Justice Department agrees to brief Dems as Trump touts "spygate"

"we are currently not being led by people with impeccable character"



… and because of that, the investigation is very necessary.

The fish rots from the head.

 

See, I want an investigation led by people who aren't/weren't involved in any of the decision making. If this Special Counsel were proper, it would not be led by Comey's friend, and it would be a bipartisan group(instead of a one-sided slanted team of prosecutors.) As Gowdy himself said, the whole purpose of Special Counsel was so that it would be untainted. AKA: The Commission into the 9/11 attacks as an example of how this should've been done.

Instead, we got something that's the furthest from a bipartisan neutral inquiry into the allegations. Which is why this whole thing is a trainwreck that's damaging/going to continue to damage America.

If they want the investigation to be wholly accepted, start over, get a new team and have it be led by somebody who isn't personally attached to anyone's hips. Not Trump's, not Rosenstein's, not anybody's. Give me a second Huber. Give me a professional seasoned attorney who can overlook the facts of the case.

 

You got what you wanted. Mueller was retired from the FBI and was working in the private sector. He made no decisions in the investigation, until after he was appointed as Special Counsel. When Mueller was appointed, he was lauded by high ranking members of both parties, and continues to be held in high esteem by them. The only ones questioning his fairness and impartiality are those fighting a partisan battle for Trump. You mention Gowdy, and the latest information I have seen from him is that the FBI did their job and followed protocols…. and that Trump should be happy they did their job.

You've bought into the Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows type of partisan spin that Trump is innocent and Mueller is a bully. Look at the evidence with a clear eye and you'll see that the very thing you accuse Mueller of doing and being is what Trump is doing and believing instead. Mueller didn't ask for the job. Instead, he was approached to do this because of his well respected integrity to do the right thing, even in difficult situations. He's not perfect, but no one is. However, to paint him as a nefarious, corrupt witch hunter is disingenuous and done for partisan reasons. We don't need a new team. We need the public to have clear eyes and open minds, so when the report comes out with the evidence, we can understand what happened and take steps to prevent it from happening again. Trump does not want clear eyes. He wants partisan eyes, prepared to defend their team, and excuse any findings that show bad behavior, because anything less will cause the party to lose power. That's exactly why many say it's time we have politicians that put the country over their party. What we now have is too many that put the party controlling power over doing what is right for the country.

 

Trump doesn't have the power to put someone in legal limbo and call them a "subject" for at least two years. If I were a part of Trump's legal team, I'd like to be formally informed of charges, so that I can prepare a legal defense for my client. There's very little Donald Trump can do as a 'subject', except what everyone wants him to do: Keep his mouth shut.

And it's become rather apparent, that Mueller believes in a waiting game that prosecutors typically use and think its to their best advantage. Meanwhile, Donald Trump has all of the legal responsibilities of being President while this is going on and the political consequences of Congress is overwhelming. That's why Trump was asking Comey to get ahead of this in the FIRST place.

Donald Trump is in a very unfair place, and if people had their "minds and hearts" open they'd see that. Instead they see a criminal, crook or in Comey's words: "A gangster" that has to be exorcised from America's political throne of power, fairly or not.

If one sees it that way, then Comey's friend(Mueller) and a team that isn't capable of holding the type of neutrality like the 9/11 Commission is not going to resolve faith in this crisis of their own creation. The only way that team puts itself in a good light is if it clears the President, or at least puts forth a presentable case to the Courts and to the Public.

And I don't think they can do either.

Now as far as "Spygate" or Informant Saga: Apparently, the praise is that Halper did the "least intrusive" method when he tried to goad them into answering questions. Perhaps they do see it as the least intrusive but here's the thing: For instance, George Papadoulous was seen to be on Carson's staff. Did this alert US intelligence, as it did with Trump?

Now, let's be honest with ourselves: No. The FBI inferred things, then went onto act upon those inferences. An investigation based upon inferences is a weak investigation, such as this one turned out to be.

Had I been FBI director, it would've never gone far. No serious investigator follows 'inferences', unless they can be collaborated with hard evidence.

 

If Trump is charged, which is controversial legally, his legal team will get discovery, where they can see all the evidence the prosecution has compiled. Until he is charged, he doesn't have the right to see it, especially while the investigation is still active. The VERY BEST thing Trump can do, if he wants to be seen as innocent, is to keep his mouth shut. One of the reasons Trump has had a hard time keeping or acquiring a quality attorney is because he will not follow his lawyers' advice. If he didn't do anything illegal, keeping his mouth shut puts the onus on the investigators to prove he did something wrong. His manic tweeting and uncontrolled lashing out and interference makes him seem guilty. Trey Gowdy directly told Trump that if he is innocent to act like it, but he isn't. Trey Gowdy also directly told Trump to interview with Mueller and that if he didn't rob the bank, it makes no difference if he talks about the bank robbery. There was an original date for Trump to interview with Mueller back in January, 2018. It's the end of May, and Trump still hasn't made a decision to interview or not. That should tell you something.

What choice does Mueller have, but to wait on Trump to make a decision? Once Trump says he'll interview, then we proceed. If he declines, then we move to subpoena, and probably a protracted legal battle all the way to the Supreme Court, where Trump will be told to cooperate with the subpoena. The person dragging out the investigation is Trump, and only Trump. I am quite sure the Mueller team continues to work other aspects of the case while Trump makes up his mind. Manafort has a trial starting soon.

Donald Trump is in a place of his own making and if it is unfair, that's on him too. If he did nothing, then he needs to cooperate with Mueller. If he did do something illegal, then trying to stop, block, obstruct, and play to the court of public opinion makes a bit of sense…. but it also makes him look guilty. That some people are overlooking what he's doing and saying Trump isn't being treated fairly, shows partisanship. He hasn't been treated unfairly. He hasn't been asked to do anything except turn over documents and interview. How is that unfair? Cohen did what Cohen did. Unless Trump was complicit, then that makes no difference as far as Cohen charges. The same goes for Manafort, Papadopolous, Flynn, etc.

Why do you want Trump in a good light, if he did something illegal? Recognize that despite your desire to see him as unfairly put-upon by the legal system, people around him were doing some VERY illegal things, and the chance that a control freak like Trump didn't know what his kids were doing on his behalf boggles the mind. Trump probably knew, as evidenced by crafting a misleading statement about Don Jr in Trump Tower. If Trump didn't outright know the Russians were helping, he certainly knew that Don Jr was in contact with them and didn't stop it, then tried to cover it up. That's what Nixon did- covered up an illegal act someone else did for him… and it cost him his presidency.

I'm not sure the "If I was in charge, I would have done it differently" is a good rationale for believing the FBI is corrupt and not doing their job. The evidence and those, like Gowdy, McConnell, and Rubio, that have seen the classified information, have said the FBI did what they are supposed to do and did so according to protocols.

 

I'm going to be very blunt about the Rule of Law and Criminal Court cases: Even if Trump blathered off a million things, even if say he confessed to having colluded with the Russians, it is STILL the burden of the Prosecution to prove it. That's the same thing as Gowdy's 'act innocent'. Gowdy was a former prosecutor, he should know why that's not a legal argument. It's ALWAYS the prosecution's burden to prove guilt.

Just like it's the burden of the innocent to prove their innocence. I will never accept an argument that gives more affront to the judicial system then we've already suffered in this case. I believed Gowdy's statements on act innocent were to quote Comey: "Extremely foolish and careless". The burden is and always will remain on Robert Mueller. He accepted that burden, when he accepted the job as special counsel.

Also for the record: Senate Testimony of witnesses backed up the letter that was publicly released. It can no longer be stated, in public opinion much less in Court that it was a 'misleading' letter or that it was dictated. Several witnesses now account for it to be accurate.

(Which is why if you do a recent search, you won't see any media outlet discussing Tower meeting. Because it's since been disproven by the Senate Testimony.)

Trump submitted over a million public documents, and as some have pointed out: Despite cooperation, the Mueller team had not been equally cooperative. With or without an interview, if Mueller has legal evidence in any case against Trump he's obligated to bring that evidence forward in a trial or his report.

Let's be even more brutally honest: Mueller is confessing that without the interview, without information from Trump his case isn't very strong. I mean, it's very naked apparent from here. He doesn't need Trump's permission to subponea him, so why wait?

Because he'd rather not take this to Court, because he's not confident in his own evidence. And if the prosecution isn't confident, you shouldn't be either.

So, how long are you willing to wait for Mueller to regain his confidence?

 

I don't know why you think Mueller isn't gathering the evidence to prove any crimes he's discovered. Apparently, he's got so much evidence most of the Americans that have been indicted have chosen to take a plea deal and cooperate. If he didn't have the evidence to prove their guilt, their lawyers would have recommended making Mueller prove it. However, they advised their clients to take the deal.

There is no burden to prove innocence. Innocence is assumed, unless there is evidence of guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt. What Gowdy said was basically, Trump was acting guilty by fighting back against Mueller, and to stop it. Of course, Trump doesn't listen to his own lawyers, so he also isn't listening to Gowdy.

Trump's misleading letter said that the Trump Tower meeting was about adoptions. Don Jr's released emails show just the opposite. The word "adoption" is code for Magnitsky Act… sanctions against Russia, which Trump attempted to overturn soon after the inauguration. Those things are not in dispute, despite your claims. One of the direct witnesses to the crafting of the misleading statement about the meeting in Trump Tower was Trump's legal spokesperson, who quit almost as soon as Air Force One landed, stating the misleading statement was, in his opinion, obstruction of justice and he wanted no part of it.

Are you of the mistaken idea that Mueller has to reciprocate the release of documents to Trump? He doesn't have to give Trump one bit of evidence.

As far as what Mueller is "confessing," you've expressed what you think, not what Mueller is thinking. Mueller hasn't made one public statement that indicates he doesn't have a case. He also hasn't made one public statement that indicates he has a his case locked down completely. Any speculation on what Mueller has or doesn't have is just that… speculation. You also don't know if he wants to take the case to court or not. If he doesn't charge Trump, then he won't be taking the case to court. If he has Trump as an unindicted co-conspirator, then he won't be taking Trump to court, and Trump won't be pardoning anyone having to do with the Russia investigation. You seem to think that Mueller has nothing, since he hasn't charged Trump. You're welcome to believe that, but it's simply your belief without evidence to back it up… because Mueller isn't leaking.

I'm going to give you a big hint here… lawyers don't tell their clients to take the deal if the evidence is shaky, and lawyers are ethically bound to represent their client's best interest… which is always to stay out of prison, if at all possible.

I'm not even sure what this means…"So, how long are you willing to wait for Mueller to regain his confidence?" I don't think Mueller has lost confidence. I'm willing to wait as long as it takes for Mueller to complete the investigation. I may or may not agree with his recommendations, if he makes any, but I will accept his findings as being thoroughly and professionally reported.

 

That's only true insofar as Mueller continues to engage Trump and his lawyers outside of the legal system. I'd play hardball with Robert Mueller. Until they bring the legal team into a court room, the legal team is not obligated to engage with the Counsel in any way shape or form, whatsoever.

It goes both ways, if Mueller isn't obligated to bring the facts to the President, the president is not morally obligated to spend his time with the prosecutor. You still don't understand that Robert Mueller is holding Donald Trump in legal limbo. By calling him a subject and yet not charging him with anything and yet asking for the interview, Mueller is holding Trump in legal limbo.

To me, it's far worse than being formally charged with a crime. The Trump legal team would love a charge, that's why Giuliani is out there saying what he's saying. He's trying to provoke action on part of the Counsel. In almost every case, we've seen Counsel try(and fail) to hide evidence, to ask for delays, etc. These are proven facts of Counsels's actions.

Also, no the President did not try to overturn anything. Flynn engaged Kislyk on ongoing discussions, but there wasn't so much as a commitment from the incoming Administration. That was Yates's false claim, one that Mueller obviously didn't pursue. And again, all witnesses testified and affirmed in the Senate, so you either have to believe that all witnesses willingly lied to the Senate or you have to acknowledge that the letter was right, and that it's not even a piece of evidence at this point anymore.

No one, but a select few still think that Trump Tower meeting has relevance. It doesn't, not unless Mueller wants to charge Goldstone and Natalia. And sure, if you want them jailed be my guest. But it no longer has collusion or obstruction relevance, or otherwise.

I admit to supposition, again based on what has been released. But that supposition is also largely informed by what I would do if I were Robert Mueller.

First off, if I believed that I had evidence compelling of a crime committed by the President and if I believed further evidence was in the President's possession, I'd subponea him for the evidence first. Then failing that, I'd subponea him to testify to Grand Jury. Note, I'd do these things in a very speedy manner, since I'm convinced of my evidence. I would not be waiting and hell, I wouldn't have a need to negotiate. The force of the law is in my hands as a prosecutor.

However, the Special Counsel has received documents from Trump when they asked, and there has been no report of a subponea to hand over evidence of late(as of this post.) We can conclude that Mueller didn't want to take this route. Why not? So he wants the interview. Well, instead of waiting what has it been, 6 months now since Mueller asked,if the meeting is so crucial then one would go straight to the GJ subponea. But there's crickets there too.

It leads us to the logical conclusion that Robert Mueller does not want to bring Donald Trump to court, or his team for that matter.

Prosecutors don't care about norms, or standards. They care about winning cases. If Mueller had sufficient evidence, he'd ACT on it. He's obligated to act on it. So it leads me to believe what Gowdy said is true: "Trump is not a target". Then those bastards, Mueller and Rosenstein have another legal, if not political and moral obligation to make a public statement to the following:

"We have cleared President Donald J. Trump of any wrongdoing related to our investigation, the investigation is still ongoing at this time related to certain other parties.". Obviously, they are not prepared to make that statement yet, but time is not infinite. It might be for you, but not for everyone.

If they can't prosecute a case in due time, this is not going to end in Monica blowjob fashion. The internet was at its infancy when I was born(1992), we're all well aware of this saga this time around. And many of us will be pressing for the same answers regarding the budget, where it went to and the facts of the case.

And many Americans will want restrictions on such a so-called special counsel again. Because it clearly has not strengthened the arm of the DOJ.

There is no patience for this. And I know what you're going to say "Why was there for Benghazi?" There wasn't, and there would've been less if they didn't peddle a false narrative to help Obama's reelection campaign.

 

" First, there is evidence of multiple campaign financing law violations by accepting something of value from foreigners-"


How does that NOT apply to the DNC/Clinton Campaign and the dossier...FROM RUSSIANS? There is NO EVIDECNE ANYWHERE that the Trump campaign accepted anything from the Russians, meanwhile.

 

If you're talking about the Steele dossier, my understanding is a lawyer for the campaign hired Fusion GPS to do oppo research, after a GOP financier, Paul Singer, had contracted them to do research on Trump during the primaries. Fusion GPS is an American company. Fusion GPS contracted Christopher Steele to collect the information. It is not illegal for Fusion GPS to hire a Brit to do the research, because he wasn't in a decision making role of the campaign, nor was he part of the Clinton campaign. It is not illegal for the lawyer to hire an American company do to research for an American campaign. That being said, the Clinton campaign didn't even use the dossier during the campaign, if they even knew of its existence. If you have a reputable citation to the contrary, I'd like to see it. NPR has reported that Christopher Steele didn't know he was doing work for the Clinton campaign for several months. (citation)

It is illegal to directly negotiate with foreigners for opposition research. It's a campaign financing violation, as happened in the Trump Tower meeting, with Saudi Arabia, UAE and Israel. It is also illegal to hire foreign nationals to work in a campaign where they have decision making roles, as happened with Cambridge Analytica working in the campaign, even after they were warned that doing so was illegal.

As far as evidence that help from Russia was accepted, there is a timeline of what happened when, that shows the Trump Tower meeting, a speech given by Trump where he addresses dirt on Clinton coming out, and Wikileaks releasing the hacked DNC emails that is quite damning. The timeline doesn't prove there was a quid pro quo, but the chance all that happened without coordination is slim to none. I don't know if Mueller has more evidence to back up the timeline, but neither do you have evidence he doesn't.

If you're not talking about the Steele dossier, then I need more information to answer your question.

 

I don't normally break posts into parts, but to answer this one, I didn't see another alternative. So, forgive me for doing so, please.

Mueller is not engaging Trump or his lawyers outside the legal system. He is engaging them within the legal system. They are still in the investigative phase. He has asked for documents and for Trump to interview. The legal team is there to represent Trump with the Mueller investigation, so of course, there is an obligation for them to engage- that is why they were hired. You do not understand the legal process, and it leads you to erroneous conclusions. Trump is not in legal limbo. He hasn't been charged with anything, and he may not be charged with anything. Just as Hillary Clinton was the subject of the investigation into Benghazi, but was not charged. While you may think Trump would love to be charged, I think you are mistaken… badly. In provoking issues with the Special Counsel, he may be obstructing justice, and his lawyers have repeatedly told him not to do so.

Flynn pleaded guilty and is cooperating with Mueller. Your argument that he was perfectly legal in having the conversations he had with Russians is simply wrong. He could talk to Russians, if they were exchanging Christmas greetings, as Flynn first claimed, but the FBI surveils Russians while in this country, and that's not what the conversation was about. It was about not reacting to Obama's December sanctions on Russia, and shazaam… Russia didn't react to Obama's December sanctions. Flynn was a citizen without the authority to negotiate with Russia, at the time… so illegal. There's more to it, but that's enough to refute your point.

Whether or not the President is subpoenaed remains to be seen. The issue is not whether or not Mueller has the authority to subpoena him. He does. The issue is that Trump may decline the interview, decline to follow the subpoena, and then Mueller would have to take it to the Supreme Court for a judgement that Trump must answer the subpoena. There is precedent with Bill Clinton, so we know Mueller can subpoena and the Supreme Court will agree. Then, if Trump continues to decline, we're at a Constitutional Crisis. To avoid Trump dragging out this part for the remainder of his term, Mueller is being patient and waiting on Trump to come around to the inevitable conclusion that he must answer questions, as Bill Clinton finally understood and testified.

You're concluding things way too early and without evidence to bring about a conclusion.

The above is speculation. The difference between a subject of an investigation and a target of an investigation is basically an indictment. I do not ever expect Mueller to name Trump as a target, even if he is a target. Trump is too emotional and reactive.

With all due respect, you don't speak for all prosecutors, nor do you have a reputable citation to prove prosecutors don't care about norms or standards. Prosecutors are different from defense attorneys, in that they must prove their case. Any little procedural error can cost them the case, so they must care about standards and norms. They do try to win. So do defense counsels, and are prepared to find any little procedural error or issue they can, to keep their client from being found guilty.

Because you are impatient for Mueller to act has absolutely nothing to do with the evidence Mueller has, nor his timing when he acts on the evidence and places charges. He'll file charges and take cases to court when he's ready, not when you are.

Due time? HA! You knew what I was going to say before you wrote that. I agree, this isn't going to end up like Lewinsky. However, I disagree that the invention of the internet has anything to do with how this case ends. People on both sides want answers, and they will get them when Mueller is ready to provide them.

Many Americans are also very glad there is a Special Counsel, and that he is doing a thorough investigation. Most Americans do not want this investigation shut down. I know you're too young to remember Watergate, but the same complaints you're making now were made then. Let the process play out.

Saying you don't have patience for it is much different than there is no patience for it.

As you said, there would've been less of the Benghazi investigation if a false narrative hadn't been peddled. The same is true with this one. If Trump would be interviewed and stop with the false narratives like spies in his campaign and his phones being tapped, and demanding the FBI investigate those lies as well as the Russian investigation, this one might move faster. Trump is the stalling factor. Nixon did the same. Clinton tried the same tactic of trying to discredit the investigators. In the end, the truth came out with Nixon and Clinton, and it will with Trump. I'd ask you why you thought he was stalling, but it's quite apparent to most that Trump is stalling because he is going to be exposed. I'm guessing you'd have a different take though.

If your patience is running low, ignore what's going on for a while. Mueller doesn't care if you're impatient or not.

 

You know, I think I'll do just that. I think this thing has so distorted politics that there isn't any political discussion without mentioning this case once. I don't think either side has proven itself trustworthy, people who hide things from Courts are not trustworthy individuals. And someone who lies as much as Trump does, isn't trustworthy either.

We suffer from a leadership crisis. In this absence of leadership, presuming everything ends normally and we can pick a 2020 POTUS with a clear conscious, my choice will be for the person who actively says "The corruption in all branches of government is unacceptable, and I will lead reforms of all branches of the executive."

Maybe Bernie Sanders 2020. I'm not prepared to vote mainstream Repub/Dem.

 

You say "Sure", but none of that related to a crime being committed. The same is true of the rest of your post. Where is the crime?

 

None of what is related to a crime being committed? I named crimes.

Obstruction of justice is a crime.
Violating the Emoluments Clause is a crime.
Campaign finance violation is a crime. Taking something of value from Russians during a campaign or having foreigners work in your campaign in decision making roles is a violation of campaign financing law.
Perjury is a crime.

Are you expecting the crime of collusion to be the charge? It won't be. That falls under bribery… which is a crime.

Manafort has been charged with conspiring to defraud the United States of America and so was Gates. Conspiracy is a crime. Papadopolous and Flynn have pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. Had it happened in court, that would be called perjury. Looking at what was said in Congressional hearings versus what we know now indicated that Don Jr and Eric Prince perjured themselves before Congress. There were crimes committed all over the Trump campaign and some have been charged, but you don't see any crime? Open your eyes.