The US Presidency 2020

[mariomike]

He'll have his chance to lie to Congress.  ;D

Doesn't seem like a liar to me. Married to the same woman since 1966. War hero. Former Director of the FBI.

Honest Answer: There wasn't any.

That said, there'll be a litany of unsubstantiated stuff coming out of the usual conspiracy media to allege that Mueller is the Anti-Christ. Watch and Shoot.

op:

:goodpost:

 

[Mick]

Again I'll ask, can you provide any examples of previous dishonesty or abuse of process on Mueller's part?

A quick look at his biography indicates that not only was he a decorated USMC Captain with service in Vietnam, he was also a US Attorney, Deputy AG, and FBI director under GW Bush and Obama.  Member of the Republican Party to boot.  His service would appear to be honourable. 

Again, I'd appreciate if his detractors here could kindly explain their accusations regarding his honesty and integrity.

Thanks.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Honest question: what abuse of process is Mueller alleged to have committed?

Who alleged that Mueller committed one?

A leader apologizing for wrongdoings by his team is not the same apologizing for something he did.

Mueller's main shortcoming was not ending his investigation as soon as he realized there was no "Russian collusion" crime, which some observers believe he should have know within the first couple of months.  That's not a process crime, that's just poor judgement.

Undoubtedly the investigators prior to Mueller's appointment have more to answer for regarding abuses.  That doesn't mean Mueller can't answer for his part in prolonging a politically sensitive unproductive investigation founded mostly on rumour and bullshit.

 

[brihard]

>Honest question: what abuse of process is Mueller alleged to have committed?

Who alleged that Mueller committed one?

A leader apologizing for wrongdoings by his team is not the same apologizing for something he did.

Mueller's main shortcoming was not ending his investigation as soon as he realized there was no "Russian collusion" crime, which some observers believe he should have know within the first couple of months.  That's not a process crime, that's just poor judgement.

Undoubtedly the investigators prior to Mueller's appointment have more to answer for regarding abuses.  That doesn't mean Mueller can't answer for his part in prolonging a politically sensitive unproductive investigation founded mostly on rumour and bullshit.

“Politically sensitive”? Well sure, I guess so. Foreign interference in a presidential election was uncovered, and direct associates and confidants of the President were convicted of varying felonies, some serving jail time. The fact that it’s ‘political sensitive’ in no way deligitimizes it. Political corruption of the sort uncovered will inherently be politically sensitive. Those inconvenienced by that could have made better choices. Th fact that Trump’s campaign coordinator, Trump’s personal lawyer, and on of Trump’s closest confidants are all now convicted felons does not invalidate the investigation. He happens to have surrounded himself by people who were convicted of various offences of corruption and of obstruction of justice. Boo hoo. Don’t do crime.

As for ‘unproductive’? Hardly. Nearly 200 charges were laid against 34 people and several businesses. Several people have gone to jail. Proceedings and trials continue. As mentioned, foreign interference in the election was uncovered and proven. So I don’t know how you justify calling it ‘unpoductive’. The role of an investigation is to arrive at the facts, and a whole lot of that happened. The fact that the president himself was not indicted, or that insufficient evidence was to lay charges directly related to collusion does not make the whole thing worthless. For some further factual detail on charges: https://time.com/5556331/mueller-investigation-indictments-guilty-pleas/

And, all of that said, let’s not let it unduly distract from the president of the US commuting the sentence of a crony of his who is now a felon for having lied to Congress, tampered with a witness, and multiple counts of obstructing the investigation. Please, show us the mental gymnastics that justify that.

 

[Mick]

>Honest question: what abuse of process is Mueller alleged to have committed?

Who alleged that Mueller committed one?

A leader apologizing for wrongdoings by his team is not the same apologizing for something he did.

Mueller's main shortcoming was not ending his investigation as soon as he realized there was no "Russian collusion" crime, which some observers believe he should have know within the first couple of months.  That's not a process crime, that's just poor judgement.

Undoubtedly the investigators prior to Mueller's appointment have more to answer for regarding abuses.  That doesn't mean Mueller can't answer for his part in prolonging a politically sensitive unproductive investigation founded mostly on rumour and bullshit.

Well, you allege that " 'mistakes' and abuses of process" were committed during their investigations, and I am asking for examples of Mueller's (and his team).

To state that the Special Counsel (or his team) somehow erred and/ or committed an abuse of process by not ending or curtailing the investigation because "some observers" believe he should have realized there was no "Russian collusion" crime within the first few months is highly subjective, and, I would argue, fails to account for what Mueller's full mandate entailed.

According the the acting AG's order, Mueller was appointed to "ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election" and was specifically authorized to investigate:

"i) any links and / or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. section 600.4(a)"

Further, the same order explicitly authorizes Mueller to "prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters", if he believes it "necessary and appropriate".

So, Mueller was clearly given wide latitude to not only investigate Russian links / coordination with individuals associated with Trump, but also Russian interference in the 2016 election writ large.  Mueller was also explicitly authorized to investigate "any matters" that arose, and 28 C.F.R. section 600.4(a) specifically empowers the Special Counsel to "investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with the intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses..."

I fail to see how Mueller's investigation exceeded the mandate given to him by the acting AG, as outlined above.  Taking into consideration the authorized scope of his investigation, where exactly is the abuse of process, or "poor judgement" you are alleging of Mueller (and his team)?

I'm just trying to understand the arguments being made here.

Thanks.

 

[Brad Sallows]

"and his team"

Helps to be clear.

Most of the abuses of Mueller's team I recall fall under the heading of "perjury trap".  A simple enough guideline is to not try to manufacture crimes. 

Another simple guideline is to stick to the central purpose of an investigation and not exploit opportunities to go fishing, but as you noted that excuse was written in.  (Doesn't mean it should have been exploited.)  A third guideline is not to assemble a team with so much appearance of partisan impropriety.  A fourth guideline is to follow simple instructions to produce a report with redactions identified, and not bitch when release is delayed because clear instructions were not followed.

But I see your point.  Mueller was given broad parameters to investigate, which he and his team used.  That the main point of his investigation, a continuation of prior investigations, was to look into Russian election interference, is not really constrained by the plain statements of terms.

So call Mueller's part in the chain of investigations, drawing things out longer than should have been tolerated, something other than "abuse".  Investigations of opposing parties' political campaigns should not be launched on thin evidence, should be reviewed frequently and critically to ensure there is a necessity to continue and that excuses are not being manufactured to draw it out, and should be terminated as soon as it is clear that the main pretext isn't strong.

I get that some people see nothing wrong with a series of thinly predicated investigations, hanging in part on evidence gathering efforts that relied on plain bullshit (that was known to be bullshit), dragging on for years.  Mueller isn't responsible for the parts that happened before his appointment (hence my mention of Comey).  Mueller is responsible, however, for choosing to continue.

 

[CBH99]

I have a feeling a lot of people, including the American public, have completely lost track of the investigations, accusations, shenanigans, people indicted, etc etc.  during the Trump administration.

I'll be honest - I try to follow current politics fairly closely, and even I've become completely lost on who/what/where/why, etc etc.



I'm surprised their judicial system can keep everything straight & in order.  It's been 4 years of literally non-stop investigations of some sort, a revolving door of officials, replaced judges, lawyers getting charged, etc etc. 

While I've stopped following the news lately (for the most part) - trying a '30 day detox' of cutting back on phone usage, and not following political news - it just seems like a never ending dumpster fire.  :2c:

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I'm surprised their judicial system can keep everything straight & in order.  It's been 4 years of literally non-stop investigations of some sort, a revolving door of officials, replaced judges, lawyers getting charged, etc etc. 

Which just goes to show that folks like Brihard, Mariomike, et al have to acknowledge that Mr. Trump must be the smartest man on the face of the planet.  I mean all that investigation 24/7 for 4 years and nada can stick to Mr. Trump?  A freakin' mastermind if there ever was one......unless he did nothing wrong of course.  Where's that 'red button choice' meme? :rofl:

 

[mariomike]

Which just goes to show that folks like Brihard, Mariomike, et al have to acknowledge that Mr. Trump must be the smartest man on the face of the planet.

Since you decided to make it personal, I'm happy to acknowledge I am not one of his cheerleaders.  :rofl:

 

[brihard]

Which just goes to show that folks like Brihard, Mariomike, et al have to acknowledge that Mr. Trump must be the smartest man on the face of the planet.  I mean all that investigation 24/7 for 4 years and nada can stick to Mr. Trump?  A freakin' mastermind if there ever was one......unless he did nothing wrong of course.  Where's that 'red button choice' meme? :rofl:

I would draw a distinction between being ‘smart’ and being possessed of the legal authority or political power to grant pardons, commute sentences, outright forbid subordinates from testifying, or otherwise cajole, coerce, or incentivize people to refrain from cooperating with, or outright obstruct congressional and criminal investigations. These are not powers most people have access to. Most people faced with judicial processes have to count on the facts and legal evidentiary exclusions being on their side. That is not a handicap the president suffers from.

 

[QV]

And with that scrutiny applied, how many did you find where Obama commuted the sentences of anyone convicted of felonies for crimes they committed in securing his election, or obstructing investigations into same?

I'm sure Obama was intimately familiar with all 1,715 commutation and 212 pardon cases during his term.  Especially the 539 commutations and 64 pardons in his last week in office.  Most of these people were drug dealers. 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/obama-granted-clemency-unlike-any-other-president-in-history/

My point being the outrage against Trump over commuting the sentence of a 70yr old first time offender is weak

 

[Navy_Pete]

"and his team"

Helps to be clear.

Most of the abuses of Mueller's team I recall fall under the heading of "perjury trap".  A simple enough guideline is to not try to manufacture crimes. 

Another simple guideline is to stick to the central purpose of an investigation and not exploit opportunities to go fishing, but as you noted that excuse was written in.  (Doesn't mean it should have been exploited.)  A third guideline is not to assemble a team with so much appearance of partisan impropriety.  A fourth guideline is to follow simple instructions to produce a report with redactions identified, and not ***** when release is delayed because clear instructions were not followed.

But I see your point.  Mueller was given broad parameters to investigate, which he and his team used.  That the main point of his investigation, a continuation of prior investigations, was to look into Russian election interference, is not really constrained by the plain statements of terms.

So call Mueller's part in the chain of investigations, drawing things out longer than should have been tolerated, something other than "abuse".  Investigations of opposing parties' political campaigns should not be launched on thin evidence, should be reviewed frequently and critically to ensure there is a necessity to continue and that excuses are not being manufactured to draw it out, and should be terminated as soon as it is clear that the main pretext isn't strong.

I get that some people see nothing wrong with a series of thinly predicated investigations, hanging in part on evidence gathering efforts that relied on plain bullshit (that was known to be bullshit), dragging on for years.  Mueller isn't responsible for the parts that happened before his appointment (hence my mention of Comey).  Mueller is responsible, however, for choosing to continue.

What exactly is a perjury trap? Not sure how asking questions about the election looking for foreign interference constitutes a trap. Is Mueller supposed to ignore evidence of criminal behaviour? He passed off other things on to other prosecutors to investigate that weren't directly related to the election, but can't see how you separate hacking of the Democratic candidates email server and subsequent leaks as not being tied to election interference. Stone then lied about it to Congress, then also threatened to kill another witness if he talked. Both things were proven in his trial, and are pretty serious crimes against the basic democratic institutions of the US.  He also got convicted on a number of other election related felonies with a pretty overwhelming amount of evidence.

The guy lied about doing sketchy things to interfere with the election with the aid of foreign citizens, got caught lying, and further tried to cover it up by threatening to kill a witness (and his dog). He's not a good person that got set up by an overzealous prosecutor.

Feel free to just read his charge sheet; it's public information. https://www.justice.gov/file/1124706/download

Between Trump commuting crimes and the AG interfering in criminal prosecutions, the rule of law in the US is being directly undermined by the White house. Really weird that some people that were incensed by the PMO suggesting our AG consider a settlement with SNC would be brushing off blatant political interference in the US with the investigation, prosecution and sentencing of Trump cronies.

 

[QV]

Navy_Pete I don't think you are familiar with what has actually happened in all of this scandal. If you were, you'd be more curious why the Clinton campaign and DNC used Fusion GPS to hire a foreign former UK spy (Steele) to drum up something to sway the outcome of an election (that is your foreign interference everyone is looking for).  Speaking on that, you'd be curious why immediately after Trump was inaugurated UK's former MI5 head, Robert Hannigan, immediately resigned (having met several times with Brennan during the Trump investigation). You'd be curious how the known to be false Steele Dossier made it's way to the FBI and DOJ and was ever allowed to be used as evidence to spy on Americans.  You should be bothered by the FBI falsifying evidence in the FISA Court scandal to conduct surveillance against a political campaign for the opposing party.  You'd be bothered by the FBI/POTUS/VP/NSA involvement in the Flynn investigation and the withholding of evidence showing his innocence, and later attempts to financially break and coerce a guilty plea from him.  You'd be more curious about Admiral Mike Rogers and his involvement in the beginning. You'd be curious how so many Americans were "unmasked" in FISA taps, but more importantly who was actually doing the "unmasking" requests (Biden of all people).  You would be more curious why Brennan et al stated publicly ad nauseum on CNN and MSNBC that Trump was a Russian asset but behind closed doors and under oath they all stated they had no evidence at all about that, and then the long drawn out Mueller investigation, which they hoped would find something... ANYTHING, actually fizzled with a such a dud it couldn't even get him impeached.     

Stone was rightfully convicted and AG Barr recommended against the commute, but POTUS is going to do what POTUS does.   

 

[Brad Sallows]

>What exactly is a perjury trap?

Asking a question to which the answer is already known, hoping to catch the person interrogated in a lie or something which might be made to look like one.  All forms of entrapment are disreputable and illiberal, and a perjury trap is one.  None belong in investigators' toolboxes. 

In the case of the FBI, I've read a couple of opinions (by lawyers) asserting that the FBI is expected to stick to asking questions in pursuit of things it doesn't already know.  I don't know whether that is a hard rule, an ethical rule, or a misunderstanding of the latitude the FBI has to present an interviewee with a question to which the interviewee might be tempted to lie, when the FBI already knows the answer.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I would draw a distinction between being ‘smart’ and being possessed of the legal authority or political power to grant pardons, commute sentences, outright forbid subordinates from testifying, or otherwise cajole, coerce, or incentivize people to refrain from cooperating with, or outright obstruct congressional and criminal investigations. These are not powers most people have access to. Most people faced with judicial processes have to count on the facts and legal evidentiary exclusions being on their side. That is not a handicap the president suffers from.

Like I said...freaking genius.

 

[Brad Sallows]

If anyone is to defend Stone, it'll have to be someone else.  I'm a skeptic, not a Trump supporter.  Everyone granted clemency (pardon, commutation) is guilty of something.  I don't care much about any particular fish, which - as I've written - I think some people see as consolation prizes in the contest to unseat Trump.  So they get really pissed when one gets away.

The AG doesn't interfere in investigations; he's the AG.  It's his turf.

I suppose we're all interested in the rule of law, but with different emphases.  My view is that a few convicted or suspected wrongdoers getting away or getting off lightly is much, much, much less destructive to the "institutions of democracy" than illiberal investigative practices, or straying so much from customary investigative and sentencing practices that the prosecutions start to look vindictive or politically motivated.

 

[Mick]

"and his team"

Helps to be clear.

Most of the abuses of Mueller's team I recall fall under the heading of "perjury trap".  A simple enough guideline is to not try to manufacture crimes. 

Another simple guideline is to stick to the central purpose of an investigation and not exploit opportunities to go fishing, but as you noted that excuse was written in.  (Doesn't mean it should have been exploited.)  A third guideline is not to assemble a team with so much appearance of partisan impropriety.  A fourth guideline is to follow simple instructions to produce a report with redactions identified, and not ***** when release is delayed because clear instructions were not followed.

But I see your point.  Mueller was given broad parameters to investigate, which he and his team used.  That the main point of his investigation, a continuation of prior investigations, was to look into Russian election interference, is not really constrained by the plain statements of terms.

So call Mueller's part in the chain of investigations, drawing things out longer than should have been tolerated, something other than "abuse".  Investigations of opposing parties' political campaigns should not be launched on thin evidence, should be reviewed frequently and critically to ensure there is a necessity to continue and that excuses are not being manufactured to draw it out, and should be terminated as soon as it is clear that the main pretext isn't strong.

I get that some people see nothing wrong with a series of thinly predicated investigations, hanging in part on evidence gathering efforts that relied on plain bullshit (that was known to be bullshit), dragging on for years.  Mueller isn't responsible for the parts that happened before his appointment (hence my mention of Comey).  Mueller is responsible, however, for choosing to continue.

What exactly is “appearance of partisan impropriety”?  The fact that a number of lawyers (13) on Mueller’s team are registered Democrats does not equate to them acting as political agents.  As you noted earlier, as the leader, the buck stops at Mueller, a registered Republican.  Choosing team members based on their registered political affiliation would constitute actual partisan impropriety, would it not?  Do you have any indication that Mueller took political affiliation into account when forming his team?  Do you believe that political affiliation should be taken into account at the DOJ?  To what extent?

Again, 28 CFR section 600.4a defines original jurisdiction to include any attempts at obstruction, perjury, destruction of evidence etc.  That’s not a fishing, it is a clearly defined power expressed in federal law.

As for redactions, I’m not sure I understand what you are alleging?  Are you suggesting that Mueller, as the author of the report, was also responsible for its redaction?

Mueller was required to submit his report to the AG (28 CFR 600.8c).  This report is confidential.

In turn, AG Barr is required (28 CFR 600.9a) to submit a “description and explanation of instances (if any)” where the AG decides not to pursue the actions proposed by the Special Counsel.  These reports are submitted to the chairman and ranking minority member of the 2 judicial committees.  It is also the prerogative of the AG whether release of the SC report is in the public interest or not.  Not sure I understand where Mueller’s role in any improper redaction, or failure to follow clear instructions is established.

I also cannot find any indication that Mueller complained or otherwise “*****ed” about redactions.  He did however indicate that AG Barr’s summary letter to the judicial committees “inadequately portrayed” his team’s conclusions.  This had nothing to do with redaction - it was in response to a summary of the investigation, as written by AG Barr and his office.

As for drawing out investigations, what do you propose is an appropriate length of time to investigate sweeping and systemic electoral interference by a foreign adversary?  Less than 2 years (May 2017 to Mar 2019) is unreasonable?

You also claim that the investigation should have terminated “as soon as it is clear that the main pretext isn’t strong”.  I would submit that the Special Counsel was of the opinion that evidence was present and strong enough to warrant charges.  It’s up to the courts to determine if evidence uncovered is strong enough to convict.

I appreciate your responses.

 

[brihard]

I'm sure Obama was intimately familiar with all 1,715 commutation and 212 pardon cases during his term.  Especially the 539 commutations and 64 pardons in his last week in office.  Most of these people were drug dealers. 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/obama-granted-clemency-unlike-any-other-president-in-history/

My point being the outrage against Trump over commuting the sentence of a 70yr old first time offender is weak

So are you suggesting Trump was likely not very familiar with the nature of the offences for which Stone was sentenced, and which he then commuted? That sounds implausible. In any case you’re trying to distract with the usual Obama-oriented “Whataboutism”. Nothing Obama did or didn’t do changes the fact that Trump commuted the sentence of someone who witness tampered, obstructed, and lied to Congress in an investigation about Trump. So yeah. Doesn’t actually sound like you applied much if any scrutiny at all.

 

[Brad Sallows]

An appearance of impropriety is just that - appearance, with or without actual impropriety.  What it chiefly affects is "output legitimacy"* (a perception that a result was come by fairly, as compared to "input legitimacy" which means the rules were followed as written).  Something can have 100% input legitimacy and still test terribly for output legitimacy when the public looks at it; that damages the integrity of "the system" and should be avoided.  Some of Mueller's team were more than just mere donors.  Investigating a political campaign and administration is more sensitive than looking into whether some staffer leaked sensitive information, and needs to "look" highly legitimate.  Simply citing legal scripture won't do.  It would not have been hard to find some people who were not particularly politically active, who had no messy cases behind them, or who made up a balanced set with respect to their traceable political connections (such as donations).  Nevertheless, that worked in the administration's favour: when the report turned up empty on collusion, zealots could not plausibly argue that the team was biased in favour of the administration (efforts to play up Mueller's Republican background fell flat because of the overwhelmingly Democratic composition of the team). 

Choosing team members to avoid the appearance of impropriety would not be improper; it would protect the actual and perceived integrity of the investigation.  If Mueller didn't consciously screen his picks for appearances, he was foolish.  Political affiliation is certainly taken into account at DoJ; usually an incoming administration fires all the political appointees and replaces them.  This periodically repeated exercise is greeted with outrage when a Republican does it (I remember the gnashing of teeth when Bush replaced Clinton) and silence when a Democrat does it (as when Obama replaced Bush).

Redactions: the "deliverables" were to include an accompanying "map" identifying which parts of the report had to be redacted, so that it could be properly redacted and released for consumption (public version, and less redacted congressional version) as expeditiously as possible.  Because Mueller - or his team - failed to do so, someone else had to.  That delayed release of the report.  That gave Barr the opportunity - he thought it a necessity, given the public interest in the report - to produce a short summary of what was coming.  That was a self-inflicted wound by Mueller's team.  A first impression lasts; they wanted the whole thing to land with a massive bang and that was cut out from under them.  Too clever by half.

Mueller complained about Barr's summary (eg. "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance").  Again: a self-inflicted wound, if he wanted the document to make its public debut with full impact.

There are some things Mueller could have ended quickly.  Justice needs to be timely as well as have the perception of legitimate conduct.  The legitimacy of government has to be protected.  Suspicion of Trump's involvement with Russia could have been flatly contradicted much sooner.  The Flynn and Page investigations should have ended before they became the national embarrassments and threats to integrity (mainly of the FBI) that they are; presumably Mueller and his team had access to all the information that continues to slowly escape efforts at containment.  Mueller was the lead; presumably he and his team knew better than anyone else how much of the media speculation was pure bullshit and was damaging whatever passes for the "national interest" in respect of the integrity of the presidency.

Common sense: if the Obama administration couldn't find anything of grave substance while controlling the full apparatus of the presidency from June 2016 to January 2017, nothing of grave substance was likely to be found.  A broad, drawn out (two year) investigation just looks like a partisan fishing expedition to throw up FUD.

[Add *: the Stone pardon is an example of something that has input legitimacy, but pretty much zero output legitimacy.]

 

[SeaKingTacco]

So- I am not taking a side, but I must say that I am enjoying the debate here. Nobody is resorting to ad hominem and there are many thought provoking points being raised on all sides.

Well done all.