MMA fighter with links to Trump, Cohen is questioned by FBI

[waiguoren]

I think @waiguoren is just answering out of tribalism

Dodge noted.

My view has been consistent. These special counsel (and previously, independent counsel) probes are almost always the wrong way to investigate alleged wrongdoing. They tend to grow out of control when the investigator fails to nail the target.

In the case of links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign, a nonpartisan public commission imbued with subpoena power and the guarantee of the release of a final public report would have been a far better choice. The 9/11 commission is a good precedent here.

wai isn't legitimately concerned about that crushing blow to the Treasury and is just trying to throw another reason to cover for Trump against the wall.

I never mentioned a "crushing blow to the Treasury". The point is that there is almost no conceivable scenario in which interviewing Emelianenko is going to benefit the Mueller probe or the SDNY probe. Of course, as you noted, we can't know for sure until the final investigative reports are released.

Oh wait, Rosenstein is under no obligation to release the final, confidential report. See my view above.

Is there anyone who shouldn't be questioned in this investigation? What limits should be imposed, if any? Would it be worthwhile to attempt to interview every person who has ever been connected to Vladimir Putin?

Yikes. Quite a leap here, isn't it? The limits were already set, and they sound fine.

Are you referring to the limits laid out in the order appointing Mueller as Special Counsel? The second part of the authorization is vague to the point of being infinitely expandable.

(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation

In my opinion, you as a self-proclaimed "liberal" should be very concerned with the erosion of civil liberties that (ii) begets. Are there any FBI interviews that couldn't be justified under (ii)?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Here it is. Liberals should come down HARD on the way AMZN treats their work staff. No breaks, having to piss in bottles! Was not hard.

How bout a real Trump post from u without personal attacks?

So you're indicating a fundamental misunderstanding of what liberalism is. It's not exhorting people to act against their interests--it's protecting rights and changing incentives.

I posted one. I don't think any decent person is going to think highly of Trump as a man, but that's not the same thing as giving him credit where it is due.

My view has been consistent. These special counsel (and previously, independent counsel) probes are almost always the wrong way to investigate alleged wrongdoing. They tend to grow out of control when the investigator fails to nail the target.

In the case of links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign, a nonpartisan public commission imbued with subpoena power and the guarantee of the release of a final public report would have been a far better choice. The 9/11 commission is a good precedent here.

None of this is relevant here. You asked if the questioning was worth the financial cost (since the agents would be paid anyway, that's really transportation costs to the hotel). I answered that there is no way to know that without information that neither of us has.

Are you referring to the limits laid out in the order appointing Mueller as Special Counsel? The second part of the authorization is vague to the point of being infinitely expandable.

Yes, that's what I'm referring to. No, it's not infinitely expandable. By acknowledging the likelihood of expansion, you're admitting that criminal activity by the president is likely to turn up. It's strange that that doesn't seem to interest you (and that you're actively supporting covering it up).

 

[waiguoren]

None of this is relevant here. You asked if the questioning was worth the financial cost (since the agents would be paid anyway, that's really transportation costs to the hotel). I answered that there is no way to know that without information that neither of us has.

It's highly relevant. As I have noted from the start: of course there is no way to know for sure if the Emelianenko interview was justifiable. But given what you and I both know about Emelianenko and the likelihood of him being relevant to an investigation of links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign (vanishingly small) or other criminal "related matters" (very low), this FBI interview appears to be evidence of an unjustifiable expansion of the special counsel probe or the SDNY case.

Yes, that's what I'm referring to. No, it's not infinitely expandable.

You say Mueller's mandate is not infinitely expandable. Let's take a look. Mueller is authorized to examine:

(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation



Question: Which interviews could not be performed under (ii)?

Imagine the final investigative report were to contain the following language:

In the process of investigating alleged links between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, we learned of a user of the sherdog.com internet message board with username @Jack V Savage who appears highly knowledgeable about a former interviewee (mixed martial arts fight Fedor Emelianenko). We decided to interview @Jack V Savage to determine if he had any further information that would be relevant to the investigation.

Would such an interview be permissible under Mueller's authorization?

Would it be worthwhile to attempt to interview every person who has ever been connected to Vladimir Putin?

By acknowledging the likelihood of expansion, you're admitting that criminal activity by the president is likely to turn up.

Incorrect. Also, foolish.

This comment makes it clear you haven't paid attention to my position, which is that special/independent counsel investigations almost always tend toward unjustifiable expansion regardless of the likelihood of criminal activity.

Would you have made the same comment about Bill Clinton and Whitewater? An unbiased observer in the early days of the Starr investigation would have noted the likelihood of expansion of the investigation, yet after years of investigation Clinton was not found guilty of criminal behavior until he perjured himself and committed obstruction of justice in an attempt to cover up embarrassing non-criminal behavior.

It's strange that that doesn't seem to interest you (and that you're actively supporting covering it up).

That's false. I am very interested in any crimes that the president committed. I am not interesting in covering up alleged crimes. However, civil rights and reasonable barriers should be respected in the process of the investigations.

 

[ShinkanPo]

This investigation got weird

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

...at the expense of the US taxpayer.

If Mueller is now tasked with investigating everyone with possible ties to the Russia mafia, the investigation will drag on for another 20 years or so.

I was interviewed by an FBI agent about a friend who got a job working in aerospace, an FBI interview isn't that big of a deal if they were willing to take me seriously.

Those folks are intense though, wow!