Grassley and Graham continuing to express their strong support and confidence in him.

I agree. I am not into the partisan game, however. I try to think about what would help the nation overall. The difficulty is: it's incredibly easy to get painted as a partisan during moments like these, but moments like these are also the best times to real structural change to occur.

And given all that has come out of the Mueller investigation, particularly in terms of Manafort and Gates

The FBI has had an open criminal investigation on Manafort since at least 2014. He was toast regardless of Mueller's involvement. Other than than, Mueller has come up with nothing significant.

I think Rosenstein saw the need (particularly given how the WH tried to use him as a patsy in the firing of Comey) and knew what he was doing by appointing a special prosecutor that couldn't be impeded by politics.

Other than the "need", I agree with this version of events. I think if Rosenstein hadn't acted, Congress would have. There was outrage among both Democrats and Republicans at the firing of Comey.

 

[MikeMcMann]

The "nonpartisan" part is intended to contrast with congressional investigative committees like the House Select Committee on Benghazi, which are perceived as politically partisan. It's not meant to contrast with special counsel.

The problem with the institution of special counsel is that the head investigator/prosecutor has skin in the game. If he can't secure any indictments, he looks like he just wasted millions of dollars of taxpayer money. Thus he may feel pressure to go behind his purview. In my view, the Starr investigation exemplifies this problem.

An investigative commission feels no such pressure. It does not have the power to issue indictments. If it uncovers evidence of wrongdoing, it may refer that evidence to a prosecutor's office. It can also make public recommendations.

I am not so sure the public would take issue with a special counsel who said "i've looked into it and see no wrong doing and am ending the investigation". Why do you think the public expects indictments in 100% of investigations and cannot the 'clearing' of someone be considered a positive?

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

I agree. I am not into the partisan game, however. I try to think about what would help the nation overall. The difficulty is: it's incredibly easy to get painted as a partisan during moments like these, but moments like these are also the best times to real structural change to occur.



The FBI has had an open criminal investigation on Manafort since at least 2014. He was toast regardless of Mueller's involvement. Other than than, Mueller has come up with nothing significant.



Other than the "need", I agree with this version of events. I think if Rosenstein hadn't acted, Congress would have. There was outrage among both Democrats and Republicans at the firing of Comey.

There is literally nothing that would stop the people who are attempting to paint Mueller as partisan from trying to muddy the waters of any investigation. They were bending over backwards making things up about McCabe's political affiliation up to get McCabe fired (we still haven't seen the IG report on that firing), and you have Trump supporters eating up stories about secret societies in the FBI (even peddled by GOP congressman and senators) and conspiracy theories about a deep state to explain away Republicans like Comey, Rosenstein, and Mueller (and even Sessions). It reminds me of when the Italian Mob and their shills tried to paint any investigation into the mob as discrimination again Italians. It is pure and simple bullshit to try to keep illegal activity from being investigated.

If Manafort was toast regardless, why would he have been selected in 2016 to take over Trump's campaign and the republican convention? I think it is pretty clear that the Mueller investigation changed things for him, especially with Mueller getting Gates to flip.

And I disagree that congress would have acted, they have been a mix of enablers and battered wives when it comes to Trump, they are scared of him and his base.

 

[waiguoren]

I am not so sure the public would take issue with a special counsel who said "i've looked into it and see no wrong doing and am ending the investigation". Why do you think the public expects indictments in 100% of investigations and cannot the 'clearing' of someone be considered a positive?

It's the difference between a "prosecutor" and and "investigator". These are totally separate jobs, yet Mueller is tasked with both. A prosecutor's job is to charge criminals. A prosecutor who doesn't charge criminals is a failure.

Based on the fervor of the anti-Trump crowd, I'll also have to disagree with you that the public would be satisfied with zero indictments. In this very thread we can see partisans whose analytical ability does not appear to exceed that of a fruit fly but who are utterly convinced that Trump committed crimes.

The clearing of someone can be considered a positive, but that's only in the eyes of a (seemingly) reasonable person like you. Right now, half the country wants red meat.

 

[PHATV]

Didn't read whole thread, but if attorney-client privilege is not afforded to the POTUS, well, it sure as hell isn't going to be afforded any of us when it matters to us. Seems like a stretch and getting into shit that isn't "Russia"-related.

I don't know that this is the precedent we want to set for how we treat POTUS going forward.