I thought you would have told Meuller by now that he's pursuing a conspiracy and that conspiracy theories can't be true.
Release The Memo
- Thread starter Clean
- Start date
I thought you would have told Meuller by now that he's pursuing a conspiracy and that conspiracy theories can't be true.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
That assumes I started out this whole thing with the assumption that this was a hit job and ignored all evidence to the contrary. I did not. I was pretty willing to write this whole thing off to gross incompetence, and I'm still willing to entertain it. But the more stuff comes out, the more the story is falling into place. So far your best comebacks have been "trust the FBI," "but the Dems said...," "tinfoil hat wearer," and "Trump's a jerk."
Considering that it is now very clear that Mueller was working with Obama through at least parts of the investigation - and possibly even after Trump took office, based on Rice's email - I choose to remain dubious on Mueller's ability to run an unbiased investigation.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
I'd believe the first part if you didn't jump right to some leftwing stereotype thus I'm forced to question the veracity of the first sentence. Given you've clearly ignored evidence that doesn't support your conclusion I'm further concerned.
Mueller was working with Obama. Ok.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
Which evidence? Do you mean besides the fact that Page was under surveillance previously? I've acknowledged that. I've yet to hear any strong evidence that he was in fact doing anything illegal - born out by the fact that he has yet to be charged with anything. Maybe something will turn up, maybe it won't. But all that leads back to the point you keep trying to nuance your way past: after keeping tabs on him for some three years, they still didn't have enough on him to warrant surveillance without an unverified document that we now know was sourced through Clinton cronies to the state department to Steele to the FBI. We know that none of that was disclosed - what was the phrase used? It was financed by "an opposition party" or something? And you're trying to say that's sufficient cause to spy on an American citizen?
Carter Page was insignificant, and everyone knows that. Does anyone honestly believe that Page wasn't being surveilled because the team thought he might be the link that would get them leverage on Trump? Or if you want to put the positive spin on it, that he was the piece that was missing that would show Trump did something illegal in connection with the Russian government?
I have no doubt that Comey believed he was after people who had done SOMETHING wrong. I have no doubt Mueller feels the same. Talk to anyone who's dealt with law enforcement of any persuasion. They care about finding something on the person of interest. Not finding the truth. Not exonerating the person of interest if nothing is there. And Mueller's past shows clearly that he could not care less if he destroys innocent people while he's on the chase.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
Oh, and about that Flynn "guilty plea..."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/b...flynn-case/article/2649272?platform=hootsuite
"
On Dec. 12, after just a few days on the Flynn case, Sullivan, acting on his own, ordered the office of special counsel Robert Mueller "to produce to [Flynn] in a timely manner — including during plea negotiations — any evidence in its possession that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant's guilt or punishment."
Sullivan also ordered Mueller "to produce all discoverable evidence in a readily usable form." And he declared that "if the government has identified any information which is favorable to the defendant but which the government believes not to be material, the government shall submit such information to the Court for in camera review." In other words, Sullivan declared that he, not Mueller, would be the judge of what evidence should be produced.
The move was particularly notable because Flynn had already pleaded guilty, and, as part of that guilty plea, agreed to "forgo the right to any further discovery or disclosures of information not already provided at the time of the entry of [Flynn's] guilty plea."
"It certainly appears that Sullivan's order supersedes the plea agreement and imposes on the special counsel the obligation to reveal any and all evidence suggesting that Flynn is innocent of the charge to which he has admitted guilt," wrote National Review's Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor.
On Jan. 31, the two sides in the case agreed to delay sentencing for Flynn until at least May. Some observers saw that as an entirely routine development in a case in which the defendant is cooperating with prosecutors on an open matter. On the other hand, in the Flynn case, the delay took place in the context of Sullivan's evidence order, and there is no way for the public to know whether that played a role in the decision.
Fast forward to Wednesday. Prosecutors and the defense submitted to Sullivan a proposed order limiting the use of any new evidence produced by the government. The evidence can be used by Flynn's defense "solely in connection with the defense of this case, and for no other purpose, and in connection with no other proceeding." The proposed order, awaiting Sullivan's approval, also set out rules for handling "sensitive" materials.
That's where things stand now. The latest filings indicate both sides are taking Sullivan's order seriously, which is certainly a good idea, given Sullivan's history. But is there actually not-yet-produced evidence that might help Flynn? If so, would it have any effect on the case in which Flynn has already pleaded guilty? And would it have any effect on the larger Trump-Russia investigation? There are no answers right now, but United States v. Michael Flynn remains a case to watch."
Since I have every confidence that the Mueller investigation is being handled with the highest of integrity and with every sensitivity to the rights of the accused, who I'm sure was in no way railroaded into a guilty plea, I'm sure we'll all be glad to see any irregularities cleared up in that regard, if there are any. I'm sure there's no reason to believe in this statement that the accused wasn't fully apprised of all the evidence against him and given all the rights to which he was entitled.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/b...flynn-case/article/2649272?platform=hootsuite
"
On Dec. 12, after just a few days on the Flynn case, Sullivan, acting on his own, ordered the office of special counsel Robert Mueller "to produce to [Flynn] in a timely manner — including during plea negotiations — any evidence in its possession that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant's guilt or punishment."
Sullivan also ordered Mueller "to produce all discoverable evidence in a readily usable form." And he declared that "if the government has identified any information which is favorable to the defendant but which the government believes not to be material, the government shall submit such information to the Court for in camera review." In other words, Sullivan declared that he, not Mueller, would be the judge of what evidence should be produced.
The move was particularly notable because Flynn had already pleaded guilty, and, as part of that guilty plea, agreed to "forgo the right to any further discovery or disclosures of information not already provided at the time of the entry of [Flynn's] guilty plea."
"It certainly appears that Sullivan's order supersedes the plea agreement and imposes on the special counsel the obligation to reveal any and all evidence suggesting that Flynn is innocent of the charge to which he has admitted guilt," wrote National Review's Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor.
On Jan. 31, the two sides in the case agreed to delay sentencing for Flynn until at least May. Some observers saw that as an entirely routine development in a case in which the defendant is cooperating with prosecutors on an open matter. On the other hand, in the Flynn case, the delay took place in the context of Sullivan's evidence order, and there is no way for the public to know whether that played a role in the decision.
Fast forward to Wednesday. Prosecutors and the defense submitted to Sullivan a proposed order limiting the use of any new evidence produced by the government. The evidence can be used by Flynn's defense "solely in connection with the defense of this case, and for no other purpose, and in connection with no other proceeding." The proposed order, awaiting Sullivan's approval, also set out rules for handling "sensitive" materials.
That's where things stand now. The latest filings indicate both sides are taking Sullivan's order seriously, which is certainly a good idea, given Sullivan's history. But is there actually not-yet-produced evidence that might help Flynn? If so, would it have any effect on the case in which Flynn has already pleaded guilty? And would it have any effect on the larger Trump-Russia investigation? There are no answers right now, but United States v. Michael Flynn remains a case to watch."
Since I have every confidence that the Mueller investigation is being handled with the highest of integrity and with every sensitivity to the rights of the accused, who I'm sure was in no way railroaded into a guilty plea, I'm sure we'll all be glad to see any irregularities cleared up in that regard, if there are any. I'm sure there's no reason to believe in this statement that the accused wasn't fully apprised of all the evidence against him and given all the rights to which he was entitled.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
What's the nothingburger? Manafort? Sounds like he's dirty, so I wouldn't doubt something will come of charges against him and against his partner.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
The Chief FISA Court judge has responded to House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (click the post above to see the full issue). She notes that some novel issues are raised. She also notes that the Exc Branch has custody and control over classified material. She writes that IF she were to release classified material over an objection from the Exec Branch it would create a conflict between the branches as the Exec Branch is responsible for the classification of these documents. On top of that is the risk of compromising ongoing investigations. Yet she stops short of denying the request.
Instead, she (in para 3) puts the burden on DOJ to provide the requested documents. She also let Goodlatte know that she has informed the DOJ that the Court has no objection to their release. She is trying to put the full burden back on the Exec Branch. It seems clear she does not want to be the one to set a new precedent. She thinks its an important issue that should be resolved at the policymaker level.
From Goodlatte's perspective, he clearly has concern that there might be two versions of the documents being requested -- and he wants to ensure that the Court's docs exactly match the DOJ/FBI documents. She addresses this concern in her last paragraph and basically lets DOJ know she is aware and will be watching how they respond. So, she left the door open.
Last edited:
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
So the twitter version is, "DOJ has access to it all and it's the Exec Branch who defines information. They can release if they choose. To do otherwise would be establishing new precedent. However, if they release biased information we reserve the right to become involved again."
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Geez, dont you ever tire of getting things wrong?
Both of the actual letters are produced above. Those are not the "twitter versions" of the letters but the actual versions written by the actual people. Your comment, whatever it is you might be trying to say, is the internet version.
My version, for what its worth, is that the judge has offered to act as a referee between the Legis and Exec Branches, if necessary, but she does not want to be the one setting any new policy. She should be applauded for this rare demonstration of judicial restraint. I wish we could send her the 9th Cir.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Followup to this post
Nunes has now launched the Third Stage of investigation
He has sent letters to Brennan and Clapper demanding answers (under threat of subpoena) to when they knew Hillary funded the false/unverified dossier and how they used the dossier in intelligence reports
https://www.realclearinvestigations...or_john_brennan_investigated_for_perjury.html
"... Nunes next plans to investigate the role former CIA Director John Brennan and other Obama intelligence officials.... including whether Brennan perjured himself in public testimony about it.
In his May 2017 testimony before the intelligence panel, Brennan emphatically denied the dossier factored into the intelligence community’s publicly released conclusion last year that Russia meddled in the 2016 election "to help Trump’s chances of victory.”
Brennan also swore that he did not know who commissioned the anti-Trump research document (excerpt here), even though senior national security and counterintelligence officials at the Justice Department and FBI knew the previous year that the dossier was funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign....
* * * *
The aide, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said Nunes will focus on Brennan as well as President Obama’s first CIA director, Leon Panetta, along with the former president’s intelligence czar, James Clapper, and national security adviser, Susan Rice, and security adviser-turned U.N. ambassador Samantha Power, among other intelligence officials.“John Brennan did more than anyone to promulgate the dirty dossier,” the investigator said. “He politicized and effectively weaponized what was false intelligence against Trump.”
Attempts to reach Brennan for comment were unsuccessful...."
In his May 2017 testimony before the intelligence panel, Brennan emphatically denied the dossier factored into the intelligence community’s publicly released conclusion last year that Russia meddled in the 2016 election "to help Trump’s chances of victory.”
Brennan also swore that he did not know who commissioned the anti-Trump research document (excerpt here), even though senior national security and counterintelligence officials at the Justice Department and FBI knew the previous year that the dossier was funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign....
* * * *
The aide, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said Nunes will focus on Brennan as well as President Obama’s first CIA director, Leon Panetta, along with the former president’s intelligence czar, James Clapper, and national security adviser, Susan Rice, and security adviser-turned U.N. ambassador Samantha Power, among other intelligence officials.“John Brennan did more than anyone to promulgate the dirty dossier,” the investigator said. “He politicized and effectively weaponized what was false intelligence against Trump.”
Attempts to reach Brennan for comment were unsuccessful...."
I would like to know when some actual charges will be filed.
What the ****?
That is a special kind of dumb.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
Ahhhh. Thanks!
I35
5,000+ Posts
Clean
5,000+ Posts
Possibly because they deliberately loaded it up with classified information which they knew would never see the light of day. Not sure what they were trying to accomplish.
They were trying and succeeded at accomplishing a talking points narrative by the MSM and the left that the White House is obstructing by not releasing this memo with the classified material. You answered your own question. It was a farce and they know it.
Cause Trump
That's the problem with our token Sooner. He rightly criticized those who want to stop the investigation because they kneejerk conclude that there's nothing to investigate. However, he makes the same goofy assumptions in reverse. He basically believes that Trump is guilty even though nothing has been found. He makes the leap of faith that it will be.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
Not true. His gut told him. So there's that.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
I35
5,000+ Posts
You need another year or two bubba? 7 years?
Well, my point is slightly different. Suppose President Trump is guilty of all sorts of things and does not want to be caught for them. How does releasing (or not) to the public a memo such as we are discussing, a memo already known to investigators, have anything to do with obstructing a criminal investigation?
I suppose the idea could be that "justice" would be that Trump is universally and immediately loathed, and anything that slows that down or contradicts that process would be obstructing that "justice."
I suppose the idea could be that "justice" would be that Trump is universally and immediately loathed, and anything that slows that down or contradicts that process would be obstructing that "justice."
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
Give it at least as long as the Benghazi investigation. I think that's fair. That was 31 months. However, I think the Whitewater investigation is a more apt comparison.
Starr was appointed August 1994. The Starr report was released 9/11/1998. So, 49 months. Something tells me you guys were OK with that timeline.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
