Below is my column in the Hill on the upcoming (and long-delayed) appearance of Robert Mueller, former Special Counsel, before Congress. It will be interesting to watch if Democratic members protect Mueller from having to address some of the glaring contradictions and problems in his report. However, in case there is a modicum of interest in delving into such areas by either party, here are 20 questions that I would ask Robert Mueller.
Here is the column:
The “American Sphinx” will be called to Congress on July 17 to provide answers to our most intriguing questions. Special counsel Robert Muellerspoke only briefly about his Trump-Russia report on May 29 and made clear that he was appointed to ask, not to answer, questions. He said “the report is my testimony” and added: “I hope and expect this will be the only time I speak to you in this manner.”
Sphinxes, of course, are not accustomed to answering questions. And speaking to a sphinx is a precarious practice since, according to mythology, you would be devoured if you got her answers wrong. Of course, Mueller may be aware that, when a sphinx is outsmarted, it is the end of the sphinx. In mythology, the Sphinx threw herself from a great height.
When Mueller ascends Capitol Hill, the question is whether he will take a pass or a header from that great height. If he sticks with his earlier position, he will do little but repeat findings from the report. If, however, Congress truly wants to question this sphinx, here are 20 questions to ask. Most concern the process or the law that should not be subject to any privilege or confidentiality claims as a basis for refusing to answer.
1. When exactly did you determine that no collusion occurred between Donald Trump or his team and the Russian government or other Russian interests either before or immediately after the 2016 presidential election?
2. You met with President Trump after he fired FBI director James Comey. He has said the meeting was an interview for your possible appointment as Comey’s successor. Presumably, Comey’s firing and its basis were discussed. Did Trump explain his reasons to you?
3. Given that you were one of the first outside individuals to meet with Trump on Comey’s firing, didn’t that create a conflict for you as a fact witness in any later investigation? Did you seek an ethics opinion on that alleged conflict?
4. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein also was involved in the decision-making on Comey’s firing, including his memorandum detailing Comey’s violations. Did you seek to interview Rosenstein and, as a result, did you raise the obvious conflict of interest in Rosenstein overseeing the investigation?
5. You met with Rosenstein and Attorney General William Barr weeks before your report’s release. Both reportedly told you to identify all grand jury material to allow for the report’s expedited release. Why didn’t you do so?
6. Do you agree that neither you nor the attorney general can release grand jury or “Rule 6(e)” material to the public or to Congress?
7. You have said you do not question that Barr and his staff acted in good faith in the redactions made to the report. Did your staff participate and agree with the 8 percent redactions made to the public report?
8. After the report’s release, you wrote to Barr, asking for the public release of long summary sections. However, these sections had not been cleared for release by career Justice staff who were redacting grand jury and confidential material. Could Barr simply release such sections without such a review? Didn’t some of those sections ultimately include redacted material and, thus, would have been improperly released?
9. Your report references the policy of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) against the indictment of a sitting president. However, the underlying OLC memos do not say anything about finding criminal conduct in a special counsel report, correct?
10. Isn’t it true that Barr and Rosenstein, your supervisors, encouraged you to reach a conclusion on both crimes related to obstruction or collusion?
11. If you were concerned about your interpretation of the OLC memos, why didn’t you follow the standard approach of requesting an opinion from the OLC during the two years of your investigation?
12. Likewise, if there was disagreement on the scope of the obstruction provisions, why didn’t you request an OLC opinion on that issue?
13. Do you believe Barr and Rosenstein violated DOJ policy in reaching a conclusion on obstruction and, if not, why didn’t you follow their requests and reach such a conclusion yourself?
14. You found no evidence that would support a criminal charge related to collusion or conspiracy with the Russians by Trump. Isn’t it true that you found no such evidence by any Trump campaign official or family member to justify an indictment or criminal referral?
15. Your report spends 14 pages discussing the Trump Tower meeting on June 9, 2016. You did not find that the mere meeting with Russians to hear promised evidence of criminal conduct by Hillary Clinton constituted a crime, correct? And you were not limited in any way from indicting Donald Trump Jr. or the other participants in that meeting, correct?
16. In your report, you quote a voicemail message from November 2017 from Trump’s attorney, John Dowd, to counsel for former national security adviser Michael Flynn, saying that “we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of protecting all our interests if we can … .” However, you deleted the rest of the line where Dowd says “without you having to give up any … confidential information.” That obviously is material to what he was asking and left a more sinister impression of the call. Why did you cut out the exculpatory language?
17. Attorney General Barr has said that, while you may have an alternative view of the scope of obstruction, you found evidence of various non-criminal motivations and not clear “corrupt intent.” Is that correct?
18. You describe the testimony of former White House Counsel Don McGahn that he believed Trump ordered him to fire you. However, you do not quote what McGahn precisely said were Trump’s words. Did he testify that Trump directly told him to fire you, or did he say Trump wanted him to raise your alleged conflicts with Rosenstein? Is it a crime for a president to raise a conflict of interest of a special counsel with the attorney general or his designate?
19. If there was evidence that Trump demanded the termination of the investigation, as opposed to the possible selection of a new special counsel, you would have included it in your report, correct?
20. You state that “if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.” Yet, you also claim it would be inappropriate to accuse Trump of criminal acts, since he would not be able to defend himself in a trial. Don’t you do precisely that, with this statement? And, by not reaching a conclusion, don’t you deny Trump the ability to respond to specific findings of the elements of a crime?
It is unlikely that Mueller will answer most, if any, of these questions. He has a curious interpretation of what a special counsel does. Everyone in the White House, Congress, his supervisors at Justice expected him to reach a conclusion. He spent two years and never told a soul outside of his staff that he would reach a conclusion on crimes related to collusion but not on obstruction.
Well, it’s time for some clarity. We know the answers to many of these questions, but we need Mueller to establish that record. He is much like Oscar Wilde’s description of a character as someone who “had a passion for secrecy, but she herself was merely a Sphinx without a secret.”
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Public of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
Chris,
If you had some specific complaint about a specific exchange, I would take note of it.
When you just blabber on with generalizations about how ” disappointed” you are about the tone or style of my comments, I will dismiss out of hand your stupid, pointless lectures.
I challeged you on some of your 20-point comments.
I’ll have to sort through one of these long threads to find my comments on your 20-point post, but I don’t think there was anything disrespectful in my initial comments to you.
I’ve been reading these JT columns,vand commenting, for several years.
I don’t know how long you have read these columns and comments, but I can tell you that the the comment threads deteriorated with the arrival of a few individuals who showed up here about 2 years ago.
I posted part of a Feb.2019 list from JanF who is now using the name “anon” or “anon1.
I don’t think you had anything to say about JanF/ anon/anon1’s approach when she first came here.
The comments she made were inflammatory, provocative, and stupid.
That’s just one example of an out-and-out propagandist making a sweeping and offensive comment.
There is no “on right way” to deal with a moron like that. Some will “take the high road” and ignore it.
Some, like me😉, think that “the high road” can be overrated.
I don’t know how you’d recommend trying to have a rational, polite exchange when some…a relatively some number….of people camp out here and make comments like that.
If you wish to lecture someone about their style and approach in their comments here, lecture JanF/ anon/ anon1.
Or maybe that just never occurred to you, for some reason 🙄, when you get on your high horse and whine about the quality of comments here.
To all the cowards on this blog that love the violence of the left against those that they disagree with let me post from Powerline. I haven’t heard much from prior posts.
“More Antifa Outrages in Portland
Posted: 01 Jul 2019 04:20 PM PDT
(John Hinderaker)
I wrote here about an attack by Antifa criminals on journalist Andy Ngo in Portland on Saturday. Ngo was hospitalized and had several thousand dollars worth of camera equipment destroyed. It turns out that at about the same time, in a different area of the Antifa rampage, Brownshirt thugs attacked and seriously injured two other men.
Rather than re-tell the story, I will simply embed Michelle Malkin’s tweets, which include photographs of the victims:
Adam & John were at same Portland protest where @MrAndyNgo was beaten, but on other side at Pioneer Courthouse Square. They were there to support Haley Adams & speakers. Adam is foreground left – tall red-bearded man. John -older, white-haired man- was center/right being rushed. pic.twitter.com/1Sfegu2VyZ
— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) July 1, 2019
While John was being pummeled by the mob in the center, Adam was struck in the head with nunchucks, metal water bottles, some sort of metal rod, and fists. /c pic.twitter.com/F61rE8tVMh
— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) July 1, 2019
John was sprayed with mace and blinded. He was led away as blood dripped down his face, then dragged to a sidewalk. Another observer notes that one of Adam’s attackers appears to wield something like a sock and padlock. See https://t.co/UuzciPLbkL /d pic.twitter.com/J1bPELs5Fy
— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) July 1, 2019
Adam verified that the pix @Rambobiggs posted of his bloddy, gashed head are him at the ER. His CT scan was thankfully clear. Adam ended up with a total of 25 stitches.https://t.co/klqkruauVH /e pic.twitter.com/t5eqqfIK2M
— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) July 1, 2019
Both John & Adam were beaten by Antifa after trying to help a gay man in a sun dress being chased down the street. While the cowards are masked, John and Adam faced the crowds openly and agreed to be named publicly. “I’m not afraid,” John told me. This is John. /f pic.twitter.com/WDc88xT16W
— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) July 1, 2019
Michelle says that these two men were beaten by the fascist thugs because they tried to help a gay man who was being chased by Antifa. Be that as it may, there are many members of Antifa who should be serving long prison sentences. Once again, I call on all Democrats to stop defending and promoting Antifa, and rather to disavow the fascists in their midst.”
It’s ironic because antifa has a long reputation of signing up a lot of aggressive and violent homosexuals to help in their “direct actions” euphemism for violence.
judging from how things work in jail, we should not be surprised to see antifa homosexuals beating up gays they dont like.
Kurtz, I don’t care about their sexual or political identifications. I care about terrorists that can walk the street and intimidate or attack people they choose not to like and that the police do absolutely nothing condoning the violence. This is seen almost always on the left. Take note how in the past some members of the blog agreed with antifa or denied their violent behavior. We have a group of people here that sound like they would be steller members of antifa.
I remember the Pelosi/ McCaskel claims very very.
That they would step into that mess,vwithout even being asked, and incorrectly state that they’d never met the ambassador, was significant when it was shown that they had met him.
Regardless of the circumstances.
As messed up as that exchange was between Franken and Sessions, I don’t think that there was ever any evidence presented that Sessions discussed the campaign with the ambassador.
There was also a very long list of meetings that Sessions had with foreign diplomats from dozens of nations….I don’t know that a meeting c. 6 months earlier with the Russian ambassador would have stood out in Sessions’ mind at the time of his exchange with Franken.
DEMOCRATS VOTE TO ENCOURAGE FOREIGN INVASION
THEY WILL MAKE YOU PAY FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT HEALTH CARE
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/29/us/politics/democratic-debates-immigration.html
The debates, in which there was almost unanimous embraces by the top-polling candidates for decriminalizing illegal border crossings and for offering undocumented immigrants health insurance, excited many in the Democratic base. But the debates also raised questions about whether the Democratic candidates were entering terrain that would be perilous in a general election.
Mr. Trump seemed to think so, taking to Twitter almost immediately, writing: “All Democrats just raised their hands for giving millions of illegal aliens unlimited health care. How about taking care of American Citizens first!? That’s the end of that race!”
For more than a decade, politicians from both parties have tried and have failed to overhaul the country’s immigration policies. It proved to be an unsolvable conundrum for the Obama administration. As that administration stepped up border enforcement, and deported far more immigrants than previous administrations, advocates for immigrants labeled Mr. Obama “Deporter in Chief.” The creation of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals in 2012 allowed millions of young immigrants to work and to consider themselves secure in America.
Just as Mr. Obama’s term was ending, hundreds of thousands of Central American migrants were showing up at the border, many of them unaccompanied minors seeking asylum. In response, his administration put considerable effort into broadcasting one message to families sending children on their own: stop.
Then, Mr. Trump’s anti-immigration rhetoric helped send him to the White House.
“There is no doubt that the tenor on immigration has shifted in the last couple of years, but it sounds really different because Trump is being so extreme on his policies,” said Lanae Erickson, a senior vice president at Third Way, a centrist Democratic think tank based in Washington. Democrats need to react to the extremism, Ms. Erickson said, without leaving themselves open to being accused of their own extremism. “We gave him some more fodder for those ads,” she said, referring to how this past week’s debates might help Mr. Trump’s campaign.
RED ALERT – DEMOCRAT POTUS WILL THROW WIDE OPEN THE BORDER — RED ALERT
I told you guys Obama was not that bad. You will understand what I meant, if another one wins in 2020
https://hotair.com/archives/2019/06/29/red-hen-restaurant-owner-maybe-trumps-people-deserve-spit/
Red Hen restaurant nutter sayeth:
“….It’s more often a frustrated person (some of whom are restaurant employees) lashing out at the representatives of an administration that has made its name trashing norms and breaking backs. Not surprising, if you think about it: You can’t call people your enemies by day and expect hospitality from them in the evening.
So when the day comes that the world feels returned to its normal axis, I expect we’ll see fewer highly charged encounters making headlines. In the meantime, the new rules apply. If you’re directly complicit in spreading hate or perpetuating suffering, maybe you should consider dining at home.”
————wow!
But ok.. I would never want to eat at a place owned by American pasty faced, lilly livered antifa lookalike liberals. I can accomplish this quite easily by eating at Asian restaurants nearly every time I go for a paid meal, which is already rare. But I have made my life simple in this regard because I never go into a restaurant that I suspect may be owned or staffed by white skinned leftists. And what’s the point of going out to eat American food anyways? I get the best American food at home. So if I go out, I might as well avail myself of the wonderful diversity, and avoid patronizing stupid white leftists all at the same time.
But sometimes it doesn’t work. the other day I went into an Arab restaurant owned by a wonderful Lebanese woman I know, that I’ve enjoyed for decades. There was some kind of frumpy fat butch working for her out front who took our table. For some reasons lesbians don’t like me with an unerring hetero-radar that tells them I won’t find them amusing on any level whatsoever. I lack the “tolerance” for it I guess. Well, this lazy heshe was botching one service standard after another and I gave her a hard stare and she quit the table, which was even more dumb, since I’m an old customer who predates her service by a long reach, and the boss had to come out and finish it with apologies and free baklava which was delicious and assuaged my disappointment.
I have often been tempted to develop racist feelings except, however, I would have to like white people to manage that. But since so many of the people i so dislike are wearing white skins, I have decided to become an “equal opportunity hater” like Dirty Harry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnRkCemeV7k
The irony here is that if you don’t want your country over-run by foreigners, well, foreigners will understand that, because that’s normal for any human being to want to preserve their own homeland, and the way most of their own people feel back home. They can understand that!
But what they don’t understand are the American suckers who want to throw the gates wide open, roll out the welcome mat, and gin up the free stuff. Well, here’s a little secret about a lot of foreigners who come her. They have no respect for traitors, you are just a bunch of weak stupid marks for them to soak for your money and they can smell the difference a mile away. So enjoy getting fleeced, fools
It’s kind of like a snitch. Nobody likes a snitch,. Not the ones you betry and not the ones you’re working for new, who don’t respect you. That’s what the open borders crowd is like. A bunch of snitches.
The irony here is that if you don’t want your country over-run by foreigners, well, foreigners will understand that, because that’s normal for any human being to want to preserve their own homeland, and the way most of their own people feel back home.
You should be thankful the Powhatan Indians did not share your sentiments. This in spite of the fact that foreigners (“English settlers”) took their land and yet the Powhatan Indians tried to save them from death, self-inflicted as it was.
It always baffles me how Americans ignore the salient fact that their roots are immigrants landing on US soil and annihilated the indigenous
https://www.nps.gov/jame/learn/historyculture/a-short-history-of-jamestown.htm
A Short History of Jamestown
By June 15, the fort was completed. It was triangle shaped with a bulwark at each corner, holding four or five pieces of artillery. The settlers were now protected against any attacks that might occur from the local Powhatan Indians, whose hunting land they were living on. Relations had already been mixed between the newcomers and the Powhatan Indians. On June 22, Captain Newport left for England to get more supplies for the new settlement.
Not long after Captain Newport left, the settlers began to succumb to a variety of diseases. They were drinking water from the salty or slimy river, which was one of several things that caused the death of many. The death tolls were high. They were dying from swellings, fluxes, fevers, by famine, and sometimes by wars. Food was running low, though then Chief Powhatan starting to send gifts of food to help the English. If not for the Powhatan Indians help in the early years, the settlement would most likely have failed, as the English would have died from the various diseases or simply starved.
By late 1609, the relationship between the Powhatan Indians and the English had soured as the English were demanding too much food during a drought.
During that winter the English were afraid to leave the fort, due to a legitimate fear of being killed by the Powhatan Indians
Estovir, your comment proves my point actually.
“You should be thankful the Powhatan Indians did not share your sentiments. This in spite of the fact that foreigners (“English settlers”) took their land and yet the Powhatan Indians tried to save them from death, self-inflicted as it was.”
I think more like how the Powhatan Indians should have thought, if they wanted to survive. Are there any left today? Let’s see, the internet says 3.500. OUCH!
Well, If they had taken scalps then maybe they would still own their ancestral lands.
Geronimo is my hero, not Pocahontas.
History suggests, that the Powhatan Indians should have liquidated the English when they were weak. Isn’t that obvious?
Don’t be weak is the single most clear lesson of history. Don’t be weak.
The English were stronger than the Powhatan, and enough English came and put them to the sword. Oh, and the same thing can happen to us today.
The descendants of those English today are weak, and Nature, before long, may render its verdict on their weakness likewise as it has so many other vanished tribes in history.
Understand the psychology of Democrat leadership which panders to the invasion force.
They think the descendants of the English here are weak, and the invaders are stronger.
So they are pandering to the invasion force like so many future would be quislings.
Simple as that.
Trump is just a guy who thinks they have miscalculated, and the descendants of the English and their other heirs, native born Americans, are stronger than the Left thinks we are. Trump’s on our side, because he sees it that way. For whatever reasons. And it amuses him to be our champion. Thank God we have one at all. It will hold back the day a little while, at least.
The English were stronger than the Powhatan….
to extrapolate your thinking, Latinos coming over the border can literally run circles around 2/3 of Americans who as obese heifers can’t even walk up a flight of stairs without becoming short of breath. See how that works?
I am convinced that America’s final days are near only because Americans are too fat, too slothful, too fearful and too stupid to know how to defend the country. Perhaps I understate
You must have not been around Mexicans and Hondurans too much because once they live here a while they get pretty fat too. I go to the tienda pretty regularly and it’s no health food store let me tell you.
My tribe is who it is. It isn’t them. I’m entitled to have nationalistic feelings as much as they are.
That’s fine. We Cajuns, Germans and Scots-Irish will pick right up where les maudits Anglais fail. One of those ancestral groups of mine, the Cajuns, gave the US Marine Corps two Commandants, John Archer Lejeune and Robert Hilliard Barrow (the first Marine to serve as a full member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff).
We may have to trade some land for time until one of us finds the keys to the 8th Air Force at Barksdale AFB, but after that, if the bad guys will do us the favor of surrounding us, why, we can attack in any direction we choose. And prevail.
“If the Russians wanted Trump to win, then why did they conspire with Hillary to create the bogus Russian Dossier?”
same answer i gave last week. they attack both candidates and lay out layers of traps for both., because one or the other will win, so the damage will be effective no matter the outcome. that’s called a forked attack in chess.
but what they did to help trump was actually quite negligible. now if hillary had won, there might have been some traps they laid for her that would have revealed themselves more clearly.
there is no question they meddle at least a little and who knows how much in the past outfits like the CPUSA that used to be at their beck and call, had meddled before. however, it’s up to the US to secure its own electoral system and not the Russians. Nor should we allow ourselves to fall into their trap of discrediting our own elections which is a gift to them they could not deliver on their own. Like having Jimmy Carter, in his dotage, say foolish things to discredit a sitting President. Wow. Russians loved that one!
It appears the Left are once again resorting to violence and calls to inflict bodily harm on Trump supporters. No wonder JT’s articles on his visit to Argentina were wonderful: people there actually enjoy each other, live as a community, break bread together, sing songs, laugh, and act like civilized people.
Antifa-Proud Boys confrontation in Portland turns violent; conservative writer injured
https://www.foxnews.com/us/antifa-conservative-protests-turn-violent-as-demonstrators-throw-milkshakes-of-quick-dry-cement-at-police-and-onlookers
Trump officials ‘should consider dining at home,’ says co-owner of restaurant that refused to serve Sarah Sanders
https://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/red-hen-owner-restaurant-trump-officials-should-consider-dining-at-home
one of these days the Antifa are going to provoke upon themselves a Greensboro massacre. Look that one up. 79.
6. Do you agree that neither you nor the attorney general can release grand jury or “Rule 6(e)” material to the public or to Congress?
If it started with that one and a proper answer, then it’s over before it begins.
these are great questions btw. read them. i liked this one:
3. Given that you were one of the first outside individuals to meet with Trump on Comey’s firing, didn’t that create a conflict for you as a fact witness in any later investigation? Did you seek an ethics opinion on that alleged conflict?
Turley just did some very valuable free work for the Republicans who may get to field a few questions. Feel free not to ignore this awesome gift!
Democrats are becoming anarchists and the party of foreign invasion
https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/30/stephanopoulos-castro-borders-immigration/
Vote Republican. The life you say may be your own.
he would reach a conclusion on crimes related to collusion but not on obstruction.
He stated in the report that there is no law against ‘collusion’, so they never investigated that at all.
John, You just made that up. Excerpt from Mueller Report Volume I page 1 Introduction: “Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” You are a jerk for making stuff up and posting it. And whoever “Liked” your post is a dumb-ass who was desperate to believe the Shiite you posted.
From the Mueller report:
““Collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law, For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.”
Dear Mr. Anon, Muler uses the word “coordination” coupled with “conspired”,= big fat Zero, excerpt from Mueller Report Volume I page 1 Introduction: “Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
“conspired or coordinated” here means as it relates to the criminal code for conspiracy, a much higher bar than the a-legal term collusion. Mueller explicitly discusses this in the report. He also notes the stonewalling which limited the investigation.
No, Muller is careful to include the word “or”. Nice try. During Muler’s nine minute “press” conference his emphasis was on vindictive Mean Girls Volume II, and did not touch Volume I. That was his opportunity to drop any bread crumbs for Volume I and he declined. Instead he focused on zany Volume II which was dropped on us using our dime because Bobby Muler’s feelings were hurt. Bad cop did whatever he wanted his whole career without being challenged, until Trump punch him in the nose.
not a higher bar, just a bar. because “collusion” means whatever anybody wants it to mean so it has no bar; except for Barr. LOL
Is there a law against obstruction of something that was not obstructed?
Is there a law against obstruction of justice related to a crime that did not occur?
Now you know how Franz Kafka felt.
Is there a law against conspiracy to falsely implicate another – Juicy Smell-it proves not – Schiitt, Peeloosi, Shoe-mher, the FBI, CIA, DNI et al. would have been in prison long ago.
there is, giving false information to the FBI is a crime and so is supplying false affidavits in support of a search warrant. So whomever fed the phony stuff to the FISA courts may pay the piper ere it’s all through.
Wait. That’s what Obongo and HIllary did. And what did Christopher Wray know and when did Christopher Wary know it?
# 21. Why did you bring in Andrew Weissmann to work work on this investigation? Were you not aware of his attendance at Hilllary Clinton’s “victory” party on election night 2016? Were you not aware of his having withheld exculpatory evidence in his handling of the Enron case?
ooops lol duh
…”First, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that, while the task force did in fact withhold evidence favorable to the Merrill Lynch defense, it also said the breach was not material to changing the outcome. It did not violate the so-called Brady Rule.
Second, Mr. Skinner said, the Merrill Lynch trial was conducted by other prosecutors whom Mr. Weissmann oversaw.
“The complainants make no attempt to demonstrate that Mr. Weissmann ‘ordered,’ ‘directed,’ ‘ratified’ or was even aware of any decision to suppress evidence favorable to [the defendant],” Mr. Skinner wrote….”
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/22/andrew-weissman-complaints-dismissed/
Anon, I read the outcome of this a long time ago. The problem is people pick and choose the part of the story they like, or twist it to one they like, ignore facts and reality. I’m getting a bit tired of the intellectual dishonesty so will depart. There’s no life on this planet. Beam me up, Scotty.
Chris, this is unfortunately not a place for simple and honest discussion of issues, though I had something approaching that a couple of times here. I’m just here now to interject some counter facts to the alternative reality most posters here share. They eagerly volunteer their obliviousness to reputable news sources, preferring the stuff from crazy town or rightwingville Probably a waste of time, but maybe some lurkers not on the bandwagon read it.
Certaintly, hard to imagine why you would bring in someone as qualified as Andrew Weissmann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Weissmann, one of the top prosecutors in the U.S. already in DOJ when he could have picked a Trump appointee with little experience. Doing so would have satisfied one political faction. Maybe Devin Nunes could be available (although he soiled himself with the whistle blower conspiracy charge on the FISA warrant, had to admit the story came from the WH). Must be another DOJ attorney you would like … oh, all “deep state”. The humor in this is the “deep state” is the civil service. Imagine if all civil service not of the president’s party departing at the election. Hmmm.
The humor in this is the “deep state” is the civil service
So David Brock canned Peter Shill and now you are his sub.
Intriguing
“Certaintly, hard to imagine why you would bring in someone as qualified as Andrew Weissmann one of the top prosecutors in the U.S. already in DOJ when he could have picked a Trump appointee with little experience.” The point is he could have picked somebody who did not attend Maddam Hillary’s “victory” party on Election Night 2016. And can somebody please tell me where Weismann’s write-up on background of Steele Dossier appears in Muler report? Old cop Muler and biased Weissman too focused on $100k Russian spending on Facebook ads to bother with big picture professional curiosity regarding origins of hoax. I wonder how much of the $30 million+ spent on investigation of hoax ended up in pockets of Muler and Weissman?
https://thefederalist.com/2018/11/08/robert-muellers-lead-prosecutor-history-ethics-violations/
Bill Martin,
I’d have to brush up on some of the details, and the extent of Weissman’s involvement in the very controversial tactics of the prosecution in some high-profile cases.
I don’t think he’s ever been officially sanctioned for prosecutorial misconduct, but then again, it seems that prosecutors are rarely punished for, let’s say, “questionable ethics”.
Tapping Mueller for the Special Counsel job was bad enough, but selection of people like Weissman just further eroded confidence in the even- handedness of the investigations.
Tom, I think Weissman was aware of Deriposka’s discussion with the FBI that he could not see how Manafort would be a Russian agent nor that the Russians would trust Manafort due to a whole bunch of reasons. That is an ethics violation when this information is not presented to Fisa nor to Manafort’s attorney which might be a basis for a Manafort appeal.
The court dismissed the prosecutorial misconduct alleged in this article by a law clerk and business school teacher.
Which court, which evidence, which date…? There are a lot of things out there. Some have been hidden or dismissed and some are still active. Some are past the statute of limitations while coverups of those crimes are within the statute of limitations. Some have marked political ramifications many of which have not been reported or adeuqately reported by the MSM so you don’t know about them.
That leads you to make ignorant generalizations.
Allan’s question is answered – though hidden – in Tom’s posting. I have also posted a previous citing of this easily verified fact.
Note the misdirection by Anon because he can’t effectively answer the question. He is stuck because he deals in insufficient generalities rather than the facts.