First .. that was a light on opinion piece. Hardly an authoritative assessment of the report. I agree that there likely wont be giant bombshells lol The findings will be telling.
I previously stated that if the facts, evidence, of the investigation exonerates Trump .. given the thorough nature of Muellers investigation, including its indisputable transnational nature .. that the general public could with confidence accept that fact .... should it conclude that way.
But there is no talk of exoneration nor is there talk of conclusive collusion. But if it did, I would totally have the confidence necessary to accept it as fact. And that confidence would arise from the thoroughness of the investigation.
However, there will undoubtedly be a raft of findings of illegality. That is abundantly clear .. given the current conviction rate .. that indicate financial mismanagement and inappropriate dealings and interference from fireign nationals. That should at least concern the US general public ..
Further, if Mueller is clever, any evidence of criminality that implicates the POTUS, will be held back, given current Constitutional protections surrounding that office.
So it is likely that such matters will be held back for another .. mmm... lets say 18 months
keep smiling
'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Watching the AG interviews (Currently William Barr) the litmus test is going to be the Mueller investigation. They are asking only questions about the investigation and things that might impact the results of that investigation.
We miss you Tracie but your Spirit will always shine brightly on the Watch
Skyweir wrote:First .. that was a light on opinion piece. Hardly an authoritative assessment of the report.
It was not an opinion piece. There wasn't a single opinion in the entire article. It was mostly quotes from Jon Karl. A reporter from ABC was telling Stephanopoulos what he had heard from insiders in the Mueller investigation, and this article reported that fact without editorializing. It is really troublesome how you can't tell the difference between opinion article and straight news. No wonder the Fake Media can fool so many people. It's also troubling how your kneejerk reaction is to downplay or dismiss news articles that present a view that goes against your opinions/wishes/expectations.
Skyweir wrote:I agree that there likely wont be giant bombshells lol The findings will be telling.
Wait . . . you've been predicting for over a year that this investigation is going to lead to the downfall of Trump and prove that he is guilty of major crimes (like collusion with the Russians), but now you're backpedaling and claiming that the report won't have any bombshells? Really?
However, there will undoubtedly be a raft of findings of illegality.
Wouldn't that qualify as a "bombshell?"
Further, if Mueller is clever, any evidence of criminality that implicates the POTUS, will be held back, given current Constitutional protections surrounding that office.
So it is likely that such matters will be held back for another .. mmm... lets say 18 months
If he does that, he will completely undermine his credibility. Withholding evidence that our President is a criminal or even a Russian agent in order to play election year shenanigans to help the Democrats win would not only be incredibly unethical, but quite possibly illegal. Once he releases the final report, there can't be any bombshells held back. His investigation will be over and his role as Special Counsel would be over. It's not a permanent position. It's contingent upon an investigation.
But it's nice to see you are holding out hope for bringing down Trump even though there's no evidence that he did anything wrong.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
Who's opinion are you talking about when you say, "opinion piece?" An opinion piece would present the opinion of the author himself. When a reporter is reporting the opinions of others, this isn't an opinion piece. If the article was titled, "Trump Claims the Mueller Investigation is Witch Hunt," this still wouldn't be an opinion piece, even if it's presenting Trump's opinion, because it's a FACT that Trump has said this. Reporting things that prominent people say are reports, not opinions.
Regardless, neither the author nor the subject of the article--Jon Karl--were giving their opinions. Karl was relaying information from other people who were close to Mueller. Now, these people may be giving their opinions, but one would expect their opinions to be close to reality, because they are close to Mueller. However, even this isn't clear. They could very well be relaying facts they've seen or been told by Mueller himself. That's why Karl is forced to say, "likely." Just because a fact has a measure of probability attached to it doesn't make it an opinion. Secondhand knowledge always has a degree of uncertainty. It's like saying, "the alleged collusion." It doesn't mean that one is expressing an opinion about whether there was or was not collusion, it means that the allegation of collusion has not yet been proven. But the matter at hand is a factual matter, not opinion.
Nor am I wrong on withholding evidence. Once Mueller issues his final report, that's the final report and the investigation ends and he is no longer Special Counsel. At that point, he has no power, and certainly not the power to decide when and where evidence which he has sat on can be released. He can't withhold evidence from the Attorney General or the American people merely because he wishes to skirt a Constitutional loophole and prosecute the President once he's out of office. In fact, why would it be necessary to delay the evidence in order to do that? If Trump could be charged after he leaves office, it wouldn't matter when the evidence is released.
Not releasing evidence now--when the investigation is still ongoing--isn't the same as not releasing evidence once the final report is given to the Attorney General. At that point, it would be a cover up. It would be like swearing to tell "the truth, the whole truth" and then waiting until after trial is over to tell the whole truth.
Imagine if Mueller had smoking gun evidence that Trump was a Russian spy, and never released it. Does he have the power to do that, too? Let's say he's a secret Trump ally. And then someone else found out all this. Would your "lol" logic still apply? Mueller has unlimited power and jurisdiction to sit on whatever evidence he likes indefinitely even once he's no longer Special Counsel? You are talking out of your ass, Sky. This is nonsense.
If Mueller had the evidence that could get Trump impeached and waited until Trump's term was finished instead of releasing it now, it would be treasonous. the Dems would have his head (figuratively).
It would be like Ken Starr coming out tomorrow and saying, "Hey guess what guys! I've been sitting on evidence that can put Bill Clinton in jail. Let's get him!" Everyone would tell him to go to hell.
Last edited by Zarathustra on Wed Jan 16, 2019 2:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
I have to agree with Zarathrustra. Withholding "evidence" until election year after releasing a final report is extremely unethical.
Not that I don't believe that Mueller is a Democrat pawn trying like hell to undermine Trump's election. They've been making shit up about Trump since he won the election, just like that fake Steele Dossier.
Clearly you would have to conduct a risk analysis, but there is absolutely no problem with laying charges at any stage or at a future time These things dont happen by magic, a snap of the fingers all charges must be laid at that time.
Plus the delivery of the report does not signal the end. There may be countless loose ends that still cannot be tied until a future time.
Especially where theres a legal impediment where you cant charge a suspect.
keep smiling
'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Skyweir wrote:Clearly you would have to conduct a risk analysis, but there is absolutely no problem with laying charges at any stage or at a future time These things dont happen by magic, a snap of the fingers all charges must be laid at that time.
Plus the delivery of the report does not signal the end. There may be countless loose ends that still cannot be tied until a future time.
Especially where theres a legal impediment where you cant charge a suspect.
For someone who claims to have worked in law enforcement you have no grasp as to how justice works. This is laughable.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
I am finding the Mueller investigation more and more confusing.
In this respect, It took four plumbers, one disgrunted CIA official
(Aka "Deep Throat") and one reporter to expose the sitting President to a investigation that was a formality.
Coming upon the second year of this investigation, there hasn't been a "peep" from the investigators having proof of any collusion with Trump
in bed with the Russians, There has been indictments in regards to Russian companies and people of those companies.
Sure people who worked on the campaign have been convicted of lying and
covering up, but on the basis of economics gains or mishandling of money.
Even with all the fired people and those above, nothing and I mean
nothing has pointed in any way did Trump used the Russians to throw the
elections.
It's like the 9-11 conspiracies after 18 years no creditable proof has arisen.
It's all conjecture.
Trump isn't the most likeable fellow and you would think that some disgrunted
former employee or campaign worker would have step forwarded to provide the "required" information that would have provided a break.
Seems to me right now that the Mueller investigation havn't found any witches or snipes. And more and more is showing that they want more funding to be an entity in itself.
What's this silver looking ring doing on my finger?
Skyweir wrote:Clearly you would have to conduct a risk analysis, but there is absolutely no problem with laying charges at any stage or at a future time These things dont happen by magic, a snap of the fingers all charges must be laid at that time.
Plus the delivery of the report does not signal the end. There may be countless loose ends that still cannot be tied until a future time.
Especially where theres a legal impediment where you cant charge a suspect.
For someone who claims to have worked in law enforcement you have no grasp as to how justice works. This is laughable.
Show me where it is written that all charges must be laid within a prescribed timeframe?
keep smiling
'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Skyweir wrote:Clearly you would have to conduct a risk analysis, but there is absolutely no problem with laying charges at any stage or at a future time These things dont happen by magic, a snap of the fingers all charges must be laid at that time.
Plus the delivery of the report does not signal the end. There may be countless loose ends that still cannot be tied until a future time.
Especially where theres a legal impediment where you cant charge a suspect.
For someone who claims to have worked in law enforcement you have no grasp as to how justice works. This is laughable.
Show me where it is written that all charges must be laid within a prescribed timeframe?
In the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was wrote:Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
And then of course there's the ethical issue of a prosecutor manipulating the timing of charges to interfere with an election.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
[Mueller will have to turn in a report of some kind when he's done, but it could be pretty bare bones.
Justice Department regulations require only that Mueller give the attorney general a confidential report that explains the decisions to pursue or to decline prosecutions. That could be as simple as a bullet point list or as fulsome as a report running hundreds of pages.
. . . Fitzgerald drew a clear line that appears to line up with Mueller's attitude so far.
"One of the obligations of the prosecutors and the grand juries is to keep the information obtained in the investigation secret, not to share it with the public," Fitzgerald said at the time. "And as frustrating as that may be for the public, that is important because, the way our system of justice works, if information is gathered about people and they're not charged with a crime, we don't hold up that information for the public to look at. We either charge them with a crime or we don't."
Mueller has to give the Attorney General a report that spells out his decision whether or not to press charges. After that, he is forbidden from revealing any other information (the law requires that it's confidential). He is done. While it's possible that Congress could subpoena him and ask him what was in his report, this won't be an opportunity to reveal evidence that could be used to press charges if he has already recommended that no charges be filed.
People who are not charged with a crime have rights. You can't later reveal incriminating evidence against them if you declined to charge them with anything, especially if that motivation is to sway a Presidential election!
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
Ok context is everything .. a right to a ... speedy trial ... is not a right to controlling the timing charges are laid. But once charges ARE laid then absolutely... a speedy trial is allegedly relevant.
I say allegedly because anyone who has worked with the justice system knows from that such timing is at the behest of the courts. But as we have seen from the Mueller Investigation so far, matters have been handled relatively swiftly.
But this isnt a question of such arguable rights. In the US you have that Constitutional amendment, here there are now such Constitutional rights. So ok _. Ill give you that.
But more relevantly is how the investigation is required to be managed. Muellers report to Congress, is a summary of findings, proposed indictment ts etc period. Mueller will be constrained by legal requirements and thus will no doubt utilise full tactical advantage of legally appropriate next steps. I have truly no idea what those next steps may be.
And re someone's it is not about influencing an election outcome at all. There have been months and months of mud slinging surrounding the MI to truly buy that. That is clearly spin and what Trump wants you to believe.
When you simply look at the charges to date laid, the overwhelming conviction rate to charges laid .. it seems pretty clear this is no fluff piece .. no waste of time.
Looking purely at the retrieved assets, from tax avoidance alone is indeed compelling.
Mueller investigation costs to date USD$25m .. but the investigation has more than paid for itself having retrieved more than USD$40m from Manafort in forfeited assets. Cohen has to pay USD$1.4m in unpaid taxes. https://www.google.com.au/amp/amp.timei ... tax-cheats
Trump went to Twitter alleging the MI cost USD$40m .. a lie, an error or a wilful misdirection. The Bill Clinton Investigation cost USD $40m.
keep smiling
'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Firstly, Mueller wasn't empowered to ferret out tax evaders. That's been a gross misuse of his position.
Secondly, no. It's unethical and depending on degree illegal for prosecutors or the courts to manipulate charging and/or trials. That's prosecutorial misconduct, and it's a Big Deal here. I don't know (nor care) how it is anywhere else in the world. We don't allow those shenanigans here.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
Totally disagree re the remit of the investigation.. there is nothing in law or policy for that matter that says, an investigating officer must ignore criminal behaviour once identified. In fact THAT would be professional misconduct.
Retrieving the amount of assets, fines etc for government that Mueller has to date .. should be a thing Trump would rejoice about.... as well as the general public. These are wins that have resulted from the investigation.
Why would you want tax avoidance protected? Its basically theft .. and the individuals convicted are among the wealth in society. You pay taxes, why shouldnt Manafort?
But theres more than just tax avoidance, and money laundering at issue. But it is all part of establishing the picture .. and the picture itself is transnational.. and this has only become clear by pursuing the money.
keep smiling
'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
I'm not suggesting that tax fraud be ignored. I'm suggesting that those crimes were outside the scope of the investigation, and should have been turned over to local prosecutors.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
Im pretty sure the reason is that they breached federal taxation law.
But hey ... I was intrigued to hear that Muellers office has taken task with a media story that misrepresented facts surrounding Cohen... The allegation in question, as I understand it stated that Trump advised Cohen to lie before Congress.
The special counsels office wrote... I edited out the diacritics.
BuzzFeeds description of specific statements to the Special Counsels Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohens Congressional testimony are not accurate.
Buzzfeed responded that they were standing by their comments.
This speaks volumes for the integrity of the office and to my mind their adherence to principles of jurisprudence, in particular fairness and reasonableness. As one would expect.
keep smiling
'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
The findings will be telling. 
of his opinion.
