Who's Zooming Who?

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
73,155
62,461
So. Md.
This WSJ piece summarizes my concerns pretty well. Here's the legal section of the piece. I have covered the other parts pretty thoroughly in this thread.

The focus is not on Meuller but the assumptions and biases that led to his appointment.

Ian, please review if you have the time.

Mueller’s Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
I can't read that article but you have not proven that there is no justification for the investigation. I have offered plenty of suspicious activity of Trump and members of his campaign.
 

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
31,974
6,213
I can't read that article but you have not proven that there is no justification for the investigation. I have offered plenty of suspicious activity of Trump and members of his campaign.
The point of the article is that if the evidence is tainted by bias, the investigation can be legally challenged. At least at the level of a conviction the findings of an investigation can be thrown out, just as I was saying in a previous post about search and seizure laws applying here.

As I have been saying, it's not Mueller, it's the appointment of Mueller.

Mueller’s Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
It makes no difference how honorable he is. His investigation is tainted by the bias that attended its origin in 2016.
By
David B. Rivkin Jr. and
Elizabeth Price Foley
June 22, 2018 6:38 p.m. ET

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation may face a serious legal obstacle: It is tainted by antecedent political bias. The June 14 report from Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department’s inspector general, unearthed a pattern of anti-Trump bias by high-ranking officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation.


When the government deprives a person of life, liberty or property, it is required to use fundamentally fair processes. The Supreme Court has made clear that when governmental action “shocks the conscience,” it violates due process. Such conduct includes investigative or prosecutorial efforts that appear, under the totality of the circumstances, to be motivated by corruption, bias or entrapment.

In U.S. v. Russell (1973), the justices observed: “We may someday be presented with a situation in which the conduct of law enforcement agents is so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial processes to obtain a conviction.” It didn’t take long. In Blackledge v. Perry (1974), the court concluded that due process was offended by a prosecutor’s “realistic likelihood of ‘vindictiveness’ ” that tainted the “very initiation of proceedings.”

In Young v. U.S. ex rel. Vuitton (1987), the justices held that because prosecutors have “power to employ the full machinery of the state in scrutinizing any given individual . . . we must have assurance that those who would wield this power will be guided solely by their sense of public responsibility for the attainment of justice.” Prosecutors must be “disinterested” and make “dispassionate assessments,” free from any personal bias.
 

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
73,155
62,461
So. Md.
The point of the article is that if the evidence is tainted by bias, the investigation can be legally challenged. At least at the level of a conviction the findings of an investigation can be thrown out, just as I was saying in a previous post about search and seizure laws applying here.

As I have been saying, it's not Mueller, it's the appointment of Mueller.
Mueller would know if the evidence was tainted with bias based on evidence he and his own team have collected. It wouldn't match up and he'd act on that.
 

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
31,974
6,213
Mueller would know if the evidence was tainted with bias based on evidence he and his own team have collected. It wouldn't match up and he'd act on that.
Here's yesterday's NPR summary on what Mueller has been and is likely to do. Not much certainty, but a number of honest summaries.

Here's What May Happen When The Mueller Investigation Is Completed

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller in the spring of 2017 to establish whether there were any links or coordination between President Trump's campaign and the Russians who attacked the 2016 presidential election.
Investigators also appear to have established that Russians or their intermediaries were in contact with a number of Americans in Trump's orbit. Some of them offered help or to build backchannel relationships.
Why wouldn't Mueller issue a big report?
He may not view that as his job — he's a former FBI director and a prosecutor. Mueller wasn't asked to write a narrative about the events of 2016 in the way that the 9/11 Commission was, for example. Mueller has a law enforcement perspective:

He looks for whether there's evidence that a law was broken.
In an extreme scenario, Mueller could write that he has uncovered evidence of serious wrongdoing that includes Trump, setting the table for a debate over impeachment by the House Judiciary Committee, led by Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y. Mueller also could give the president an important shot in the arm if the special counsel's findings dissipate the Russia cloud that has been looming over the White House.
 
Jul 2013
51,112
54,259
Nashville, TN
The Trump administration has already proven to be the most corrupt in US History, with corruption scandals encompassing cabinet member after cabinet member, along with many members of his campaign committee and White House staff. The sooner he is relegated to a footnote in the history books, the better.

“This is the most corrupt administration in American history. By any measure. The president continues to operate a global company and received payments from people around the world. It is obviously influencing policy in all kinds of ways”
David Frum, Republican
 

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
73,155
62,461
So. Md.
Here's yesterday's NPR summary on what Mueller has been and is likely to do. Not much certainty, but a number of honest summaries.

Here's What May Happen When The Mueller Investigation Is Completed
As I stated in another thread, it seems to me that if Mueller's conclusions exonerate he would be more than thrilled to release the findings (and I'm certain Barr will tell him what Mueller reports). If Trump fights having it released to the public that will be telling, don't ya think?
 

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
31,974
6,213
As I stated in another thread, it seems to me that if Mueller's conclusions exonerate he would be more than thrilled to release the findings (and I'm certain Barr will tell him what Mueller reports). If Trump fights having it released to the public that will be telling, don't ya think?
A lot of reports, including the one I just linked, says there may not even be a report. Mueller's job is to indict people for crimes.
 

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
73,155
62,461
So. Md.
A lot of reports, including the one I just linked, says there may not even be a report. Mueller's job is to indict people for crimes.
If Mueller knows that the president committed crimes, he will make sure EVERYONE knows about it. He is a patriot.
 

Devil505

Former Staff
Jan 2008
68,387
27,403
Florida
If Mueller knows that the president committed crimes, he will make sure EVERYONE knows about it. He is a patriot.
I agree...even if Barr tries to prevent him......but Trump has had 2 years to lie about no collusion even though there's plenty of conspiracy evidence already out there.