Barr Assigns U.S. Attorney in Connecticut to Review Origins of Russia Inquiry

Mules said "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime".

 

A true statement but misleading since no prosecutor ever exonerates anyone ever. They either charge or don't charge.

 

Thank you, sir.

 

I agree. To be picky, however, what you describe is not socialism. OK, a common mistake (though some err on purpose.)

 

Conspiracy is criminal. Crimes needn't be proven to justify investigation - it merely takes a preponderance of evidence to secure a FISA warrant.

I'm not going to pretend to know all the facts, and you shouldn't either. You are quick to assert crimes were committed by the investigators despite an absence of a clear case. Then you apply a different standard to Trump and his associates. This seems a double standard.

There actually IS evidence of conspiracy by Trump's campaign; there's just not a prosecutable case. I accept that.

 

What you describe, I would consider a dividing line between conservatives and libertarians. I believe government should be limited, but there are certain programs not expressly stated in our Constitution, that are worthwhile and should be in place for the betterment of our society.

 

Many on the left, for sure, while others just tag along with no particular goal in mind. There are few specifics on their plans to replace what the Founding Fathers created but their first attempt at major change will likely be directed at the Electoral College.

 

Conspiracy is sometimes criminal, sometimes not. A crime has to exist before a crime can be investigated, at least in our judicial system..... so far. It takes a ton more than "preponderance of the evidence" to get a FISA warrant against a US citizen, and that ton was not given to the FISA court to get the warrant against Page and the Trump campaign.

Per the statute on Special Counsels, 28 CFR-600: 1. a specific crime has to be given to a special counsel to investigate. In Mueller's case there was no specific crime given. 2. A special counsel cannot investigate other crimes uncovered during his assigned investigation without the explicit approval of the Attorney General, and the AG may let him do it, or may assign it elsewhere, or may not chase it at all. And I'm giving you the easy ones (and likely the only ones), not the cloudy hard ones like the sting setup against Papadupoulos.

 

I agree what I propose is not socialism. It's a blending of capitalism with some highly desirable socialist ideas & programs to help elevate living standards & personal freedoms of American citizens. I believe those Americans identifying themselves as "Democratic Socialists" are all (or certainly most) after the same goal.

 

This prosecutor was investigating, not prosecuting.

 

That's not correct. There merely needs to be probable cause. Mueller sums it up nicely in a footnote:

1282 On four occasions, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) issued warrants based on a finding of probable cause to believe that Page was an agent of a foreign power. 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801 (b ), 1805(a)(2)(A). The FISC 's probable-cause finding was based on a different (and lower) standard than the one governing the Office's decision whether to bring charges against Page, which is whether admissible evidence would likely be sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Page acted as an agent of the Russian Federation during the period at issue. Cf United States v. Cardoza, 713 F.3d 656, 660 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ( explaining that probable cause requires only "a fair probability ," and not "certainty, or proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or proof by a preponderance of the evidence")

The latter shows that I was mistaken in thinking a preponderance of evidence is needed. It seems the standard is lower even than that. I looked up the Cordoza case, and noticed that the decision was written by Brett Kavanaugh. Here's Kavanaugh's words:

The Supreme Court has described the task of evaluating probable cause as "a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit ... there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place." Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). Judges "need not confine their evaluations within rigorous legalistic boundaries but instead may use their common sense." United States v. Davis, 617 F.2d 677, 692 (D.C.Cir.1979).

Mueller's appointment was prima facie consistent with the Special Counsel law, which states:

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted

Constitutional issue were, or course, raised - but the arguments against it were rejected by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (see this).

Kudos for trying, but you're mistaken.

 

You will, of course, believe whatever you want - however Mueller has an excellent track record, and is well respected on both sides of the aisle.

Oh my, we have a conspiracy theorist among us.

The only ones who are pissed off are those who have bent the knee to Trump. Whether or not you accept it, the investigation was legal and warranted and it confirmed some important facts:
1) Trump is a liar, land has engendered a culture of lying in his administration. Trumpists tend to ignore that completely, or use the "yeah, but Hilllary..." deflection, or just whine about there having been an investigation. The good news for Trump's fans is that his lying wasn't under oath so he committed no crime - as if that were all that mattered.

2) Trump engaged in behavior consistent with the crime of obstruction of justice. Trumpists ignore, deflect, or cherry pick Mueller's words to construe an exoneration.

 

LOL, the FBI investigates. The prosecutor prosecutes. Language comprehension issues?

 

In this case, the prosecutor is indeed the investigator and will pass any prosecutions on to other jurisdictions.
At least that is what I learned in the education process. You?

 

Yet still no collusion or obstruction.

 

Oh, yeah! "excellent track record".
Under his guidance ...

- Left men in prison that he KNEW WERE INNOCENT to cover up FBI corruption in the Boston office.
- Accused an innocent man in the Olympic Park bombing, and ruined his life.
- Accused an innocent man in the US Mail / anthrax case and ruined his life.
- Participated in the dumpster fire "investigation" of TWA 800.
- And the coup de grace was totally missing the run-up to the 9/11 terror attack that cost 3000 American lives.

Oh, yeah, great track record ... for a political hack.

Since you feel compelled to spread b.s. for no apparent reason I won't bother to address the rest of your ridiculous post.

https://www.newsweek.com/robert-mueller-special-counsel-russia-aides-criticize-722670

 

If that's truly the case why won't the Democrats accept his findings?

That has yet to be proven. The FISA application claimed to be "Verified" but it was not. There are at least three ongoing investigations as to why the Mueller investigation even began, and that's likely to result in a few indictments.

You're becoming uncharacteristically hyperbolic.

Mueller, despite two years of investigation, and the full cooperation of the President, said there was insufficient evidence to bring charges. Do you really believe that's what his Democratic team wanted? For the good of the country it's time to accept Mueller's findings and just move on.

 

They just want any excuse to smear trump

 

A prosecutor does not issue a report -- never ever -- to the public about his investigation.

 

You need to seriously bone up on the FISA requirements for getting a warrant on a US citizen. It would be helpful (bit not expedient if Mueller was candid about the requirements.

It would be nice if you quoted the pertinent parts of the statutes, to wit, "The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated."

Nobody gives a rat's ass what a court rules. It often has no relevance to the law.

 

Why would you equate the two and come to that conclusion, what is the similarity between an ad hoc committee and a US Attorney's office?

 

How does this not constitute such a statement: "to enure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian governement's efforts to interfere in the 2016 Presidential election?"

Odd that you'd make both of these statements in the same post. It seems that you would LIKE to have the Mueller investigation thrown out by a court, and yet - you don't care what a court rules. Does your dismissiveness of court rulings only apply to rulings you disagree with?

Does this mean you disagree with the quote from Mueller? What specifically are you claiming was improper?

 

I haven't run across any Democrats not accepting Mueller's findings. On the other hand, I've encoutered scores of Republicans who don't accept what Mueller actually said, and the obvious implications (including the documented facts about Trump's lying - and this is fact, not hyperbole).

I think you misunderstand what it means to be "verified". It does not mean that every tip provided by a source has been independently corroborated. Rather, “verification” refers to the process laid out in the “Woods procedures,” which require Justice Department officials to verify that representations made in a submission to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court match the information in the FBI’s investigative files.

You should consider how absurd it would be to expect all facts to be verified at such an early stage of an investigation - it implies guilt has to be proven in order to go about collecting the evidence needed to prove guilt.

It also hasn't been disproven. Should EVERY investigation ever performed by law enforcement be doubted until proven legal and warranted? That seems pretty absurd.

The President clearly did not fully cooperate. Mueller is clear on this in his description of efforts to obtain Trump's testimony, and concludes:

"Recognizing that the President would not be interviewed voluntarily, we considered whether to issue a subpoena for his testimony. We viewed the written answers to be inadequate. But at that point, our investigation had made significant progress and had produced substantial evidence for our report. We thus weighed the costs of potentially lengthy constitutional litigation, with resulting delay in finishing our investigation , against the anticipated benefits for our investigation and report. As explained in Volume II, Section H.B., we determined that the substantial quantity of information we had obtained from other sources allowed us to draw relevant factual conclusions on intent and credibility , which are often inferred from circumstantial evidence and assessed without direct testimony from the subject of the investigation."

"Insufficient evidence to bring charges"?! Mueller states no such thing. I'm not asserting there necessarily IS sufficient evidence - and this is solely because I understand it can be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was corrupt intent. Further investigation could remedy that failure (e.g. if tax evasion is found when examining Trump's finances, there would be an unequivocal corrupt reason to try and keep that concealed). Regardless, even if the evidence falls short of proving Trump guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, bear in mind that a person who is more likely than not to be guilty can still be acquitted because the high "reasonable doubt" standard was not met. Remember OJ?

 

Pelosi sent a powerful virtue signal when she proclaimed the House of reps was the "superior" branch of government. Pelosi's & Co. ultimate goal is a unitary socialist government. The DNC's vision is that the presidency will become a political appointment determined by a vote taken up in the House of reps. 15 states are pushing legislation that gerrymanders the electoral college. What the (D)'s would like to portray as a purer form of democracy, is really a race towards authoritarian tyranny. Every time you hear a (D) say "constitutional crisis" understand that the founders system of checks and balances presents a formidable obstacle for totalitarianism, and that's the "crisis" (D)'s are facing.

 

It's funny how people will turn on a dime to support what their leaders say.

It wasn't long ago that the Presidency was all-powerful. It's inhabitant a god-like figure. Now, they promote it as a position of a mere figurehead. The President works under the direct supervision of Congress.

As soon as the next Democrat is elected President, especially if there is a Republican controlled Congress, we'll go right back to President as God-King.

For those nostalgic for the way we were: