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 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.
Isn’t every document produced by the government political by nature? Including criminal indictments?
Reminder to all USPMT posters that while we encourage political debates, we do not condone attacks on one another because of one's views. Keep the debates civil and tame.
I've been noticing some frequent attacks on xDaunt lately. If he's breaking the USPMT guidelines, then the mods will handle it.
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.
Isn’t every document produced by the government political by nature? Including criminal indictments?
I gather you didnt read the article. they filed an indictment they will will never amount to anything then said they are handing it off to the FBI, the organization supposedly incapable of conducting an impartial investigation.
this happened last time he indicted Russian government workers. it's a stunt. like when they indicted those Russian entities and didn't expect one to show up in court for real.
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.
Isn’t every document produced by the government political by nature? Including criminal indictments?
I gather you didnt read the article. they filed an indictment they will will never amount to anything then said they are handing it off to the FBI, the organization supposedly incapable of conducting an impartial investigation.
this happened last time he indicted Russian government workers. it's a stunt. like when they indicted those Russian entities and didn't expect one to show up in court for real.
I reject two assumptions McCarthy makes in the article. First, he says "There is no known evidence that Trump-campaign officials had any involvement in hacking by the Russian intelligence services.". We don't actually know that yet; Rosenstein and Mueller might have a better idea. And just because it's taken this long doesn't mean that they have nothing; that's a talking point.
Second he says what these political documents might create "is a new international order in which nation-states are encouraged to file criminal charges against each other’s officials for actions deemed to be provocative" That's just a load of nonsense - what should we do, sit on our hands and not even call them out for bad behavior?
Even working on the assumption that there was no collusion, which I'm willing to accept as an assumption, doesn't that still mean that what Trump just did in Helsinki was really stupid, instead of meaning that Putin has him by the balls?
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.
Isn’t every document produced by the government political by nature? Including criminal indictments?
I gather you didnt read the article. they filed an indictment they will will never amount to anything then said they are handing it off to the FBI, the organization supposedly incapable of conducting an impartial investigation.
this happened last time he indicted Russian government workers. it's a stunt. like when they indicted those Russian entities and didn't expect one to show up in court for real.
I completely disagree which is why I asked the question in an effort to analyze the term “political” as a vector to summarily dismiss some government action as a stunt. All activity by the government is inherently political. Furthermore, calling the indightment a stunt implies there is no merit to the charges or publicly setting out the charges against the Russian agents.
I would say the author has a poor understanding of criminal law, or is just making an argument in bad faith. The charges brought last week are the foundation to further charges in the investigation and lays out the case against the Russian actors and hackers. Once this is present, the FBI and attornies for the SC can then charge the accomplices, aka, American citizens with aid these Russian agents in their efforts along side the Russia agents. Without these charges against the Russians, there is no foundation to any further indictments.
The article makes a good effort, but to often conservative publications try to dismiss things as “political”, as if there are some pure, non political actions that the government takes. This type of reasoning lack substance.
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.
Isn’t every document produced by the government political by nature? Including criminal indictments?
I gather you didnt read the article. they filed an indictment they will will never amount to anything then said they are handing it off to the FBI, the organization supposedly incapable of conducting an impartial investigation.
this happened last time he indicted Russian government workers. it's a stunt. like when they indicted those Russian entities and didn't expect one to show up in court for real.
I reject two assumptions McCarthy makes in the article. First, he says "There is no known evidence that Trump-campaign officials had any involvement in hacking by the Russian intelligence services.". We don't actually know that yet; Rosenstein and Mueller might have a better idea. And just because it's taken this long doesn't mean that they have nothing; that's a talking point.
Second he says what these political documents might create "is a new international order in which nation-states are encouraged to file criminal charges against each other’s officials for actions deemed to be provocative" That's just a load of nonsense - what should we do, sit on our hands and not even call them out for bad behavior?
Even working on the assumption that there was no collusion, which I'm willing to accept as an assumption, doesn't that still mean that what Trump just did in Helsinki was really stupid, instead of meaning that Putin has him by the balls?
The first statement you have issue with is objectively true "There is no known evidence that Trump-campaign officials had any involvement in hacking by the Russian intelligence services."
As to your second point, and this applies to Plansix as well, why think this is all we can do. This is a foreign policy issue with a foreign power. What does Mueller do? Bring indictments in American courts that will go nowhere. What Mueller did is nothing.
This has been an issue for the past few weeks espeically. Somehow everyone goes way off track, immediately jumping to what they want to talk about and attacking what they perceive to be some point someone else somewhere else is making.
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.
Isn’t every document produced by the government political by nature? Including criminal indictments?
I gather you didnt read the article. they filed an indictment they will will never amount to anything then said they are handing it off to the FBI, the organization supposedly incapable of conducting an impartial investigation.
this happened last time he indicted Russian government workers. it's a stunt. like when they indicted those Russian entities and didn't expect one to show up in court for real.
I completely disagree which is why I asked the question in an effort to analyze the term “political” as a vector to summarily dismiss some government action as a stunt. All activity by the government is inherently political. Furthermore, calling the indightment a stunt implies there is no merit to the charges or publicly setting out the charges against the Russian agents.
I would say the author has a poor understanding of criminal law, or is just making an argument in bad faith. The charges brought last week are the foundation to further charges in the investigation and lays out the case against the Russian actors and hackers. Once this is present, the FBI and attornies for the SC can then charge the accomplices, aka, American citizens with aid these Russian agents in their efforts along side the Russia agents. Without these charges against the Russians, there is no foundation to any further indictments.
The article makes a good effort, but to often conservative publications try to dismiss things as “political”, as if there are some pure, non political actions that the government takes. This type of reasoning lack substance.
The author is a former federal prosecutor of 19 years, much of it spent in SDNY. As such he worked on terrorism cases, which are also counter intelligence operations.
You both are missing that this is a counter intelligence issue. They could gather facts in secret, present reports, etc. Instead, they file indictments they know will amount to nothing.
In fact
The charges brought last week are the foundation to further charges in the investigation and lays out the case against the Russian actors and hackers.
is an admission of the political nature of these charges. They are never going to actually make it in front of a court, to be used. it's not for the law, it's for the public. It's to continue justifying his own work when apparently the Justice Department doesn't think it actually needs an outside, impartial actor. Or else they could handle it.
On July 17 2018 08:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: CEOs vs Workers Town Hall with Bernie Sanders.
kind of ironic that the most popular US Senator in the country is still inching more and more toward policy goals that neither party can even think of supporting publicly even though it is now in the majority of being supported. Meanwhile he is using social media to his advantage while the Dems can't even get their twitter figured out.
His Facebook has been quite enjoyable, albeit there have been a few reruns.
Bernie's Facebook is basically just: Jeff Bezos is a fucking dick, right guys? Can you believe he has BILLIONS of dollars????????????????
Even if that was literally all that was on his facebook page it would be better than anything Democrats have to offer.
This is an odd situation. It seems that Trump has been truthful/honest for the first time in his presidency and he's getting completely panned for it. We all know that he trusts Putin over his own intelligence agencies, and who can blame him really considering his own intelligence agencies have acted against him from day one whereas Putin/his affiliates have clearly given Trump or those around him *something*? I don't get the bit where there's new information here. Trump is telling us what we already know and its only a massive bombshell for idiots. Otherwise its just a press conference that embarrasses the USA, not unlike any press conference involving Trump as the President.
On July 17 2018 17:01 Jockmcplop wrote: This is an odd situation. It seems that Trump has been truthful/honest for the first time in his presidency and he's getting completely panned for it. We all know that he trusts Putin over his own intelligence agencies, and who can blame him really considering his own intelligence agencies have acted against him from day one whereas Putin/his affiliates have clearly given Trump or those around him *something*? I don't get the bit where there's new information here. Trump is telling us what we already know and its only a massive bombshell for idiots. Otherwise its just a press conference that embarrasses the USA, not unlike any press conference involving Trump as the President.
To many there is a difference in knowing what someone is doing and that person actually coming out and saying it.
Also I think its important to realize why his own intelligence agencies have acted against him since day one. Since day one Trump has surrounded himself with 'people of interest' to the intelligence agencies. When you surround yourself with people who have been or are currently being investigated then its only natural for you yourself to be caught in those investigations to determine if there is a connection. And don't forget the intelligence agencies from US's allies that were warning the US about what they themselves were seeing. This isn't all a figment of US intelligence spawned purely by their dislike for Trump.
You don't get to complain that the cops are after you when you keep hanging out with criminals.
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.
Isn’t every document produced by the government political by nature? Including criminal indictments?
I gather you didnt read the article. they filed an indictment they will will never amount to anything then said they are handing it off to the FBI, the organization supposedly incapable of conducting an impartial investigation.
this happened last time he indicted Russian government workers. it's a stunt. like when they indicted those Russian entities and didn't expect one to show up in court for real.
I reject two assumptions McCarthy makes in the article. First, he says "There is no known evidence that Trump-campaign officials had any involvement in hacking by the Russian intelligence services.". We don't actually know that yet; Rosenstein and Mueller might have a better idea. And just because it's taken this long doesn't mean that they have nothing; that's a talking point.
Second he says what these political documents might create "is a new international order in which nation-states are encouraged to file criminal charges against each other’s officials for actions deemed to be provocative" That's just a load of nonsense - what should we do, sit on our hands and not even call them out for bad behavior?
Even working on the assumption that there was no collusion, which I'm willing to accept as an assumption, doesn't that still mean that what Trump just did in Helsinki was really stupid, instead of meaning that Putin has him by the balls?
The first statement you have issue with is objectively true "There is no known evidence that Trump-campaign officials had any involvement in hacking by the Russian intelligence services."
As to your second point, and this applies to Plansix as well, why think this is all we can do. This is a foreign policy issue with a foreign power. What does Mueller do? Bring indictments in American courts that will go nowhere. What Mueller did is nothing.
This has been an issue for the past few weeks espeically. Somehow everyone goes way off track, immediately jumping to what they want to talk about and attacking what they perceive to be some point someone else somewhere else is making.
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.
Isn’t every document produced by the government political by nature? Including criminal indictments?
I gather you didnt read the article. they filed an indictment they will will never amount to anything then said they are handing it off to the FBI, the organization supposedly incapable of conducting an impartial investigation.
this happened last time he indicted Russian government workers. it's a stunt. like when they indicted those Russian entities and didn't expect one to show up in court for real.
I completely disagree which is why I asked the question in an effort to analyze the term “political” as a vector to summarily dismiss some government action as a stunt. All activity by the government is inherently political. Furthermore, calling the indightment a stunt implies there is no merit to the charges or publicly setting out the charges against the Russian agents.
I would say the author has a poor understanding of criminal law, or is just making an argument in bad faith. The charges brought last week are the foundation to further charges in the investigation and lays out the case against the Russian actors and hackers. Once this is present, the FBI and attornies for the SC can then charge the accomplices, aka, American citizens with aid these Russian agents in their efforts along side the Russia agents. Without these charges against the Russians, there is no foundation to any further indictments.
The article makes a good effort, but to often conservative publications try to dismiss things as “political”, as if there are some pure, non political actions that the government takes. This type of reasoning lack substance.
The author is a former federal prosecutor of 19 years, much of it spent in SDNY. As such he worked on terrorism cases, which are also counter intelligence operations.
You both are missing that this is a counter intelligence issue. They could gather facts in secret, present reports, etc. Instead, they file indictments they know will amount to nothing.
The charges brought last week are the foundation to further charges in the investigation and lays out the case against the Russian actors and hackers.
is an admission of the political nature of these charges. They are never going to actually make it in front of a court, to be used. it's not for the law, it's for the public. It's to continue justifying his own work when apparently the Justice Department doesn't think it actually needs an outside, impartial actor. Or else they could handle it.
Wasn't the special counsel put in place because pretty much everyone thought the situation looked dodgy as fuck and they wanted to actually clear it up?
Mueller's team has been under immense pressure from the white house since day one and even greater pressure from the Conservative press, so I can see them making this move for the public while working on more relevant charges in the background.
I don't get why this is so egregiously different than any other case. The BENGHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZI investigations lasted about 38 million years, and there's at least as much reason to investigate Trump as there was to investigate Clinton. If Mueller finds nothing on Trump after years, then that's the greatest vindication possible, right?
Isn't that the literal point of an investigation like this? To find out if the party involved is innocent? Sure, some people won't ever let it go, but it'll be dead as a political issue once the investigation is over.
I'd have thought Republicans would be fine with that. You know as well as I do Trump will almost certainly be vindicated at the end. But some of the trash surrounding him will be cleaned up in the process. How is that a bad thing?
The argument I keep hearing on here goes like this: "I don't care if the President is surrounded by actual criminals, unless the President is indicted this is a complete waste of time!"
If I'm remembering correctly, the last time Andrew McCarthy's writing came up it was with the Nunez memos. And this article's basically the same as those. Whatever his past profession as a lawyer was, all he's really offering is optic opinions. And optics are not law.
On July 17 2018 11:06 m4ini wrote: 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?
this! so true. but this has everything with the mistrust towards intellectuals in the USA
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.
Isn’t every document produced by the government political by nature? Including criminal indictments?
I gather you didnt read the article. they filed an indictment they will will never amount to anything then said they are handing it off to the FBI, the organization supposedly incapable of conducting an impartial investigation.
this happened last time he indicted Russian government workers. it's a stunt. like when they indicted those Russian entities and didn't expect one to show up in court for real.
I reject two assumptions McCarthy makes in the article. First, he says "There is no known evidence that Trump-campaign officials had any involvement in hacking by the Russian intelligence services.". We don't actually know that yet; Rosenstein and Mueller might have a better idea. And just because it's taken this long doesn't mean that they have nothing; that's a talking point.
Second he says what these political documents might create "is a new international order in which nation-states are encouraged to file criminal charges against each other’s officials for actions deemed to be provocative" That's just a load of nonsense - what should we do, sit on our hands and not even call them out for bad behavior?
Even working on the assumption that there was no collusion, which I'm willing to accept as an assumption, doesn't that still mean that what Trump just did in Helsinki was really stupid, instead of meaning that Putin has him by the balls?
The first statement you have issue with is objectively true "There is no known evidence that Trump-campaign officials had any involvement in hacking by the Russian intelligence services."
As to your second point, and this applies to Plansix as well, why think this is all we can do. This is a foreign policy issue with a foreign power. What does Mueller do? Bring indictments in American courts that will go nowhere. What Mueller did is nothing.
This has been an issue for the past few weeks espeically. Somehow everyone goes way off track, immediately jumping to what they want to talk about and attacking what they perceive to be some point someone else somewhere else is making.
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.
Isn’t every document produced by the government political by nature? Including criminal indictments?
I gather you didnt read the article. they filed an indictment they will will never amount to anything then said they are handing it off to the FBI, the organization supposedly incapable of conducting an impartial investigation.
this happened last time he indicted Russian government workers. it's a stunt. like when they indicted those Russian entities and didn't expect one to show up in court for real.
I completely disagree which is why I asked the question in an effort to analyze the term “political” as a vector to summarily dismiss some government action as a stunt. All activity by the government is inherently political. Furthermore, calling the indightment a stunt implies there is no merit to the charges or publicly setting out the charges against the Russian agents.
I would say the author has a poor understanding of criminal law, or is just making an argument in bad faith. The charges brought last week are the foundation to further charges in the investigation and lays out the case against the Russian actors and hackers. Once this is present, the FBI and attornies for the SC can then charge the accomplices, aka, American citizens with aid these Russian agents in their efforts along side the Russia agents. Without these charges against the Russians, there is no foundation to any further indictments.
The article makes a good effort, but to often conservative publications try to dismiss things as “political”, as if there are some pure, non political actions that the government takes. This type of reasoning lack substance.
The author is a former federal prosecutor of 19 years, much of it spent in SDNY. As such he worked on terrorism cases, which are also counter intelligence operations.
You both are missing that this is a counter intelligence issue. They could gather facts in secret, present reports, etc. Instead, they file indictments they know will amount to nothing.
The charges brought last week are the foundation to further charges in the investigation and lays out the case against the Russian actors and hackers.
is an admission of the political nature of these charges. They are never going to actually make it in front of a court, to be used. it's not for the law, it's for the public. It's to continue justifying his own work when apparently the Justice Department doesn't think it actually needs an outside, impartial actor. Or else they could handle it.
If the author was a federal prosecutor, I can’t understand why he wrote this peice. I’ve heard numerous former Justice department members and prosecutors talk about how this is standard for any large scale investigation. Start at the outside and work there way inwards. This author seems more interested in towing the conservative line and attacking the current justice department.
Being a federal prosecutor is not the litmus test for reliable perspective being presented; depending on the district, a US attorney's office can be full to the brim with political bent and myopia. The dude currently at the head of EDMI is literally a Republican political operative who got the position because he took out the trash for the outgoing state AG running for governor. I mean, Chris Christie was a US Attorney after all lol.
On July 17 2018 19:20 farvacola wrote: Being a federal prosecutor is not the litmus test for reliable perspective being presented; depending on the district, a US attorney's office can be full to the brim with political bent and myopia. The dude currently at the head of EDMI is literally a Republican political operative who got the position because he took out the trash for the outgoing state AG running for governor. I mean, Chris Christie was a US Attorney after all lol.
Isn't that kind of the heart of our legal system though? It's not about what is or isn't legal or what did or did not happen, it's about who can present the most convincing argument in favor of their interpretation.
On July 17 2018 19:27 Plansix wrote: Appealing to authority is a good way to bolster a shit opinion, I guess.
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.
Isn’t every document produced by the government political by nature? Including criminal indictments?
I gather you didnt read the article. they filed an indictment they will will never amount to anything then said they are handing it off to the FBI, the organization supposedly incapable of conducting an impartial investigation.
this happened last time he indicted Russian government workers. it's a stunt. like when they indicted those Russian entities and didn't expect one to show up in court for real.
I reject two assumptions McCarthy makes in the article. First, he says "There is no known evidence that Trump-campaign officials had any involvement in hacking by the Russian intelligence services.". We don't actually know that yet; Rosenstein and Mueller might have a better idea. And just because it's taken this long doesn't mean that they have nothing; that's a talking point.
Second he says what these political documents might create "is a new international order in which nation-states are encouraged to file criminal charges against each other’s officials for actions deemed to be provocative" That's just a load of nonsense - what should we do, sit on our hands and not even call them out for bad behavior?
Even working on the assumption that there was no collusion, which I'm willing to accept as an assumption, doesn't that still mean that what Trump just did in Helsinki was really stupid, instead of meaning that Putin has him by the balls?
The first statement you have issue with is objectively true "There is no known evidence that Trump-campaign officials had any involvement in hacking by the Russian intelligence services."
As to your second point, and this applies to Plansix as well, why think this is all we can do. This is a foreign policy issue with a foreign power. What does Mueller do? Bring indictments in American courts that will go nowhere. What Mueller did is nothing.
This has been an issue for the past few weeks espeically. Somehow everyone goes way off track, immediately jumping to what they want to talk about and attacking what they perceive to be some point someone else somewhere else is making.
On July 17 2018 11:45 Plansix wrote:
On July 17 2018 11:29 Introvert wrote:
On July 17 2018 11:21 Plansix wrote:
On July 17 2018 11:16 Introvert wrote:
On July 17 2018 10:51 TheFish7 wrote:
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.
Isn’t every document produced by the government political by nature? Including criminal indictments?
I gather you didnt read the article. they filed an indictment they will will never amount to anything then said they are handing it off to the FBI, the organization supposedly incapable of conducting an impartial investigation.
this happened last time he indicted Russian government workers. it's a stunt. like when they indicted those Russian entities and didn't expect one to show up in court for real.
I completely disagree which is why I asked the question in an effort to analyze the term “political” as a vector to summarily dismiss some government action as a stunt. All activity by the government is inherently political. Furthermore, calling the indightment a stunt implies there is no merit to the charges or publicly setting out the charges against the Russian agents.
I would say the author has a poor understanding of criminal law, or is just making an argument in bad faith. The charges brought last week are the foundation to further charges in the investigation and lays out the case against the Russian actors and hackers. Once this is present, the FBI and attornies for the SC can then charge the accomplices, aka, American citizens with aid these Russian agents in their efforts along side the Russia agents. Without these charges against the Russians, there is no foundation to any further indictments.
The article makes a good effort, but to often conservative publications try to dismiss things as “political”, as if there are some pure, non political actions that the government takes. This type of reasoning lack substance.
The author is a former federal prosecutor of 19 years, much of it spent in SDNY. As such he worked on terrorism cases, which are also counter intelligence operations.
You both are missing that this is a counter intelligence issue. They could gather facts in secret, present reports, etc. Instead, they file indictments they know will amount to nothing.
In fact
The charges brought last week are the foundation to further charges in the investigation and lays out the case against the Russian actors and hackers.
is an admission of the political nature of these charges. They are never going to actually make it in front of a court, to be used. it's not for the law, it's for the public. It's to continue justifying his own work when apparently the Justice Department doesn't think it actually needs an outside, impartial actor. Or else they could handle it.
I’ve heard numerous former Justice department members and prosecutors talk about how this is standard for any large scale investigation. Start at the outside and work there way inwards...
On July 17 2018 19:20 farvacola wrote: Being a federal prosecutor is not the litmus test for reliable perspective being presented; depending on the district, a US attorney's office can be full to the brim with political bent and myopia. The dude currently at the head of EDMI is literally a Republican political operative who got the position because he took out the trash for the outgoing state AG running for governor. I mean, Chris Christie was a US Attorney after all lol.
Isn't that kind of the heart of our legal system though? It's not about what is or isn't legal or what did or did not happen, it's about who can present the most convincing argument in favor of their interpretation.
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.
Isn’t every document produced by the government political by nature? Including criminal indictments?
I gather you didnt read the article. they filed an indictment they will will never amount to anything then said they are handing it off to the FBI, the organization supposedly incapable of conducting an impartial investigation.
this happened last time he indicted Russian government workers. it's a stunt. like when they indicted those Russian entities and didn't expect one to show up in court for real.
I reject two assumptions McCarthy makes in the article. First, he says "There is no known evidence that Trump-campaign officials had any involvement in hacking by the Russian intelligence services.". We don't actually know that yet; Rosenstein and Mueller might have a better idea. And just because it's taken this long doesn't mean that they have nothing; that's a talking point.
Second he says what these political documents might create "is a new international order in which nation-states are encouraged to file criminal charges against each other’s officials for actions deemed to be provocative" That's just a load of nonsense - what should we do, sit on our hands and not even call them out for bad behavior?
Even working on the assumption that there was no collusion, which I'm willing to accept as an assumption, doesn't that still mean that what Trump just did in Helsinki was really stupid, instead of meaning that Putin has him by the balls?
The first statement you have issue with is objectively true "There is no known evidence that Trump-campaign officials had any involvement in hacking by the Russian intelligence services."
As to your second point, and this applies to Plansix as well, why think this is all we can do. This is a foreign policy issue with a foreign power. What does Mueller do? Bring indictments in American courts that will go nowhere. What Mueller did is nothing.
This has been an issue for the past few weeks espeically. Somehow everyone goes way off track, immediately jumping to what they want to talk about and attacking what they perceive to be some point someone else somewhere else is making.
On July 17 2018 11:45 Plansix wrote:
On July 17 2018 11:29 Introvert wrote:
On July 17 2018 11:21 Plansix wrote:
On July 17 2018 11:16 Introvert wrote:
On July 17 2018 10:51 TheFish7 wrote:
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.
Isn’t every document produced by the government political by nature? Including criminal indictments?
I gather you didnt read the article. they filed an indictment they will will never amount to anything then said they are handing it off to the FBI, the organization supposedly incapable of conducting an impartial investigation.
this happened last time he indicted Russian government workers. it's a stunt. like when they indicted those Russian entities and didn't expect one to show up in court for real.
I completely disagree which is why I asked the question in an effort to analyze the term “political” as a vector to summarily dismiss some government action as a stunt. All activity by the government is inherently political. Furthermore, calling the indightment a stunt implies there is no merit to the charges or publicly setting out the charges against the Russian agents.
I would say the author has a poor understanding of criminal law, or is just making an argument in bad faith. The charges brought last week are the foundation to further charges in the investigation and lays out the case against the Russian actors and hackers. Once this is present, the FBI and attornies for the SC can then charge the accomplices, aka, American citizens with aid these Russian agents in their efforts along side the Russia agents. Without these charges against the Russians, there is no foundation to any further indictments.
The article makes a good effort, but to often conservative publications try to dismiss things as “political”, as if there are some pure, non political actions that the government takes. This type of reasoning lack substance.
The author is a former federal prosecutor of 19 years, much of it spent in SDNY. As such he worked on terrorism cases, which are also counter intelligence operations.
You both are missing that this is a counter intelligence issue. They could gather facts in secret, present reports, etc. Instead, they file indictments they know will amount to nothing.
In fact
The charges brought last week are the foundation to further charges in the investigation and lays out the case against the Russian actors and hackers.
is an admission of the political nature of these charges. They are never going to actually make it in front of a court, to be used. it's not for the law, it's for the public. It's to continue justifying his own work when apparently the Justice Department doesn't think it actually needs an outside, impartial actor. Or else they could handle it.
I’ve heard numerous former Justice department members and prosecutors talk about how this is standard for any large scale investigation. Start at the outside and work there way inwards...
Go on...
I choose to counter the appeal to authority by doing the same. I could have just called McCarthy an idiot partisan shill, but I decided to go the other route and say the indictments where standard for a case of this type.
Apparently even Fox News wasn't effusive about the Helsinki conference?
Anyone got a feel for how the ground-level Republicans are taking it? I assume the base are mostly a-ok and assume the Pres has a plan, but what about the less core Republicans?
On July 17 2018 17:42 WolfintheSheep wrote: If I'm remembering correctly, the last time Andrew McCarthy's writing came up it was with the Nunez memos. And this article's basically the same as those. Whatever his past profession as a lawyer was, all he's really offering is optic opinions. And optics are not law.
that's my memory as well; his articles get brought up periodically; and are thoroughly debunked/countered each time.
EPT
