Is that the current narrative on the right?
What does that say about Rosenstein, or Trump's judgment in making him the DAG?
Matt
I don't believe anything that comes from any Federal agency anymore.
If you actually read Muellers appointment letter from Rosenstein, it's basically an open book to do just that, with the consent of the AG on matters that go outside the specified scope.
Matt
You can refuse to believe anything you want, or not. I choose to still believe in our criminal justice process, and in the people who strive to uphold it. I'll continue to believe Mueller is one of those people until facts prove my beliefs wrong.
Matt
Mint's Link
The Rock
For sure we no longer have any rule of law, seeing that it only applies to certain segments of the population and not others.
Everybody is a keyboard prosecutor, jury, and judge around here. Yet, we are all dealing with the same limited information. Absolutely none of us know the truth, yet.
I'm willing to let Mueller continue his work. When he's done, I'll support any investigation into the allegations against Hillary, as well. And I'll avoid ignorant conclusions in the meantime. As a good friend told me a few days ago, I know what I don't know. Some of you don't.
Matt
LOL! Don't hold your breath on that one GG! We'll have to take up a Memorial Fund for you!
The Rock
The Matt
(Note: internal links at source link)
I urge Donald Trump to give a public statement, a solemn one, from the Map Room or some other sufficiently serious setting, and declare that he is ordering, as President, his underlings to comply with Congress' demands for information, on pain of firing if they refuse.
He'd be on strong legal grounds. They have no right to refuse Congress' demands as it is. With their actual employer explicitly ordering them to comply, their refusal would be grounds for termination -- even for alleged "non-partisan" career employees.
And then he should clean fucking house.
Trump really needs to act the tough guy if he wants to be credible when he talks the tough guy.
Similar thoughts here.
Anyway, that said, the DOJ is complying with one of the many outstanding demands for information Congress requires.
The Justice Department is in the process of handing over to the House Intelligence Committee the anti-Trump text messages that got a key FBI official removed from Robert Mueller's Russia probe, Fox News has learned -- a move that comes as the panel weighs a possible contempt resolution.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., had demanded the text messages between FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer with whom Strzok was romantically involved. Both were part of Mueller's Russia team at the time. Page has since returned to the FBI, and Strzok was reassigned to the FBI's HR department after the discovery of the anti-Trump texts.
...
The exact timeline is unclear, and only the relevant texts will be turned over.
By "relevant," I assume they mean texts that are not too personal as in "pillow talk between alleged lovers," but by permitting themselves to still conceal some text, they allow themselves, as usual, a loophole to stonewall and obstruct justice.
Update: There are 10,000+ texts between Strzok and other members of Mueller's team to go through. They say it will take "weeks" to determine which texts are "relevant."
Anyone want to bet that they'll deem any texts showing the partisanship of people besides the already-implicated to be "irrelevant"?
Oh, and this is juicy:
Strzok briefed the committee on Dec. 5, 2016, sources said. But within months of that session House Intelligence Committee investigators were contacted by an informant suggesting that there was "documentary evidence" that Strzok was purportedly obstructing the House probe into the dossier.
Devin Nunes thinks this is all still stonewalling:
But Nunes voiced skepticism on Saturday.
He said that after the Strzok texts were revealed, the DOJ expressed a "sudden willingness to comply with some of the Committee's long-standing demands" but added: "This attempted 11th-hour accommodation is neither credible nor believable, and in fact is yet another example of the DOJ’s disingenuousness and obstruction."
I hate to shatter your hopes spike, but I fear that this part of our American experiment is past. Justice is NOT for all of us, but only applies to certain groups of people at certain times, and is 100% POLITICALLY driven. Once again, it goes from illegal aliens/sanctuary cities to Hillary not even being investigated no less not already in jail. Then there's Bergdahl and a host of other situations. The rule of law is now only applied on the whim of those with a political agenda and who either have power or are being used as pawns by those in power. And the "5th estate" is in full support of this and advances the agenda.
....hopefully believe and want to believe, but on second thought you are correct. They will fervently believe whatever they may think. We now how they think. ;-)
Matt, What the hell took you so long? Welcome back and prevent this GG from bandying your name around. You must be able to control this alter ego thing. I will alert you don't worry pal. ;-)
The Rock
Trumps arrogance may have played a part in his decision and it wouldn't surprise me. Pick a guy that is obviously slanted against him....as he knows there is nothing to hide. [my guess]
Well the problem is he didn't know Flynn lied....and he probably underestimated the swamp dealings of Mueller/Comey/ Hillary and possibly Sessions.
All conjecture sure...but one thing is becoming very clear- its a swampy mess with literally none of the players in the investigation being squeaky clean.
The sniveling for Mueller to resign, or to be fired, basically implies Rosenstein is also corrupt, and that Trump showed a huge lack of judgement in making Rosenstein the DAG.
Matt
God bless, Steve
Here you go again. "Trump showed a huge lack of judgement". How many years of education did it take for you to simply finish high school? Was that also lack of judgement or a learning process?
The Rock
!!!!?????? And you know this how.....??? Wait.........on second thought....I don't want to know!
slade's Link
The Rock
The Rock
(Internal links at link)
Like a headless turkey running around in circles, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s anti-Trump investigation is dead, even if he does not yet realize it. While his investigation stumbles onward, with life support provided by the biased media, from a legal perspective the viability of any criminal case that Mueller could possibly bring has been effectively gutted thanks to the news (suppressed for months by Mueller’s team) that the FBI’s “key agent” in both the Russia investigation and the Clinton email probe was an ardent Hillary supporter with an anti-Trump bias.
Under federal law, a prosecutor is required “to disclose exculpatory and impeachment information to criminal defendants and to seek a just result in every case.” Specifically, pursuant to Giglio v. United States, prosecutors are obligated to provide defendants with impeachment evidence, which includes, according to the DOJ’s guidelines, evidence of a witness’s biases, “[a]nimosity toward defendant,” or “[a]nimosity toward a group of which the defendant is a member or with which the defendant is affiliated.”
As a result, in any prosecution brought by Mueller against a Republican target, defense counsel would be entitled under the Constitution to all evidence in the government’s possession relevant to exploring the apparent biases of FBI agent Peter Strzok and his animosity toward Trump and the Republican Party. This, in and of itself, could be a case-killer because it is very unlikely that Mueller or the DOJ would want defense counsel poring through all the records and documents, emails, and texts in the DOJ’s and Strzok’s possession revealing the agent’s biases since this could fatally undermine any other cases or investigations the agent has worked on—such as the FBI’s decision to recommend charging General Flynn with lying to federal agents even though Hillary Clinton’s besties, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, were given a free pass despite apparently doing the same thing.
Significantly, the fatal damage done to Mueller’s anti-Trump investigation does not only rest in the fact that defense counsel will be able to conduct an unlubricated prostate examination on the FBI’s key agent at trial. Instead, the real reason why Mueller will not risk a criminal trial is the lasting damage that would be done to the FBI’s reputation by having Strzok’s baggage brought into the daylight.
To expose the agent’s biases, defense counsel would have the opportunity to cross-examine the agent and his apparent mistress, an FBI lawyer who also worked on Mueller’s investigation and the Clinton email probe, about their exchanged messages showing support for Clinton and hostility to Trump. Additionally, the agent’s wife, a high-profile attorney at another federal agency, apparently was a member of several pro-Obama and pro-Clinton Facebook groups and is a follower of a Facebook page called “We Voted for Hillary.”
One can only imagine the fun that an aggressive defense attorney would have shredding Strzok’s credibility by grilling him to see if he shared his wife’s posted political views.
The prospect of having to reveal to defense counsel and the public the FBI’s dirty laundry concerning Strzok—the former deputy head of the agency’s counterespionage unit—plus having to watch as defense attorneys parade the disgraced agent, his disgraced FBI mistress, and possibly his betrayed wife before the jury to explore the extent of his anti-Trump biases pretty much kills the likelihood of Mueller indicting any other Republicans. There’s simply too much downside.
Undeniably, if Mueller were to proceed with a trial under these tainted circumstances, he would be exposing the country’s vaunted legal system and the agency he once headed, to both national and international ridicule. The FBI’s reputation for impartiality would be forever flushed down the toilet. This price simply is not worth it particularly since he has found no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia. Indeed, one wonders, cynically, if this realization prompted Mueller to offer a light plea deal to Flynn so that he could quickly sign him up as a cooperator and add the general as a notch on his prosecutorial belt before the DOJ notified the public of the real reason for Strzok’s removal from Mueller’s team? (Arguably, Giglio disclosure obligations only apply after a person has been indicted but not if he pleads guilty pre-indictment.)
Finally, it is worth noting that under principles analogous to the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine, any FBI agents or officials who worked with Strzok (including James Comey) would be tainted by, and subject to cross-examination to explore, Strzok’s biases and whether he is the type of person who hid from them his biases while making key charging recommendations.
In short, Mueller’s anti-Trump investigation is effectively dead (unless his targets’ lawyers are nincompoops). And, ironically, this is all the fault of Strzok and his mistress who wanted to help “Crooked Hillary” and target Trump. How do you like ‘dem apples?
Nick James is a trial attorney in the D.C. area who formerly worked for the United States Department of Justice as an award-winning federal prosecutor.
The Rock
Shuteye's Link
