MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 1 year 4 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 3 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 3 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 4 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 4 months ago
Hits of the Day
President Not A Criminal Target
By barefooted on Tue, 04/03/2018 - 8:45pm |In private negotiations in early March about a possible presidential interview, Mueller described Trump as a subject of his investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. Prosecutors view someone as a subject when that person has engaged in conduct that is under investigation but there is not sufficient evidence to bring charges.
Carrot dangled ... stick comes later.
URL:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mueller-told-trumps-attorneys-the-president-remains-under-investigation-but-is-not-currently-a-criminal-target/2018/04/03/d7832cf0-36c1-11e8-acd5-35eac230e514_story.html?utm_term=.77cf998a5433
- Add new comment
- 6851 reads
Comments
meanwhile the Brit guy who plead guilty to lying to the Mueller probe was just sentenced:
Lawyer Goes to Jail in First Sentence of Mueller Investigation
By Mairead McArdle @ NationalReview.com, April 3
by artappraiser on Tue, 04/03/2018 - 11:55pm
This is a twitter thread about the article by a former FBI agent, now a lawyer & an analyst for CNN,click on the date to get the whole thread:
by artappraiser on Wed, 04/04/2018 - 12:00am
Maybe he doesn't, but the Manafort filing to dismiss gave Mueller exacltlytly the chance to go public with his defense/methods and why he's working strictly within his authority. And Marcy notes elsewhere there will be other memos (along with intriguing mentions of Open Source reporting - Mueller's reading Twitter feeds?) and Deripaska (hundreds of millions in slush funds rolling around for Russian dirty deeds and influence peddling - stuff Manafort and Gates and Stone did well). Things just upped a gear - no wonder Republicans are trying to replace Ryan before he's caught in taking Russian money - wouldn't want that going into midterms, would ya?
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 04/04/2018 - 1:52am
Greg Sargent @ his WaPo morning report bascially agrees and explains more clearly:
Mueller is planning a report on Trump. Here’s what happens next.
by artappraiser on Wed, 04/04/2018 - 2:14pm
Jonathan Turley writes at The Hill that he thinks the liberal media/talking heads show delusion in not taking this news at face value. It's the #1 most popular article over there right now.
by artappraiser on Wed, 04/04/2018 - 1:32pm
So, Trump is not a "target" but everyone he knows "is."
It looks like "Farley" is closer to the mark than "Turley."
by moat on Wed, 04/04/2018 - 2:35pm
I don't see much purpose in getting into this legalistic debate over exactly what is the difference between designating someone as a "target" rather than a "subject." Here's one from the other side of this argument. Mueller’s assurances that Trump is not a ‘target’ don’t mean much
by ocean-kat on Wed, 04/04/2018 - 3:06pm
Not having read it, I assume simply if Trump thinks Mueller close, he'll fire Mueller so Mueller will wait for the opportune monent to play any cards. Tuff, isn't it?
Okay, Marcy thinks a) Mueller can't make Trump a defendent, q.e.d. not a "target", b) Mueller giving GOP option 1) impeach now w less brutal stuff or 2) leave it to the Dems after the midterms to create a bloodbath. Republicans will naturally try to have it both ways. https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/04/04/mueller-tells-guy-who-legally-cant...by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 04/04/2018 - 3:17pm
I think it matters if you are hoping to see him removed from office before his term is up. Which Turley presumes a lot of pundits on the left are hoping, and thinks is the reason why they cover and cling on every new tidbit. And he's saying, but wait, big picture, what does it mean? To be clear, I am not sure I agree with his point, only explaining how I see his point.
by artappraiser on Wed, 04/04/2018 - 3:19pm
Okay. Let's take it at face value.
The investigation is steadily entangling people who swore a year ago that the charges regarding involvement with Russians were trumped up attempts to disqualify the election. The "tidbit" nature of the disclosures may frustrate those who hope to do just that but they are not the one's who introduced the idea. Trump himself declared before the election that the thing was rigged and said "we will see" when challenged if he would accept being the loser.
So the iceberg frigging flipped over in the water and the breakfast of Champions won after all. Now all the talk about the validity of the results only belongs to the losers. Huh?
Now the matter is complicated by the fact the investigation actually started well before the election. So the winners who could have been losers are doubling down on the whole election meddling meme as they look around the battlefield for a horse to get out of the mess they themselves created.
In the end, whatever is proven or not, the scene needs to be viewed through the fluttering chads of marginal selection. Whoever moves toward more clarity in that regard is my friend, even if it requires accepting bitter truths. Whoever moves away into obscurity is my enemy and should be struck down.
/rant
by moat on Wed, 04/04/2018 - 4:26pm
Pardon me for getting so vehement in the previous comment. Let me try to say it again without the gasoline and bulging eyeballs:
Mueller's target, as expressed in his mandate, has always been the campaign operation. It is Trump and his sycophants who keep saying it is about Trump per se. I read Mueller's statement regarding Trump as a "subject" as pointing to Trump's own acts of ventriloquism regarding the investigation and not as a development within it.
by moat on Thu, 04/05/2018 - 7:40am
by Peter (not verified) on Thu, 04/05/2018 - 1:28pm
I see your lips moving, but I can't understand a thing you're saying...
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 04/05/2018 - 1:59pm
GQ had the Peter type rhetoricals pegged back in early 2017 and basically concluded The only way to fight back against an insult that doesn’t mean anything is to reclaim it, to diminish its power by making that identity a point of pride. This is the life cycle of all identity insults, and “snowflake” is already reaching the end of that cycle.I conclude from that: he might be nostalgic for the good old days, retro revival, that's why he hangs around here, keeps on trying, hoping to trigger one of the members.
by artappraiser on Thu, 04/05/2018 - 9:40pm
Winter is coming
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 04/06/2018 - 8:54am
“snowflake party continuum”
Can you define this entity?
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 04/05/2018 - 2:11pm
Ah yes, that is exactly the sort of ventriloquism I was referring to. What an excellent parody you provide.
Start by ignoring that evidence in Mueller's investigation is "produced" only as needed for the purposes of each indictment and then argue that the deliberate pace of the procedure is proof that there is no evidence.
Then, because the evidence that has been revealed shows more and more lies were told by more and more people, stop using the lack of evidence argument and switch to the idea that all the events that lead to the investigation are completely fictional.
No, even better than fictional. More like Alice Through the Looking Glass, where the Other room has many of the same objects found in Alice's room but their appearance has been reversed.
by moat on Thu, 04/05/2018 - 4:19pm
by Peter (not verified) on Thu, 04/05/2018 - 4:47pm
It doesn't look like you are ever going to get how evidence is produced. Oh well, I gave it my best shot.
You say "Trump/Putin" but the scope of the investigation is about Russia as a State and its connections and interchanges with the Trump campaign. The ventriloquism you employ there is the same as the one you use when you are the one who calls the investigation a witch hunt and then ask where the witch is. Somehow, you need to find a place where you can hear yourself talk.
A Straw Man argument presumes that other people's positions are something other than what they claim them to be but nonetheless proceeds as if they did claim them. That is all you have ever done on this matter. How do expect to make persuasive arguments when it is you yourself who chops yourself off at the knees with logical fallacies?
by moat on Thu, 04/05/2018 - 5:25pm
You're right that if there was no crime to cover up it was incredibly stupid to lie to the FBI. But they did plead guilty to lying to the FBI. I can see only two reasons for that. Either the case against them for lying was so strong they had no chance in court or they were guilty of other crimes and the evidence was so strong they would lose in court. So they decided to plead guilty to the lesser crime of lying to the FBI. Again it is stupid to lie if there was no crime to cover up and stupid to plead guilty to lying if they didn't commit some greater crime they want to plead out of. It's only speculative but highly likely there are some greater crimes that implicate higher level people that Flynn and others have traded information on to get to only a guilty plea for lying to the FBI.
There is a federal mandate that prosecutors not leak to the press but that's so rarely the case we've come to expect leaks. The Trump WH leaks like a sieve, especially Kelly Ann Conway and Bannon. Ken Starr's investigation leaked constantly. There have been no leaks from Mueller's investigation. Because Mueller is a man of integrity and does not leak you assume that the guilty pleas for lying are all he's got. But that's just speculation. Others assume that the guilty pleas are the tip of the iceberg and there was collusion or else why would they lie or plead guilty to lying. That's just speculation too. Sme speculation seems more reasonable than others but the bottom line is, Mueller doesn't leak!
by ocean-kat on Thu, 04/05/2018 - 6:15pm
by Peter (not verified) on Fri, 04/06/2018 - 9:34am
The other side of that observation is that none of what you think matters either.
You confirm ocean-kat's statement regarding speculation.
by moat on Fri, 04/06/2018 - 11:35am