• We are currently experiencing technical difficulties. We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience.

Mueller's Patton the back (investigation thread v. 22)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I haven't accused you of dishonesty. Please extend me the same courtesy.

After reading your comment: would it be fair for me to assume that under your standard, John Edwards was guilty of failure to report campaign contributions? The jury couldn't reach a verdict.

In the event of a trial, it would not be the defense's job to prove Trump's innocence. It would be the prosecutor's job to prove Trump guilty. To do so, you (since you're playing prosecutor) would have to present direct evidence that Trump made the payment for the sole purpose of benefitting his presidential campaign. That's an extremely high bar, and your best bet would be a biased jury.

That's the legal side. As for my personal opinion, I'm not sure. Do we know how far back the "catch and kill" arrangement with The National Enquirer went? If Trump had been making hush money payments to women long before he announced a presidential campaign, that would seem to hurt your case.

"Let's be honest" is an idiom, meaning "let's cut the legal pretenses", "let's get down to brass tacks", "let's talk turkey", etc., and was used to state the obvious: that those payments, based on the timing, were campaign related. The fact that they didn't try to catch and kill the story in the nine years since Trump last engaged in coitus with Stormy and McDougle, and just coincidentally decided to pay these women off in the maw of a vicious political campaign (after the Access Hollywood tape aired when Paul Ryan, et. al, were running for the hills) strains credulity, no?

As for Edwards, me being honest, yes he was guilty, those payments were not to protect his wife, they were to protect his political career. But, I wasn't in the position of being a juror with that responsibility of fastidiously weighing the prosecution's case. The Edwards' case is neither here nor there though, and the case against Trump is much more thick, solid, and tight, as Edwards didn't have his personal attorney testifying that the payments were election-related, while pleading guilty to a potpourri of fraud, including bank fraud related to him getting the funds to pay off the women Trump was banging (to use the parlance of our time).
th
 
It was Obama, in Trump's drawing room, with the microwave.

Also, anyone else looking forward to Colonel Mustard getting flipped by Mueller?
<45>
<Lmaoo>

Colonel Mustard will be the one that rekt the hot dog ™.

He looks American, but inside the bottle there's an unregistered foreign condiment working for the Ukraine.
 
The new hero of the anti war mongering right, Chomsky!!!
What point are you trying to make?

Why would you have any doubt? Is it the Deep State thing?
Doubt is my default, as it should be for you. If you don't doubt it, I'm assuming you've personally performed a thorough review of the DNC server logs.

Ok well at least this is more honest

More honest than what? Point me to something "dishonest" I posted.

Even for @waiguoren, that's disingenuous.

What did I post that is "disingenuous"?
 
@waiguoren cant concede a point even when he is conceding a point.
Give an example.

He spins quite tribally while calling everyone else tribalistic.
Libel. I didn't call everyone else tribalistic. I also didn't "spin quite tribally".

His goat/bet me/ fight me crap is laughable.

I am the politics betting GOAT. That is beyond question. Multiple frequent posters in this thread (@PolishHeadlock ,@andnowweknow , @HomerThompson ) are going to lose their signatures or more to me in the near future, thereby solidifying this my status as GOAT champion. Even now, the fake champion (@Jack V Savage) is in his dying days. Hail to the king.

As for "fight me", I'm going to assume you know that's a mischaracterization but persist for tribalist reasons.
 
You're a smart guy but you post like a lawyer or debater, where the truth doesn't matter, just how much doubt you can create.

The truth of what? Be specific. If you're saying that it looks like I'm obfuscating my true allegiances, that's probably because I don't have any allegiances to anyone involved in the Mueller investigation.

My personal political views will change until I die. However, something that probably won't change is commitment to the rule of law. So when people in this thread attempt to defile the rule of law by e.g., redefining "obstruction of justice" to apply to the Comey firing, I'm going to speak out. That position in particular shows pathetic ignorance and/or disregard for federal law and constitutional principles.

just look through your posts and the titles of threads you start. A reasonable person would come to the conclusion you're firmly on the conservative side.

The threads I start are usually concerned with illegal immigration. Until very recently, that wasn't a "conservative" issue.

As for this thread, defending the rule of law + the rights of the accused and opposing hyperaggressive prosecutorial tactics was a liberal position until Trump got into office.
 
It doesn't to wai who claims that he was against perjury for a blowjob on Clinton. Which I'm not even remotely buying

My view is that impeachment is reserved for serious crimes.

President Johnson was wrongfully impeached

President Clinton was wrongfully impeached

President Nixon deserved impeachment (clearly guilty of obstruction of justice) but resigned first
 
The fact that they didn't try to catch and kill the story in the nine years since Trump last engaged in coitus with Stormy and McDougle, and just coincidentally decided to pay these women off in the maw of a vicious political campaign (after the Access Hollywood tape aired when Paul Ryan, et. al, were running for the hills) strains credulity, no?

A story can only be "caught" if it has already been "pitched". Is there any evidence that Stephanie Clifford had threatened to go public with her sex story at any time other than two weeks before the election? If Trump had refused to pay Clifford off, say, two years prior to the election then you'd have a point.

As for Edwards, me being honest, yes he was guilty, those payments were not to protect his wife,

At least you're consistent. To me, it's ridiculous to interpret such payments as "campaign contributions". How far can we stretch this? If Trump pays for a nice massage during campaign season, should he be obligated to disclose to the FEC his payment to his masseuse as a "campaign contribution" on the grounds that it benefitted Trump on the campaign trail? @Rational Poster's position is "yes", as I understand it. I'm guessing you'll say "no".

The Edwards' case is neither here nor there though, and the case against Trump is much more thick, solid, and tight, as Edwards didn't have his personal attorney testifying that the payments were election-related, while pleading guilty to a potpourri of fraud, including bank fraud related to him getting the funds to pay off the women Trump was banging (to use the parlance of our time).

You're defeating your own case. The attorney (Cohen) pleaded guilty to a variety of dishonest acts, but you would have us assume that his statements about Trump's motivations for paying Clifford were accurate. That's especially absurd considering the high likelihood that Cohen is being "squeezed" as part of an implicit cooperation agreement.
 
Last edited:
Of Course Trump Can Fire Mueller. He Shouldn’t.

By John Yoo and Saikrishna Prakash

John Yoo is a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Saikrishna Prakash is a law professor and a senior fellow at the Miller Center at the University of Virginia.

April 2018

President Trump this week claimed the power to fire the special counsel, Robert Mueller, “directly.” In response, the Senate Judiciary Committee seems poised to prohibit Mr. Mueller’s removal by the president except “for cause,” which generally requires a crime, violation of the law, or abuse of power. While the Senate has the politics right, Mr. Trump has the Constitution on his side.

Firing Mr. Mueller would be a grave political mistake — “suicide” as a Republican senator, Charles Grassley, rightly put it — yet protecting the independent counsel with a new statute would prescribe a cure far worse than the disease.


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/13/opinion/trump-fire-mueller.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/13/opinion/trump-fire-mueller.html
Of Course Trump Can Fire Mueller. He Shouldn’t.

By John Yoo and Saikrishna Prakash

Mr. Yoo is a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley. Mr. Prakash is a law professor at the University of Virginia.

April 13, 2018


President Trump this week claimed the power to fire the special counsel, Robert Mueller, “directly.” In response, the Senate Judiciary Committee seems poised to prohibit Mr. Mueller’s removal by the president except “for cause,” which generally requires a crime, violation of the law, or abuse of power. While the Senate has the politics right, Mr. Trump has the Constitution on his side.

Firing Mr. Mueller would be a grave political mistake — “suicide” as a Republican senator, Charles Grassley, rightly put it — yet protecting the independent counsel with a new statute would prescribe a cure far worse than the disease.

Instead, President Trump should seize the initiative. He should retain Mr. Mueller in exchange for a fixed deadline for the investigation.

Mr. Trump sparked this latest controversy after an F.B.I. search on Monday of the Manhattan offices of Michael Cohen, his longtime personal lawyer, for evidence of payoffs of women alleging past affairs with the president. Though the federal prosecutors of the Southern District of New York sought the search warrant, they acted under a request from the special counsel, who would most likely use any information uncovered in his continuing investigation.

Mr. Trump declared that “attorney-client privilege is dead” and denounced the search as “a witch hunt.” He added of Mr. Mueller that “many people have said you should fire him.” As usual, the president left the nation in suspense: “We’ll see what happens.”

Mr. Trump can fire the special counsel for the search, for exceeding the original mandate of his investigation, or for no reason at all. Because the Constitution charges the president with the duty to “take care that the laws are faithfully executed,” Mr. Trump serves as the top federal law enforcement officer. If he disapproves of the execution of the law by subordinate Justice Department officers, he can remove them. Presidents can not only direct all federal prosecutions, as they have from the days of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, they also can drop cases for wasting resources.

But critics insist that Mr. Mueller enjoys protection under Justice Department regulations, which provide that the special counsel may be “removed from office only by the personal action of the attorney general” for “misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause.”

According to this view, Mr. Trump must convince Rod Rosenstein, the acting attorney general, to fire Mr. Mueller. If Mr. Rosenstein refuses, Mr. Trump can fire him and replace him with someone willing to do the dirty work. Alternatively, the president could order Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has recused himself from the Mueller probe, to rescind the regulations, which date back to 1999, and then fire Mr. Mueller.

But this narrow view of the president’s options rests on a misunderstanding of basic constitutional principles. Ever since the founding, presidents, Congresses and the Supreme Court have recognized that the chief executive has constitutional power to remove executive officers. As James Madison noted in 1789: “Is the power of displacing an executive power? I conceive that if any power whatsoever is in its nature executive, it is the power of appointing, overseeing, and controlling those who execute the laws.” In Myers v. U.S. (1926), the Supreme Court observed “it was natural, therefore, for those who framed our Constitution to regard the words ‘executive power’ as including” the power to remove executive officers.

A regulation issued by the Justice Department should not be read to limit the president’s constitutional power to remove officers. Otherwise, a mere cabinet officer could prevent future presidents from exercising the constitutional authorities of their office. The chief executive commands the attorney general, not the other way around.

A bipartisan group of senators are currently mulling a proposal to prevent the president from firing Mr. Mueller except for cause, and to allow the courts to review his removal. The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled the bill for a possible vote next week.

But any law that prevents the president from removing executive officers would be constitutionally problematic. In his lonely dissent in Morrison v. Olson (1988), Justice Antonin Scalia noted that independent counsels would become unhinged Inspector Javerts. “Frequently an issue of this sort will come before the Court clad, so to speak, in sheep’s clothing,” Mr. Scalia wrote. “But this wolf comes as a wolf.”

Mr. Scalia had in mind the Iran-contra investigation, which attempted to criminalize a separation of powers dispute between the executive and legislative branches over foreign policy. In the following decade, Democrats belatedly saw the light, too. Ken Starr’s investigation of Bill Clinton lasted for years, consumed enormous resources, and resulted in few convictions. By the end, Congress allowed the independent counsel law to quietly die. Resurrecting this Frankenstein would once again strike a blow at the separation of powers, which protects individual liberty as surely as the Bill of Rights itself. It would also let Congress off the hook for conducting a vigorous probe and possible impeachment — the constitutional text’s only device to punish a sitting president.

Mr. Trump can short-circuit the Senate and shift the political momentum in his favor. Rather than fire Mr. Mueller, the president should promise his honest and complete cooperation with his nemesis, including agreeing to a one-on-one interview.

But Mr. Trump should also make clear that the special counsel must keep to his mandate — Russian meddling in the 2016 elections — and forget the unrelated payments to various mistresses, which, however sordid, do not relate to that investigation. If Mr. Mueller does not bring the investigation to a swift conclusion, Mr. Trump could then consider using his favorite line: “You’re fired.”
 
Trump’s Statements Are Not an Obstruction of Justice


By Elizabeth Price Foley, Professor of Constitutional Law at Florida International University College of Law, author of “Liberty for All: Reclaiming Individual Privacy in a New Era of Public Morality.”

May 2017

...

Section 1510 of Title 18 of the United States Code addresses obstruction of criminal investigations. It is a narrow statute, criminalizing only willful acts “by means of bribery” that have the effect of obstructing the communication of information about crimes to federal investigators. Even assuming Mr. Comey’s memo is accurate, there is no indication that President Trump willfully attempted to bribe the F.B.I. director. As the Supreme Court stated in United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California, “for bribery there must be a quid pro quo — a specific intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for an official act.”


..

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/...ements-are-not-an-obstruction-of-justice.html

Trump’s Statements Are Not an Obstruction of Justice
By Elizabeth Price Foley
May 17, 2017

Leaked portions of a memo penned by James Comey, the former F.B.I. director, have provided new ammunition to President Trump’s opponents. The memo purportedly memorializes a conversation between Mr. Comey and the president regarding Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser. In it, Mr. Comey asserts that the president stated, “He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”

Widespread howls erupted, including by editors of this paper, asserting that President Trump obstructed justice. But as distasteful as the president’s statements may be, they do not constitute an obstruction of justice. Indeed, if they did, virtually every communication between criminal defense lawyers and investigators would be a crime.

Section 1510 of Title 18 of the United States Code addresses obstruction of criminal investigations. It is a narrow statute, criminalizing only willful acts “by means of bribery” that have the effect of obstructing the communication of information about crimes to federal investigators. Even assuming Mr. Comey’s memo is accurate, there is no indication that President Trump willfully attempted to bribe the F.B.I. director. As the Supreme Court stated in United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California, “for bribery there must be a quid pro quo — a specific intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for an official act.”


There is no evidence of a quid pro quo. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Trump intended an implied offer of continued employment in exchange for Mr. Comey’s dismissal of the Flynn investigation, it would be implausible for Mr. Comey to construe it as such. Mr. Comey was aware that he was an at-will employee who could be fired by the president at any time, for any reason. Indeed, when President Obama endorsed Hillary Clinton for president in June 2016 — during the height of the F.B.I.’s investigation into Secretary Clinton’s private email server — it would have been similarly implausible for Mr. Comey to construe Mr. Obama’s pro-Clinton remarks as an implicit offer of continued employment, in exchange for dropping the Clinton investigation. Even though Mr. Comey dropped the investigation one month later, he presumably knew that although it would please both Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, it would not insulate him from being fired.



But even if one adopted an unprecedentedly broad conception of bribery, Mr. Trump’s purported statement still would not violate Section 1510. The statute is designed to preserve the free flow of information, prohibiting only acts that obstruct investigators’ access to information. Bribery of a potential witness, for example, is behavior prohibited by Section 1510. But telling the F.B.I. director that someone is a “good guy” and expressing the hope that an investigation will cease does not obstruct the free flow of information.

Another, broader federal obstruction statute is Section 1505 of Title 18, but even this statute does not fit. Specifically, Section 1505 declares that anyone who “corruptly” endeavors to obstruct the proper administration of law “under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States” is guilty of a felony. Even putting aside the difficulty of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that President Trump’s brief and generalized words evinced the necessary “corrupt” mind-set, Section 1510 applies only to a “pending proceeding.”

In the almost 120 years since Section 1505 and its predecessor have been on the books, no court appears to have ever held that an ongoing F.B.I. investigation qualifies as a “pending proceeding” within the meaning of the statute. Instead, Section 1505 applies to court or court-like proceedings to enforce federal law. In addition to prosecutions (where charges have been filed with a court), such proceedings include actions of enforcement by federal agencies such as the Internal Revenue Service, Securities and Exchange Commission or National Labor Relations Board, in which the agency has broad powers not merely to investigate statutory violations, but also to enforce them via subpoena or other administrative proceedings.

The F.B.I., by contrast, possesses only a power to investigate — not enforce — federal criminal violations. When the F.B.I. concludes an investigation, it forwards the evidentiary fruits to the Department of Justice, which then decides whether to prosecute. Indeed, it was Mr. Comey’s arrogation of the Justice Department’s prosecutorial power that led to bipartisan calls for his ouster before the 2016 presidential election.

Because the F.B.I. lacks enforcement power, its investigations are not a “pending proceeding,” and courts that have considered the question have so concluded. The legislative history, moreover, confirms that Congress did not intend Section 1505 to reach F.B.I. investigations. The House Judiciary Committee report declared that “attempts to obstruct a criminal investigation or inquiry before a proceeding has been initiated are not within the scope of the proscription” of Section 1505 (italics added for emphasis).

No court has interpreted Section 1505’s “pending proceeding” language to include statements such as those purportedly made by President Trump for a reason. Such generic “he’s-a-good-guy-can’t-you-drop-the-charges?” statements are routinely made to investigators and prosecutors. Defending one’s self, client or friend is a natural instinct, and beseeching leniency is not tantamount to obstruction. Holding otherwise would endorse a breathtaking expansion of obstruction, and be utterly inconsistent with First Amendment freedoms.

Principled objections to Mr. Trump’s policies and leadership style should not blind opponents to the dangers of repeated, knee-jerk calls for criminal prosecution of the president of the United States. Let the evidence unfold, and reserve serious charges if and when the evidence warrants it. Crying wolf undermines the credibility of the opposition, further divides an already deeply divided country and breeds cynicism about American institutions that is as dangerous to our republic, if not more, than outside meddling.

Elizabeth Price Foley, a professor of constitutional law at Florida International University College of Law, is the author of “Liberty for All: Reclaiming Individual Privacy in a New Era of Public Morality.”
 
Like Papadopoulos guilty plea leaked right away

Like McGahn cooperating with Mueller leaked right away

Like Patton guilty plea leaked right away

Etc

Oh wait none of that happened. Mueller is running a tight ship . I'm sure the standing order is any leaks = end of plea agreement



Leaked what?

PapaD, was a nobody, who made a false statement to the fbi. There was nothing to leak.

McGahn spoke with the SC, wow stop the presses. Better leak that right away...

I don’t even know who Patton is, or what he did, so that shit must reek of nothing, better leak it.




Oh, hey dumbass, all those things are public knowledge, and literally nothing involves Donald Trump and Russia.
 
The whole purpose of an investigation is to find that smoking gun. This is a very complex investigation, it takes time. Proof, one way or the other, has to be found through painstaking and time-consuming investigating. Saying that Mueller already has proof of a smoking gun is premature, as is saying that there have been no crimes committed by Trump. He might or might not have committed crimes. We don't know, so we have to wait until the investigation is complete. That might take a lot more time, and the time clearly isn't being wasted, as shown by what it has already uncovered.

This is very basic stuff, it applies to any complex investigation, and isn't debatable.




If you choose to be naive, that fine.


Anyone who is politically aware knows the minute they found a smoking gun, it would be everywhere. Do you know how much that scoop is worth? Again, if there was anything, it would have been sold to the Clinton machine.

There’s not.
 
(small partial transcript)

Host: Rudy Giuliani, President Trump's attorney, is building a report to counter and question the legitimacy of Robert Mueller's Russia probe. Also it will present any countervailing arguments about any possible conflicts among federal investigators, including whether "the initiation of the Mueller probe was legitimate or not." Let's bring in Harvard Law Professor and author of The Case Against Impeaching Trump, Alan Dershowitz. Great to see you Alan.

Dershowitz: Thank you.

Host: We've never seen anything like this. What's your take on what's going on?

Dershowitz: I think it's exactly the right thing. We live in an adversarial system. The Mueller probe has only heard one side of the story. Remember, grand juries don't invite exculpatory witnesses to come in. They only hear one side of the story, and in an adversarial system, both sides of the story should be heard. So I think it's a good thing for America, it's a good thing for justice and it's a good thing for the truth for the Trump team to be preparing their side of the story. Then the American public can judge by reading the Mueller report and reading the report by Trump. The problem with the Mueller report is it's illegal for Mueller to disclose grand jury testimony. So he's going to have to write a report either without disclosing what he or his prosecutors heard in the grand jury, or he's going to have to get special permission from the court to disclose this material. The reason we don't permit disclosure of grand jury material is because it's always one-sided. Lawyers are not allowed to be there except prosecutors. So it would be unfair to rely on what went on in a grand jury as "the whole truth".


 
My personal political views will change until I die. However, something that probably won't change is commitment to the rule of law. So when people in this thread attempt to defile the rule of law by e.g., redefining "obstruction of justice" to apply to the Comey firing, I'm going to speak out.

Random posters on the internet supporting an investigation into the president of America obstructing justice is too much for the self-declared defender of rule of law to bear. But the president himself obstructing justice and publicly attacking the DOJ for hurting his party's electoral chances by indicting crooks in the gov't is just dandy. I think that says it all about the true source of your views and the depth of your commitment to your alleged principal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top