Put Up or Shut Up Time for Mueller

[Darth Omar]

I don't think you know what a straw man argument is.


The problem is that courts require facts. Simply because you claim he is conflicted doesn't make it factual. You need some actual evidence.

Comey is a witness of what? Trump collusion with Russia? The only thing Comey could be a tangential witness to is obstruction of justice. By claiming he is a witness you first have to admit that Trump likely committed obstruction. If you don't admit that then Comey isn't a witness. When Mueller files obstruction charges against Trump, you can make the argument in court. Until then you are simply blowing smoke out of your rear end.

Do you have evidence that Mueller wanted the FBI director job? For that matter, Mueller was named Special Counsel the day after he allegedly met with Trump. Hardly evidence of Mueller being turned down by Trump so he would hold a grudge. Mueller may have already known he was being appointed SP when he met with Trump.

This isn't a right/left thing. This is about actual facts. The courts require you to have some to allege someone has a conflict. Speculation because Mueller met with Trump about FBI director job is not evidence of a conflict of interest. If anything, it would show lack of conflict since he was being considered for such a job.

The *appearance of conflict of interest* is the ethical standard.

Mullet has no ethical standards or he would have recused. He gets to keep the moniker.

Btw, do you have evidence Sessions was actually conflicted—or just mere suspicion?

 

[Mr.Badguy]

The *appearance of conflict of interest* is the ethical standard.

Mullet has no ethical standards or he would have recused. He gets to keep the moniker.

Btw, do you have evidence Sessions was actually conflicted—or just mere suspicion?

Being in charge of an investigation that could potentially lead to your boss' campaign doesn't seem like a conflict to you?

 

[Darth Omar]

Being in charge of an investigation that could potentially lead to your boss' campaign doesn't seem like a conflict to you?

The president is the boss of any and all AG’s. He was/is the boss of Rosenstein.

How about Rosenweasel writing the letter to Trump recommending Comey be fired. That’s a glaring conflict if Mullet plans on an obstruction charge. Mullet calls his boss to the witness stand?

In what ethical universe is that NOT a conflict of interest?

 

[Nordberg]

The *appearance of conflict of interest* is the ethical standard.

Mullet has no ethical standards or he would have recused. He gets to keep the moniker.

Btw, do you have evidence Sessions was actually conflicted—or just mere suspicion?

You talking Mueller, the lifetime Republican? that the one? The exemplary justice worker.
Sessions was the first bigtime Repub to back Daffy, He appeared and spoke at Trump rallies. No way he could have run the investigation. That is like having Trump in charge.

 

[Darth Omar]

You talking Mueller, the lifetime Republican? that the one? The exemplary justice worker.
Sessions was the first bigtime Repub to back Daffy, He appeared and spoke at Trump rallies. No way he could have run the investigation. That is like having Trump in charge.

A bit like having Strzok in charge of the Russian investigation—except in reverse lol?

 

[Guno צְבִי]

Rudy Giuliani: 'Put Up or Shut Up Time' for Mueller


President Donald Trump's top lawyer Rudy Giuliani said it is "put up or shut up" time for special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russia's 2016 election meddling and potential Trump campaign coordination.


Giuliani reiterated to host John Catsimatidis "collusion is not a crime" and Mueller has been hunting to try to tie President Trump's campaign to a "conspiracy to hack" the Democratic National Committee's emails.


https://www.newsmax.com/politics/rudygiuliani-specialcounsel-robertmueller/2018/12/30/id/896284/

You and your rabble have no control of the investigation

 

[anatta]

Manafort had a trial and was convicted.
Those accepting plea agreements have to agree that they actually committed the crime.
The court has to look at the charge, the facts presented and make sure the defendant admits they committed those acts before accepting any plea.
If the plea agreements didn't have the facts and the law on their side, no judge would accept them.

1 guy, and it had nothing to do with Trump/campaign.

Do you think a plea agreement is looked at at the same level cross examination would be at a trial? of course not.
It's almost like the unverified fake FISA where Comey et all swore the facts were verified.
Comey swore they were by his signature,and then reversed that in testimony

Judges pretty much go on what is shown them -other then a cursory look at any relevant facts

I suppose Comey and McCabe told Flynn he had to lie to the FBI agents as well. Your argument about entrapment is completely bogus. Read the judge's take on your bullshit argument. The judge specifically questioned Flynn on it. All Flynn had to do was tell the truth and he would not have been charged with lying to the FBI.

it was a process crime. No interview and there would have been no crime.

It read to me like the judge was trying to get him to change his plea
but Flynn just wanted over with. They ruined his life and he had to sell his house over a a process crime

 

[Nordberg]

A bit like having Strzok in charge of the Russian investigation—except in reverse lol?

No. Strzok did his job fairly and openly. He was one of the FBI agents who found that "maybe" they had more Hillary emails and he urged Comey to make a public announcement. That cost her the election and it was not true.

 

[Nordberg]

1 guy, and it had nothing to do with Trump/campaign.

Do you think a plea agreement is looked at at the same level cross examination would be at a trial? of course not.
It's almost like the unverified fake FISA where Comey et all swore the facts were verified.
Comey swore they were by his signature,and then reversed that in testimony

Judges pretty much go on what is shown them -other then a cursory look at any relevant facts

it was a process crime. No interview and there would have been no crime.

It read to me like the judge was trying to get him to change his plea
but Flynn just wanted over with. They ruined his life and he had to sell his house over a a process crime

That is why the judge was not buying no jail time.
Flynn ruined his own life. He was dirty as hell. He was an unregistered agent for a foreign country while he was involved in the Trump campaign. Can you see treason? He was actively working to sway political opinions for Turkey while in Trumps entourage. He was acting as Trumps national security adviser. And he lied to the FBI about what he did. When the judge got the information he was shocked that the prosecutors were for no jail time. And Flynn has been telling all for a long time and the judge thinks there is more.

 

[Darth Omar]

That is why the judge was not buying no jail time.
Flynn ruined his own life. He was dirty as hell. He was an unregistered agent for a foreign country while he was involved in the Trump campaign. Can you see treason? He was actively working to sway political opinions for Turkey while in Trumps entourage. He was acting as Trumps national security adviser. And he lied to the FBI about what he did. When the judge got the information he was shocked that the prosecutors were for no jail time. And Flynn has been telling all for a long time and the judge thinks there is more.

Dude, if you think a FARA violation is ‘treason’ go find yourself a sandbox or a counselor.

 

[dukkha]

Dude, if you think a FARA violation is ‘treason’ go find yourself a sandbox or a counselor.

prior to Mueller FARA non-registrations were rarely prosecuted.

Mueller is a pit bull partisan on steroids with unfettered powers. His own effective branch.


The “foreign agents” law Paul Manafort is charged with breaking is wildly underenforced
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/20...nts-registration-manafort-enforcement-scandal

A 2016 audit of FARA by the Justice Department’s inspector general found “widespread delinquencies” in compliance rates. Their review of documents filed from 2013 to 2015 found that:

62 percent of new registrants filed their documentation late
50 percent failed to file their semiannual reports in a timely manner
61 percent failed to file their informational materials within the required 48-hour period
47 percent of informational materials did not include the required disclosure statement
he department’s enforcement of the law is virtually nonexistent. Currently under FARA, the department only has two enforcement tools at its disposal: filing a civil injunction or pursuing criminal charges.

A civil injunction essentially means that the Justice Department can request a district court to order registrants to halt their activities until they comply with the law.

Yet the DOJ has apparently not pursued a civil injunction for FARA violations since 1991. (It can be hard to check, because the department doesn’t release these numbers.)

Alternatively, the department can pursue a criminal charge, which has a much higher burden of proof. Until the indictments against Manafort and Gates, the DOJ had only pursued criminal charges for FARA violations seven times in the past 50 years.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

The *appearance of conflict of interest* is the ethical standard.

Mullet has no ethical standards or he would have recused. He gets to keep the moniker.

Btw, do you have evidence Sessions was actually conflicted—or just mere suspicion?

The appearance has to be reasonable.
RW screeds are hardly reasonable and don't meet the guidelines.


Here are the ethics guidelines -https://www.justice.gov/jmd/government-ethics-outline

C. DOJ-Specific Conflict of Interest Regulation: No DOJ employee may participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution, or who would be directly affected by the outcome. 28 CFR 45.2

Political relationship means a close identification with an elected official, candidate, political party or campaign organization arising from service as a principal advisor or official; personal relationship means a close and substantial connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality.

Here is a picture of Sessions with Trump and Pappadopolous during the campaign which clearly shows the conflict under the guidlines.
https://heavy.com/news/2017/10/george-papadopolous-trump-sessions-photo-picture-instagram-twitter

Any reasonable person that looks at the picture of Sessions, Trump and Papadopolous in a campaign meeting would reach the conclusion that Sessions has a personal and political relationship with Trump and the Trump campaign.

Feel free to point out the section of the guidelines that you think would cause Mueller to recuse himself. That is the beauty of the guidelines. It requires a reasonable person with a grasp of actual facts would see a conflict. Simply making stuff up doesn't meet any standard.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Being in charge of an investigation that could potentially lead to your boss' campaign doesn't seem like a conflict to you?

The recusal of Sessions was because he worked on the campaign as an advisor. Not because he was AG and therefor under Trump.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

1 guy, and it had nothing to do with Trump/campaign.

Are you claiming Manafort was not campaign manager? The fact that he was charged with other crimes doesn't change the fact that he was convicted in a court of law. You are now moving the goalposts.

Do you think a plea agreement is looked at at the same level cross examination would be at a trial? of course not.

A court doesn't accept a plea without going through a process that requires asking the defendant if he is indeed guilty. Your argument is that those defendants aren't guilty but are being railroaded by a prosecutor. All those pleading guilty have had legal representation. All have had the opportunity to defend themselves in court. All have admitted in open court that the facts show them to be guilty and they are indeed guilty. Are you now arguing that the legal representation those defendants had was not competent?

It's almost like the unverified fake FISA where Comey et all swore the facts were verified.
Comey swore they were by his signature,and then reversed that in testimony

You don't seem to understand how FISA or any request for a warrant works. They attest that what they are presenting is true to the best of their knowledge. It doesn't require complete verification nor does it require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It is up to the judge to determine if the evidence presented meets the legal standard for issuing the warrant. The application for the warrant says we have the following items that include a document created for political purposes. It never once says everything in the dossier is true. It never once says anything in the dossier is true. It is up to the judge to decide if the evidence is enough. You are arguing from ignorance at this point.

Judges pretty much go on what is shown them -other then a cursory look at any relevant facts

Judges also don't like it when lawyers or investigators hide facts contrary to what they are given.

it was a process crime. No interview and there would have been no crime.

No lying during the interview and there would be no crime. The FBI didn't force anyone to lie.

It read to me like the judge was trying to get him to change his plea
but Flynn just wanted over with. They ruined his life and he had to sell his house over a a process crime

It seems you didn't read it. The judge asks about the other 2 that were charged in VA and if Flynn could have also been charged with the same crimes as his business partners. (The answer was "yes.") Then the judge asks if he could have been charged for violations of the Logan Act before the judge proceeds to ask about whether he could have been charged with treason.

 

[Mr.Badguy]

The president is the boss of any and all AG’s. He was/is the boss of Rosenstein.

How about Rosenweasel writing the letter to Trump recommending Comey be fired. That’s a glaring conflict if Mullet plans on an obstruction charge. Mullet calls his boss to the witness stand?

In what ethical universe is that NOT a conflict of interest?

That's exactly why if Trump does anything to undermine this investigation he'll be looking at OoJ charges. He's already flirting with disaster going on national TV and saying firing Comey was about the investigation, but he's probably safe BECAUSE of Rosenstein and his prior reasons given. Sessions was at least smart enough or enough of a pussy to not even want to risk the appearance of an integrity issue.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Dude, if you think a FARA violation is ‘treason’ go find yourself a sandbox or a counselor.

Who thinks a FARA violation is treason?

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Darth,

You set up a clumsy straw man lol.

Why don’t I respect Mullet? Because he’s obviously too conflicted to run the investigation. Not only is he a close associate with a principle witness [James Comey] but Mullet was turned down for the FBI Director job *by the very man he is investigating* the DAY BEFORE HE WAS APPOINTED SP by Rod Rosenstein.

And you’ll slough that off as if it means nothing and call Mullet a fine upstanding Boy Scout.

All lefties do, in fact.

Got it.

So if he doesn't get one job, he shouldn't have another.

Makes no sense.

 

[kudzu]

The *appearance of conflict of interest* is the ethical standard.

Mullet has no ethical standards or he would have recused. He gets to keep the moniker.

Btw, do you have evidence Sessions was actually conflicted—or just mere suspicion?

You might want to read up on EXACTLY what Session's conflict of interest entailed and why he had to recuse himself.

 

[kudzu]

Plea bargain | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII ...

A defendant breaking a plea bargain is akin to a breach of contract, which will result in the prosecutor no longer being bound by his or her obligation in the plea deal. If a prosecutor reneges on plea bargains, defendants may seek relief from the judge.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/plea_bargain

 

[Darth Omar]

Hello Darth,



Got it.

So if he doesn't get one job, he shouldn't have another.

Makes no sense.

What makes no sense is why choose Mullet if one wanted to avoid ‘at least the appearance of conflict of interest’?

How many federal prosecutors are there? I don’t know, but let’s go with a low number and say there’s 50 of them. But they choose the one that was turned down for a job by the very person who was going to be targeted in the investigation.

Really lol?

In fact, the whole show was initiated by what amounts to a clique: Rosenstein-Comey-Mullet, they’re all three good buddies, going back years or even decades. And they wonder why we call it a swamp.

If Rosenstein wanted to avoid ‘even the appearance of conflict of interest’ he would have gone miles out of the beltway to find a prosecutor to lead the investigation. A prosecutor that wasn’t interviewed for a job by one of the principle subjects of the investigation. One that didn’t have a personal relationship with anyone involved would have been perfect.

Apparently, that would have been too risky. Such a prosecutor might not play along. So Rosenstein accepted the risk that the investigation would be criticized for being conflicted. And it turned out to be a good gambit because the Fake Newsers would run interference for him and no one has the balls to do anything about it.

Pretty easy to figure out.