Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On July 17 2018 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote: People don't actually want Trump to do anything differently when it comes to Russia, they just want him to talk differently right?
Besides how he talks about Russia people saying he's too pro-Russia, or a pawn or whatever, wouldn't really change anything else would they?
Additionally, The NYT and a LOT of liberals are exposing a latent homophobia with shit like this.
Trump should be siding with his intelligence agencies and taking actions based on the intelligence agencies (sanctions) rather than trusting Putin. Inaction is still action.
Forgive me, but why should Trump publicly build up his intelligence agencies rather than equivocate on them? These are the same intelligence agencies that tried to infiltrate his campaign and bait him into committing a crime. These are the same intelligence agencies who have been leaking shit to undermine his presidency at every turn. These are the same intelligence agencies that had people like Brennan heading them, who today, has ludicrously accused the president of treason for what he said at the press conference. There's no political reason for Trump to give them cover until he gets them under control.
Hello ? Separation of powers, democracy ? Arguing that they were or are corrupt may be valid, but wanting them to be under the control of the executive power, please do not. Seriously. Especially under this president that is talking about nukes like I talk about my breakfast. We have been at peace (mostly, at least in our western areas) for 70 years, and you want the balance of power of the strongest country in the world to fail ?
Separation of powers is not a license to commit treason or other criminal acts. If the actions that the FBI and intelligence community have taken against Trump and his campaign are without legitimate predicate (which is not only the default presumption, but also appears to be the case in fact so far), then those organizations need to be thoroughly cleaned out.
First, the "treason" talk that you and GH are spouting is really irritating from a legal standpoint. It is a matter of settled law that treason can only be successfully charged if the USA is currently in a shooting war against country X and the treasonous fellow in question did something to aid country X in that war. It doesn't matter if Mueller has tapes of Trump offering to give back Alaska to Putin in exchange for help with the election. It still wouldn't be treason.
Second, you argue that a neutral observer should have a "default presumption" that the FBI's actions with respect to the Trump campaign were "without legitimate predicate." Where does the standard of this "default presumption" come from? What actions has the FBI taken that were criminal? What is a "thorough clean[ing]" at the FBI likely to look like, and why should such an enterprise be undertaken?
can you provide a link that justifies your first paragraph's assertion that "it is a matter of settled law" that something like "offering to give back Alaska to Putin in exchange for help with the election" wouldn't be treason?
He's correct.
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
That's the important part, and i suppose "adheres to their enemies" would be open for interpretation if it weren't for Cramer vs United States (But as outlined in Cramer v. United States, a 1945 Supreme Court case that overturned the conviction of a German-born U.S. citizen, the Court made clear that the provision of "aid and comfort" has to consist of an affirmative act, and must occur during wartime).
It be nice to have some sort of evidence to justify having a special counsel, instead we get hopes, and guesses, going on for months and months now, that this is building towards something.
Mueller’s Politicized Indictment of Twelve Russian Intelligence Officers
If the idea was to give Vladimir Putin and his thug regime a new way to sabotage the United States, nice work.
So, is Russia now presumed innocent of hacking the 2016 election?
If not, it is difficult to understand any proper purpose served by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s indictment of twelve military officers in the Kremlin’s intelligence services for doing what everybody in America already knew that they did, and has known since before Donald Trump took office — indeed, since before the 2016 election.
Make no mistake: This is nakedly politicized law enforcement. There is absolutely no chance any of the Russian officials charged will ever see the inside of an American courtroom. The indictment is a strictly political document by which the special counsel seeks to justify the existence of his superfluous investigation.
Oh, and by the way, the answer to the question posed above is, “Yes, it is now the official position of the United States that Russia gets our Constitution’s benefit of the doubt.” Here is Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announcing the Friday the 13th indictment: “In our justice system, everyone who is charged with a crime is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.”
Of course, the indicted Russians are never going to be proven guilty — not in the courtroom sense Rosenstein was invoking.
As is so often the case in today’s politicized Justice Department, Rosenstein was trying to make a different political point. As he went on to note, if people whom we have formally charged are presumed innocent, then, a fortiori, people who have not been accused — implicitly, Rosenstein was talking about President Trump — must also be presumed innocent. But, see, you can’t make that point without stepping on the political purpose of Friday’s charade: We have taken the not only pointless but reckless step of indicting operatives of a hostile foreign power who cannot be prosecuted and whose schemes could easily have been exposed — and, in fact, have been exposed, multiple times — in public government reports; so now, due-process rules oblige us to caution you that we must presume the Russians did not do what we have formally accused them of doing. They are entitled to that presumption unless and until we convict them in court . . . which is never going to happen.
Rosenstein made another telling remark at his big press conference. The Justice Department, he explained, will now “transition responsibility for this case to our Department’s National Security Division while we await the apprehension of the defendants.”
Now, stop giggling over that last part — the bit where we hold our breath until Russian dictator Vladimir Putin extradites his spies into the FBI’s waiting arms. I’m talking about the first part: Mueller’s case, the definitive case about what Russia did to interfere in the 2016 election, is no longer Mueller’s case. It is being “transitioned” — i.e., buried — in the Justice Department unit that deals with counterintelligence matters that do not result in public trials.
This underscores what we have been arguing here since before Mueller was appointed: There was no need and no basis in federal regulations for a special counsel.
in the rest of the article McCarthy goes into more detail. So far there isn't any obvious reason why a SC needed to be appointed besides as a butt-covering maneuver.
The press conference of trump and putin was a bit of a disappointment I have to admit and trump did look somewhat weak maybe. That is not something to be happy about though,he still represents all of the western world on the political world stage including those who did vote for Clinton. Its still your interests he is supposed to defend,it would be better for everyone if he did look strong.
Its not that trump is shy to speak out his criticism. He had very strong criticism about the eu,even calling Germany a prisoner of rusia and criticizing Germanys cooperation with the nord pipeline? In that light the press conference was a bit weird and unexpected. It also was again about the supposed medling with the election. Maybe there was more in the press conference but that's the bit that they did show on tv here as if that is all that matters.
On July 17 2018 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote: People don't actually want Trump to do anything differently when it comes to Russia, they just want him to talk differently right?
Besides how he talks about Russia people saying he's too pro-Russia, or a pawn or whatever, wouldn't really change anything else would they?
Additionally, The NYT and a LOT of liberals are exposing a latent homophobia with shit like this.
Trump should be siding with his intelligence agencies and taking actions based on the intelligence agencies (sanctions) rather than trusting Putin. Inaction is still action.
Forgive me, but why should Trump publicly build up his intelligence agencies rather than equivocate on them? These are the same intelligence agencies that tried to infiltrate his campaign and bait him into committing a crime. These are the same intelligence agencies who have been leaking shit to undermine his presidency at every turn. These are the same intelligence agencies that had people like Brennan heading them, who today, has ludicrously accused the president of treason for what he said at the press conference. There's no political reason for Trump to give them cover until he gets them under control.
Hello ? Separation of powers, democracy ? Arguing that they were or are corrupt may be valid, but wanting them to be under the control of the executive power, please do not. Seriously. Especially under this president that is talking about nukes like I talk about my breakfast. We have been at peace (mostly, at least in our western areas) for 70 years, and you want the balance of power of the strongest country in the world to fail ?
Separation of powers is not a license to commit treason or other criminal acts. If the actions that the FBI and intelligence community have taken against Trump and his campaign are without legitimate predicate (which is not only the default presumption, but also appears to be the case in fact so far), then those organizations need to be thoroughly cleaned out.
First, the "treason" talk that you and GH are spouting is really irritating from a legal standpoint. It is a matter of settled law that treason can only be successfully charged if the USA is currently in a shooting war against country X and the treasonous fellow in question did something to aid country X in that war. It doesn't matter if Mueller has tapes of Trump offering to give back Alaska to Putin in exchange for help with the election. It still wouldn't be treason.
Second, you argue that a neutral observer should have a "default presumption" that the FBI's actions with respect to the Trump campaign were "without legitimate predicate." Where does the standard of this "default presumption" come from? What actions has the FBI taken that were criminal? What is a "thorough clean[ing]" at the FBI likely to look like, and why should such an enterprise be undertaken?
can you provide a link that justifies your first paragraph's assertion that "it is a matter of settled law" that something like "offering to give back Alaska to Putin in exchange for help with the election" wouldn't be treason?
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
That's the important part, and i suppose "adheres to their enemies" would be open for interpretation if it weren't for Cramer vs United States (But as outlined in Cramer v. United States, a 1945 Supreme Court case that overturned the conviction of a German-born U.S. citizen, the Court made clear that the provision of "aid and comfort" has to consist of an affirmative act, and must occur during wartime).
On July 17 2018 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote: People don't actually want Trump to do anything differently when it comes to Russia, they just want him to talk differently right?
Besides how he talks about Russia people saying he's too pro-Russia, or a pawn or whatever, wouldn't really change anything else would they?
Additionally, The NYT and a LOT of liberals are exposing a latent homophobia with shit like this.
Trump should be siding with his intelligence agencies and taking actions based on the intelligence agencies (sanctions) rather than trusting Putin. Inaction is still action.
Forgive me, but why should Trump publicly build up his intelligence agencies rather than equivocate on them? These are the same intelligence agencies that tried to infiltrate his campaign and bait him into committing a crime. These are the same intelligence agencies who have been leaking shit to undermine his presidency at every turn. These are the same intelligence agencies that had people like Brennan heading them, who today, has ludicrously accused the president of treason for what he said at the press conference. There's no political reason for Trump to give them cover until he gets them under control.
Hello ? Separation of powers, democracy ? Arguing that they were or are corrupt may be valid, but wanting them to be under the control of the executive power, please do not. Seriously. Especially under this president that is talking about nukes like I talk about my breakfast. We have been at peace (mostly, at least in our western areas) for 70 years, and you want the balance of power of the strongest country in the world to fail ?
Separation of powers is not a license to commit treason or other criminal acts. If the actions that the FBI and intelligence community have taken against Trump and his campaign are without legitimate predicate (which is not only the default presumption, but also appears to be the case in fact so far), then those organizations need to be thoroughly cleaned out.
First, the "treason" talk that you and GH are spouting is really irritating from a legal standpoint. It is a matter of settled law that treason can only be successfully charged if the USA is currently in a shooting war against country X and the treasonous fellow in question did something to aid country X in that war. It doesn't matter if Mueller has tapes of Trump offering to give back Alaska to Putin in exchange for help with the election. It still wouldn't be treason.
Second, you argue that a neutral observer should have a "default presumption" that the FBI's actions with respect to the Trump campaign were "without legitimate predicate." Where does the standard of this "default presumption" come from? What actions has the FBI taken that were criminal? What is a "thorough clean[ing]" at the FBI likely to look like, and why should such an enterprise be undertaken?
can you provide a link that justifies your first paragraph's assertion that "it is a matter of settled law" that something like "offering to give back Alaska to Putin in exchange for help with the election" wouldn't be treason?
He's correct.
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
That's the important part, and i suppose "adheres to their enemies" would be open for interpretation if it weren't for Cramer vs United States (But as outlined in Cramer v. United States, a 1945 Supreme Court case that overturned the conviction of a German-born U.S. citizen, the Court made clear that the provision of "aid and comfort" has to consist of an affirmative act, and must occur during wartime).
On July 17 2018 10:43 Introvert wrote: It be nice to have some sort of evidence to justify having a special counsel, instead we get hopes, and guesses, going on for months and months now, that this is building towards something.
Mueller’s Politicized Indictment of Twelve Russian Intelligence Officers
If the idea was to give Vladimir Putin and his thug regime a new way to sabotage the United States, nice work.
So, is Russia now presumed innocent of hacking the 2016 election?
If not, it is difficult to understand any proper purpose served by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s indictment of twelve military officers in the Kremlin’s intelligence services for doing what everybody in America already knew that they did, and has known since before Donald Trump took office — indeed, since before the 2016 election.
Make no mistake: This is nakedly politicized law enforcement. There is absolutely no chance any of the Russian officials charged will ever see the inside of an American courtroom. The indictment is a strictly political document by which the special counsel seeks to justify the existence of his superfluous investigation.
Oh, and by the way, the answer to the question posed above is, “Yes, it is now the official position of the United States that Russia gets our Constitution’s benefit of the doubt.” Here is Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announcing the Friday the 13th indictment: “In our justice system, everyone who is charged with a crime is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.”
Of course, the indicted Russians are never going to be proven guilty — not in the courtroom sense Rosenstein was invoking.
As is so often the case in today’s politicized Justice Department, Rosenstein was trying to make a different political point. As he went on to note, if people whom we have formally charged are presumed innocent, then, a fortiori, people who have not been accused — implicitly, Rosenstein was talking about President Trump — must also be presumed innocent. But, see, you can’t make that point without stepping on the political purpose of Friday’s charade: We have taken the not only pointless but reckless step of indicting operatives of a hostile foreign power who cannot be prosecuted and whose schemes could easily have been exposed — and, in fact, have been exposed, multiple times — in public government reports; so now, due-process rules oblige us to caution you that we must presume the Russians did not do what we have formally accused them of doing. They are entitled to that presumption unless and until we convict them in court . . . which is never going to happen.
Rosenstein made another telling remark at his big press conference. The Justice Department, he explained, will now “transition responsibility for this case to our Department’s National Security Division while we await the apprehension of the defendants.”
Now, stop giggling over that last part — the bit where we hold our breath until Russian dictator Vladimir Putin extradites his spies into the FBI’s waiting arms. I’m talking about the first part: Mueller’s case, the definitive case about what Russia did to interfere in the 2016 election, is no longer Mueller’s case. It is being “transitioned” — i.e., buried — in the Justice Department unit that deals with counterintelligence matters that do not result in public trials.
This underscores what we have been arguing here since before Mueller was appointed: There was no need and no basis in federal regulations for a special counsel.
in the rest of the article McCarthy goes into more detail. So far there isn't any obvious reason why a SC needed to be appointed besides as a butt-covering maneuver.
Have you read the Maria Butina or the "12 Russians" indictments? Lots of unnamed U.S. persons referenced in those documents. Wait and see. I'm sure we'll be finding out who some of these persons are soon enough.
Twitter and Facebook seem to be colossal mistakes allowing a toxic few to erode our civil discourse. Once our patience is gone from arguing with fringe nutjobs, we have no patience left for generally rational people who just disagree with us.
The latest seems to be referring to people who defend/support Trump as MAGAts (a play on the word maggot I assume).
On July 17 2018 10:43 Introvert wrote: It be nice to have some sort of evidence to justify having a special counsel, instead we get hopes, and guesses, going on for months and months now, that this is building towards something.
Mueller’s Politicized Indictment of Twelve Russian Intelligence Officers
If the idea was to give Vladimir Putin and his thug regime a new way to sabotage the United States, nice work.
So, is Russia now presumed innocent of hacking the 2016 election?
If not, it is difficult to understand any proper purpose served by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s indictment of twelve military officers in the Kremlin’s intelligence services for doing what everybody in America already knew that they did, and has known since before Donald Trump took office — indeed, since before the 2016 election.
Make no mistake: This is nakedly politicized law enforcement. There is absolutely no chance any of the Russian officials charged will ever see the inside of an American courtroom. The indictment is a strictly political document by which the special counsel seeks to justify the existence of his superfluous investigation.
Oh, and by the way, the answer to the question posed above is, “Yes, it is now the official position of the United States that Russia gets our Constitution’s benefit of the doubt.” Here is Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announcing the Friday the 13th indictment: “In our justice system, everyone who is charged with a crime is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.”
Of course, the indicted Russians are never going to be proven guilty — not in the courtroom sense Rosenstein was invoking.
As is so often the case in today’s politicized Justice Department, Rosenstein was trying to make a different political point. As he went on to note, if people whom we have formally charged are presumed innocent, then, a fortiori, people who have not been accused — implicitly, Rosenstein was talking about President Trump — must also be presumed innocent. But, see, you can’t make that point without stepping on the political purpose of Friday’s charade: We have taken the not only pointless but reckless step of indicting operatives of a hostile foreign power who cannot be prosecuted and whose schemes could easily have been exposed — and, in fact, have been exposed, multiple times — in public government reports; so now, due-process rules oblige us to caution you that we must presume the Russians did not do what we have formally accused them of doing. They are entitled to that presumption unless and until we convict them in court . . . which is never going to happen.
Rosenstein made another telling remark at his big press conference. The Justice Department, he explained, will now “transition responsibility for this case to our Department’s National Security Division while we await the apprehension of the defendants.”
Now, stop giggling over that last part — the bit where we hold our breath until Russian dictator Vladimir Putin extradites his spies into the FBI’s waiting arms. I’m talking about the first part: Mueller’s case, the definitive case about what Russia did to interfere in the 2016 election, is no longer Mueller’s case. It is being “transitioned” — i.e., buried — in the Justice Department unit that deals with counterintelligence matters that do not result in public trials.
This underscores what we have been arguing here since before Mueller was appointed: There was no need and no basis in federal regulations for a special counsel.
in the rest of the article McCarthy goes into more detail. So far there isn't any obvious reason why a SC needed to be appointed besides as a butt-covering maneuver.
Have you read the Maria Butina or the "12 Russians" indictments? Lots of unnamed U.S. persons referenced in those documents. Wait and see. I'm sure we'll be finding out who some of these persons are soon enough.
The indictments up until this point have all been table setting for the Americans that are going to get charged. They are presenting the Russian agents who tried to influence our elections, and then it’s going to be about the Americans who helped undermine our democracy.
On July 17 2018 10:53 Dromar wrote: Twitter and Facebook seem to be colossal mistakes allowing a toxic few to erode our civil discourse. Once our patience is gone from arguing with fringe nutjobs, we have no patience left for generally rational people who just disagree with us.
The latest seems to be referring to people who defend/support Trump as MAGAts (a play on the word maggot I assume).
I'm not sure this is only about FB or Twitter. I haven't found a site on the entire internet where civil discourse about politics is possible (TL is by far the best, but it's also no secret we have a large majority of left leaning users here). Hell, I've had yelling matches with my own dad on this subject (Who otherwise is a really nice person, but when it comes to Trump he just suddenly turns into a fullblown racist on the spot just so he can align his feelings towards him).
The "insult play on words" is just so incredibly childish, and has somehow become increasingly normal these last few years (A lot I think because Trump himself uses them. He is incapable of talking about anyone without adding a childish insult in front of their names. Crooked Hillary, Leaking Comey, Crazy Bernie, Little Marco...the list goes on a long way. There's an entire wiki page dedicated to it if you want to lose brain cells). But at least it lets you quickly figure out whether the person you're talking to is worth spending a second on. See words like "SJW", "Libtard", or now "MAGAts" and you can just move on knowing you'll have successfully avoided ripping your hair out.
Well, that one got a small snort from me (edit: MAGAt).
What i find kinda interesting is that people here genuinely believe that Trump is just playing everyone. We're talking Merkel, a physicist and doctor in quantum chemistry. We're talking Putin, a Lawyer, KGB agent for more than 15 years. Politicians for decades.
Trump. Host of "Volksverdummungsfernsehen" (ahm.. ugh. Literal translation is the people-stupifying-TV i suppose?), but has great genes. No idea what he's actually doing, doesn't understand half of the institutions he's working with.
And he's playing everyone. Because.. Well. How exactly?
Facebook and twitter are bad places for news and politics because they don’t have sufficient moderation or any editorial control. And they don’t want it. We all get siloed off in our own little groups and are fed news that pleases us. It is the antithesis of what news media should be striving for. It will only fix once Facebook and all social media have to play by the same rules at other media and assure the news/reporting being done is accurate.
Edit: there is no way that mash of consonants is a real word.
On July 17 2018 10:53 Dromar wrote: Twitter and Facebook seem to be colossal mistakes allowing a toxic few to erode our civil discourse. Once our patience is gone from arguing with fringe nutjobs, we have no patience left for generally rational people who just disagree with us.
The latest seems to be referring to people who defend/support Trump as MAGAts (a play on the word maggot I assume).
I'm not sure this is only about FB or Twitter. I haven't found a site on the entire internet where civil discourse about politics is possible (TL is by far the best, but it's also no secret we have a large majority of left leaning users here). Hell, I've had yelling matches with my own dad on this subject (Who otherwise is a really nice person, but when it comes to Trump he just suddenly turns into a fullblown racist on the spot just so he can align his feelings towards him).
The "insult play on words" is just so incredibly childish, and has somehow become increasingly normal these last few years (A lot I think because Trump himself uses them. He is incapable of talking about anyone without adding a childish insult in front of their names. Crooked Hillary, Leaking Comey, Crazy Bernie, Little Marco...the list goes on a long way. There's an entire wiki page dedicated to it if you want to lose brain cells). But at least it lets you quickly figure out whether the person you're talking to is worth spending a second on. See words like "SJW", "Libtard", or now "MAGAts" and you can just move on knowing you'll have successfully avoided ripping your hair out.
imho it's more about money really. being sensible costs money. moderation costs money. curation costs money. there's plenty of 80/20 rules and such that apply; the nature of the internet makes it so that all the mechanisms that can cull the bad to just leave the good aren't worth applying, they simply cost too much money (because everythin ghas to run very very cheap on the internet or else it gets outcompeted by something that will be that cheap)
or at least that's one of the differentiating factors compared to the past.
It's not in the dictionary, no. It's colloquialism (had to google that too, "Sprachgebrauch")
edit: but don't worry, ever since i moved to wales and saw some of those welsh words, i get the "no way that's an actual word" if you're not used to it. Like "ashtray" (the outdoor ones on top of litterboxes) are called Blwch Llwch. I'm here for like 6 years and still have no idea how you're supposed to say that - every time i try it sounds like i'm having a stroke.
On July 17 2018 10:43 Introvert wrote: It be nice to have some sort of evidence to justify having a special counsel, instead we get hopes, and guesses, going on for months and months now, that this is building towards something.
Mueller’s Politicized Indictment of Twelve Russian Intelligence Officers
If the idea was to give Vladimir Putin and his thug regime a new way to sabotage the United States, nice work.
So, is Russia now presumed innocent of hacking the 2016 election?
If not, it is difficult to understand any proper purpose served by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s indictment of twelve military officers in the Kremlin’s intelligence services for doing what everybody in America already knew that they did, and has known since before Donald Trump took office — indeed, since before the 2016 election.
Make no mistake: This is nakedly politicized law enforcement. There is absolutely no chance any of the Russian officials charged will ever see the inside of an American courtroom. The indictment is a strictly political document by which the special counsel seeks to justify the existence of his superfluous investigation.
Oh, and by the way, the answer to the question posed above is, “Yes, it is now the official position of the United States that Russia gets our Constitution’s benefit of the doubt.” Here is Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announcing the Friday the 13th indictment: “In our justice system, everyone who is charged with a crime is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.”
Of course, the indicted Russians are never going to be proven guilty — not in the courtroom sense Rosenstein was invoking.
As is so often the case in today’s politicized Justice Department, Rosenstein was trying to make a different political point. As he went on to note, if people whom we have formally charged are presumed innocent, then, a fortiori, people who have not been accused — implicitly, Rosenstein was talking about President Trump — must also be presumed innocent. But, see, you can’t make that point without stepping on the political purpose of Friday’s charade: We have taken the not only pointless but reckless step of indicting operatives of a hostile foreign power who cannot be prosecuted and whose schemes could easily have been exposed — and, in fact, have been exposed, multiple times — in public government reports; so now, due-process rules oblige us to caution you that we must presume the Russians did not do what we have formally accused them of doing. They are entitled to that presumption unless and until we convict them in court . . . which is never going to happen.
Rosenstein made another telling remark at his big press conference. The Justice Department, he explained, will now “transition responsibility for this case to our Department’s National Security Division while we await the apprehension of the defendants.”
Now, stop giggling over that last part — the bit where we hold our breath until Russian dictator Vladimir Putin extradites his spies into the FBI’s waiting arms. I’m talking about the first part: Mueller’s case, the definitive case about what Russia did to interfere in the 2016 election, is no longer Mueller’s case. It is being “transitioned” — i.e., buried — in the Justice Department unit that deals with counterintelligence matters that do not result in public trials.
This underscores what we have been arguing here since before Mueller was appointed: There was no need and no basis in federal regulations for a special counsel.
in the rest of the article McCarthy goes into more detail. So far there isn't any obvious reason why a SC needed to be appointed besides as a butt-covering maneuver.
Have you read the Maria Butina or the "12 Russians" indictments? Lots of unnamed U.S. persons referenced in those documents. Wait and see. I'm sure we'll be finding out who some of these persons are soon enough.
that's not McCarthy's point though. and it speaks badly of both Rosenstein and Mueller to be putting our what are essentially political documents.
EPT
