Top Mueller Aide Andrew Weissmann Calls For Stone To Be Called Into Grand Jury

Andrew-Weissman
Andrew Weissman

One of the most controversial figures selected by Special Counsel Robert Mueller for his investigative team was Andrew Weissmann. While some criticized Weissmann for perceived bias, many of us focused on his record of prosecutorial excess. Now a law professor at New York University, Weissmann appears eager to fulfill both criticisms.  After the commutation of Roger Stone, Weissmann called for Stone to be pulled in front of a grand jury. It did not matter that there was no crime under investigation or likely criminal charge based on the use of a presidential power that is virtually absolute.  Weissmann seemed to call for the use of the grand jury for a fishing expedition — precisely the type of alleged excessive use of prosecutorial power that he faced at the Justice Department. Weissmann is reportedly writing a book on the investigation with the reported titled “Where Law Ends: Inside the Mueller Investigation.”

Weissmann wrote “Time to put Roger Stone in the grand jury to find out what he knows about Trump but would not tell. Commutation can’t stop that.”  That is certainly true. A commutation does not bar someone from being called into a grand jury. However, ethical prosecutors generally require more than an interest in finding out stuff.  Grand juries usually come after an investigation finds probable cause for a crime.  There is supposed to be more than a hope and prayer that a grand jury may find a crime.  Indeed, this is precisely the type of untethered pursuit that led some of us to criticize the Flynn investigation.

In this case, Mueller did not find evidence showing that President Trump or his campaign conspired with the Russian government to obtain hacked emails from the Clinton campaign or Democratic National Committee. There was no allegation of a crime by Trump linked to the Stone false statements or threats.  Stone was convicted on seven counts including one count of obstruction of an official proceeding, five counts of false statements, and one count of witness tampering.  The government proved that Stone had lied to Congress to hide his efforts to contact WikiLeaks. However, he was not accused of lying about knowledge or actions by President Donald Trump.  Here is the indictment.

So there was no allegation of a crime by Trump in the Stone indictment and the Mueller investigation found no credible evidence of collusion by Trump or his campaign. Indeed, the original allegations of Russian collusion have been discredited.  However, Weissmann believes that it is perfectly ethical for prosecutors in New York to just pull in Stone to see if there is anything that might be criminal in the use of an entirely discretionary use of presidential pardons.  Under this same theory, Susan McDougal should have been pulled into a grand jury just to see if Bill Clinton’s pardon was part of a delayed quid pro quo deal.  Likewise, the Iran Contra defendants should have been pulled into a grand jury to see if there was any crime behind the clemency decisions of President George H.W. Bush.

As I discussed in my recent column, presidential pardons have often involved friends, donors, and a virtual rogue’s gallery of questionable characters.  None of those pardons were subjected to grand jury investigations because the use of this power is generally beyond the reach of judicial review.

It would be exceptionally difficult to establish a criminal use of the pardon authority since Trump could have legitimately granted clemency on the grounds that he publicly stated.  Trump has stated that he viewed the underlying investigation by Weissmann and other to be political and unfair.  Weissmann has now responded by calling for Stone to be pulled into a grand jury on the hope that a new crime might be found.

The grand jury is not a device for prosecutorial whim or curiosity.  It is a powerful tool that demands a modicum of restraint.  Conversely, Weissmann seems to follow Oscar Wilde’s famous observation as a virtual prosecutorial mandate: “I can resist everything except temptation.”

194 thoughts on “Top Mueller Aide Andrew Weissmann Calls For Stone To Be Called Into Grand Jury”

  1. Thanks for that addition. If that’s what Hamilton believed, then I think he was completely wrong, both about one man being more likely to work just results in applying the pardon power (he was too smart for me not to think that this belief was disingenuous) and that the pardon power would prove to be a strictly moderating force – or that even if it were a moderating force only, then that would be mutually exclusive of its subverting the law’s credibility (he was also too smart for me to believe that the latter possibility did not occur to him).

    The way you moderate the “necessary severity” in the criminal justice system (democratically at any rate) is through better (fewer) criminal laws, penalties that more appropriately fit the crimes they ostensibly are punishing, and more educated juries that can nullify the law when it would work an unjust result through its too technical application in a particular case.

    1. who cares about Hamilton now. This is all trolling to waste our time and energy

      Get the garden in, trim your debt, build your savings.

      Organize the neighborhood watch.

      It’s hot and getting hotter. We are in the liminal phase of civil war. This is 7 weeks of anarchy and chaos in the big cities, now spiking with COVID, which is 100% the fault of the huge street protests by BLM which by the way were totally ILLEGAL public gatherings under the coronovirus restrictions. Why did the big shity Democrat mayors green light these and tell the cops to stand down?

      Because they hate Trump, they hate us citizens, and they want to harass and intimidate us into not voting and blame Trump for what is precisely their fault.

      HATE THEM BACK TOO– HATE YOUR ABUSERS! FORGIVING THEM IS CODEPENDENCY. FIGHT BACK

      Or, give it a try. turn the other cheek to these rascals and you will get slapped again.

      fight back while we live and have no fear of how God may sort us out once we die.
      Trust me none of them believe in God anyways and God is going to stand back and watch.

      REV 14:20

      The grapes were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed from the winepress in a stream about 180 miles long and as high as a horse’s bridle.

      1. What dictionary definition for the word “you” applies in Mathew 24 Re. so called “end times?”

        1. I’m not waiting around for Jesus to fly back on a cloud and save the day and sort it all out. Christians have been waiting for that for 1900 years.

          But, having been raised a Christian, I like the Bible anyways. The image of heads crushed like grapes and a stream of blood flowing out like a stream from a city for a mile or so, is a gory one, but over time I’ve learned to enjoy the less-quoted parts of the Scriptures quite a bit.

          Feel free to call me a false prophet if you like. Believe what you like. You are a “free” American, right?

    2. Weismann’s comments mean absolutely nothing in the “real world”. There is no “legal authority” to bring Stone before a grand jury on an at best, fishing expedition. No, Weismann is simply trying to keep the Russian Collusion Hoax in the media as the election nears. Not so strange though since Weismann heads up Biden’s Victory Campaign fundraising.

      Truthfully, Weismann’s baseless comments don’t merit any notice nor discussion.

  2. Weisman’s statement does a beautiful job of exemplifying exactly what was wrong with the Mueller investigation.

    Weisman can not tell us what crime should be investigated. He has no idea what it is that he thinks he is going to get out of Stone.

    But he knows that “orange man bad” – that Stone is evil and MUST be covering for Trump and that if he can just put enough screws to him Stone will tell Weisman about the crimes that he knows Trump commited – but does not know what are.

    We used to institutionalize people for these types of delusions. We certainly did not let they lead multimillion dollar investigations.

    The mueller investigation was without foundation from the start, and Weisman is the leader of a cabal that were violating peoples civil rights all over the place.

    The use of the awesome power of the federal govenrment to investigate requires that there is reasonable suspicion of a crime.
    If you can not identify the crime – you do not have anything close to reasonable suspicion.

    1. Weissman is writing a book about the Mueller investigation. I am not sure why we should trust anything he says.

  3. Start with the falsification of illegal seating of representatives who refused to take the required oath of office and then go back to the still unfinished clinton, dirty cops, etc. Plenty of dirt. And a party that supports victimization of women. DNC means Dirt Not Constitutional.

    Constitutional Republic vs socialist liberalism the second part is one big crime.

  4. “It did not matter that there was no crime under investigation or likely criminal charge …”

    Mr. Turley, you are once again sloppy with facts. There are still many parts of the SCO’s investigation that are redacted as “HOM” — harm to ongoing matter, and neither you nor the rest of us has any way to determine whether any of them involve Stone. You shouldn’t pretend to know.

    Re: “Mueller did not find evidence showing that President Trump or his campaign conspired with the Russian government to obtain hacked emails from the Clinton campaign or Democratic National Committee,” this is a false, and you are either knowingly making a false statement (aka lying) or astoundingly inattentive to and/or ignorant about relevant evidence. The SCO report indicated that they did find evidence, simply not enough to bring charges, perhaps in part because of obstruction. Mueller was explicitly asked about this in his testimony before Congress and confirmed the distinction between “no evidence” (which is false) and insufficient evidence to bring charges.

    “There was no allegation of a crime by Trump linked to the Stone false statements or threats.”

    That, too, is false. For example, this was one of the exchanges in Mueller’s Congressional testimony:
    Rep. Demings: “Director Mueller, isn’t it fair to say that the president’s written answers were not only inadequate and incomplete because he didn’t answer many of your questions, but where he did his answers show that he wasn’t always being truthful.”
    Mueller: “There — I would say generally.”
    That is, Trump’s written answers weren’t honest. They were made under penalty of perjury. Could Trump’s false answers meet that standard? Possibly, and in the recently released less-redacted version of the Mueller report, newly revealed text says “According to multiple witnesses involved with the Campaign, beginning in June 2016 and continuing through October 2016, Stone spoke about WikiLeaks with senior Campaign officials, including candidate Trump,” which is part of what Trump lied about in his written answers and part of what Stone lied to Congress about to protect Trump.

    “the Mueller investigation found no credible evidence of collusion by Trump”

    False again. They found credible evidence, and they explicitly didn’t consider whether it was sufficiently to bring charges because of the OLC memo that Trump couldn’t be indicted, and it might not have been enough evidence to bring charges, in part because the obstruction by Trump and others impeded the collection of evidence.

    Stop making dishonest arguments about this.

    A reminder that the ABA Code of Professional Conduct say “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: … engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation,” and this has parallels in most state bar misconduct regulations. As a lawyer and law professor, you should commit to avoiding dishonesty and misrepresentation.”

    1. Sorry, that should be “There are still many parts of the SCO’s Report that are redacted as ‘HOM,’” not “SCO’s investigation”

    2. What a dishonest, insulting and ungrateful person we have in this poster who Needs to Be Committed.

        1. We already know that you are a boor on a free blog that you abuse. You don’t have to demonstrate that fact over and over again.

          1. So i’m taking it through your avoidance and deflection that you deserve gratitude personally?

            1. By the way, CTHD is completely dedicated to honest discussion. Go figure. You, with your constant deflection, disingenousness and outright lies on the other hand, let’s just say you need a bit of polishing.

              1. “completely dedicated to honest discussion.”

                I believe you feel that way because you can’t compete with the amount of nothings NTBC puts into his postings.

                You say I lie, but you have copied anything I have written and proven otherwise. That is what I and others did to NTBC.

                We have long ago proven you have nothing of value to say.

              2. @Johnny Buglife: Thanks. I’m glad that you and some others see that I’m dedicated to honest discussion.

                I stopped responding to Allan in May, as his comments to me became increasingly dishonest and insulting. He continues to respond that way. He reminds me of one of those yappy little dogs that run around barking at people’s ankles, trying to get attention. He seems a bit obsessed, and some of his lies / insults are truly bizarre, for ex., repeatedly — and falsely — projecting a desire for violence onto me, claiming that I’m “willing to kill or injure people to foment revolution” (https://jonathanturley.org/2020/06/05/mea-culpa-new-york-times-caves-to-protests-and-apologizes-for-posting-conservative-opinion/comment-page-1/#comment-1961688) or even “CTHD gets sexually arroused [sic]” by protester violence (https://jonathanturley.org/2020/06/23/protesters-topple-bust-of-george-washington-at-george-washington-university/comment-page-1/#comment-1969754). He’s sick. I consider him a troll and am not going to feed him.

                  1. Allan said this: “CTHD gets sexually arroused [sic]” by protester violence…”

                    Allan’s comment is despicable. Truly despicable.

                1. another +10

                  CTHD about Allan:

                  ‘He seems a bit obsessed, and some of his lies / insults are truly bizarre, for ex., repeatedly — and falsely — projecting a desire for violence onto me, claiming that I’m “willing to kill or injure people to foment revolution”’

                  Yep. He’s done it to me, as well.

                2. We never did have discussions and that probably is for the better. I don’t have to waste time in back and forth with a verbose liar. It’s easier to deal with the Bug who never says much of anything but he did seem to get excited over this post of yours and gave a 10. He doesn’t know why but he did so anyway.

                  Your two quotes had nothing to do with any discussion between the two of us.

                  The way you went after Flynn with glee and excitement while you told us of things he said and told us where to look for them told us all we needed to know. You lied.

                  As far as your sexual arousement goes there is a lot of literature on people like you that get all excited when death is in the air. I quoted you and then responded. Here is the full posting.


                  “Let’s also be clear that the majority of people protesting over the last few weeks around the country have not been violent or destructive. ”

                  Tell that to the people that died. Tell that to the people that lost their homes, businesses or jobs. It’s interesting to think that peaceful protestors don’t know how to separate themselves from the violent ones and permit the violent ones to commit violence with impunity.

                  It sounds likd CTHD gets sexually arroused from such happenings.

                  1. “It sounds likd CTHD gets sexually arroused [sic] from such happenings.” -Allan to CTHD

                    My god you’re a pig, Allan.

                    1. Fido, I know Anonymous the Stupid isn’t smart enough to be a very good teacher. Pigs have 4 legs and humans have 2.

                    2. And does anyone actually doubt that the reason Allan is tossing out this bizarre insult is that it’s a bit of ‘doth protesting too much?’ Chances are really good that Allan types his incoherent responses one handed while beating the kid with his other hand.

                    3. ‘doth protesting too much?’

                      Bug now thinks he is Shakespeare. and mixes the storyline with his own fantasies. Nothing much behind Bug so he has plenty of time to do as he pleases.

                3. If you do not want to be called dishonest and get insulted – then do not be dishonest and insulting.

                  You continue to sell the Collusion Delusion.

                  Horowitz put the stake through the heart of that.

                  As of Mid January 2017 there was no longer reasonable suspicion to continue the crossfire huricane investigation.

                  It was done, kaput.,. finito, and could not be revived absent new evidence.

                  To this date there has been no new evidence discovered

                  The entire Mueller investigation was an illegitimate rehash of the CrossFire Huricane investigation that failed.

                  Mueller can publish a 40.000 page report – but the facts are all very solidly established now.

                  There are very few things that have not been proven beyond a doubt. And all that has been proven exonerates the Trump campaign.

                  There is no doubt now that Obama and Biden directed the investigation of a political opponent – probably illegally, certainly partisanly .
                  There is no doubt that the constucted a minefield for their successor to traverse – no president has ever done that before.

                  There is no doubt now that the entire mess was political and originated with Clinton and that the FBI knew that.
                  There is no doubt that Flynn was target because the moment the Flynn investigation was over the FBI was required to read him in on XFH and Flynn was going to go ballistic.

                  There is also no doubt that Sessions never should have recused himself – because the investigation was effectively over before he did.

                  What is not proven – is that this started in 2015 not mid 2016. That Mifsud was a western agent. That the DNC emails were leaked not hacked.

                  It is likely that all of these will be proven eventually.

                  The Obama administration was the most corrupt administration in US history. Even Nixon did not use the CIA and FBI to spy on political opponents.

                  Yet you continue to make false allegations – to defame people – when the evidence is all there establishing that you are wrong.

                  This is worse than just being wrong about the fact or the law.

                  This is a dishonest moral failure.

              1. If Allan felt any “gratitude” he wouldn’t run around the blog, saying despicable things — he’s act like the adult that he isn’t.

                1. If Allan felt any “gratitude” he’d act like the adult that he isn’t.

                  Corrected, but it’s something that should be repeated, anyway.

                  1. Brainless, you have a purpose on this blog. Whenever Professor Turley needs an example of Stupidity he can rely on Anonymous the Stupid to provide it for him.

    3. You are presenting a particular view of those investigations and Mueller’s testimony, and not a very fair characterization of them. First, obviously, when Turley makes a statement about this or that allegation, he is going by what is publicly known about the allegation. Turley can’t base his commentary on some secret testimony that partisans hope will confirm allegations about the President or his goons. It has to be assumed that Turley doesn’t know more than has been made public and, at this point, that includes most everything of interest in the Mueller report.

      Second, I am not going to dig through each of your allegations of Turley misrepresenting facts to show how far off the mark those allegations are. But, as an example, the notion that Mueller agreed that Trump lied in his written responses is something that Mueller himself clarified. Mueller had been asked a long question, which included both implications that some of Trump’s answers were inadequate or incomplete and Trump might have lied. Mueller has made it abundantly clear that his “I would say… generally” response was referring to Mueller considering some of the answers to be inadequate or incomplete. He was not agreeing that Trump lied in his written statement. See, for example, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/mueller-testimony-congress-live/2019/07/24/d51a82d6-aca1-11e9-bc5c-e73b603e7f38_story.html Frankly, even aside from the clarification of Mueller’s statement, the allegation that the President’s lawyers would let him knowingly send out false written answers to an official investigation isn’t even vaguely believable.

      1. freedomfan,

        I was assuming that Turley is “going by what is publicly known about the allegation.” Everything that I wrote was based on what’s publicly known.

        As a simple example, it’s publicly known that the DOJ released a less-redacted version of the Mueller Report in June (in response to a FOIA lawsuit by Jason Leopold of Buzzfeed and EPIC), and there are still lots of redactions, including sections where the marking indicates an ongoing matter (though I may have been wrong above that these are still marked “HOM” rather than something like the (b)(7)(A) markings that also indicate harm to something pending). It’s publicly known what is now unredacted (relative to the earlier version) and that some of the newly-unredacted portions include content about Stone and Trump (e.g., https://twitter.com/JasonLeopold/status/1281426381478363136/photo/1). It’s publicly known that it’s easy to avoid claiming “there was no crime under investigation …” and instead make a more accurate claim that like “there’s no publicly-known crime under investigation.”

        Note that in your WaPo article, it’s not Mueller himself claiming that the interpretation is wrong. It’s an unnamed person. And recall that Mueller himself specifically chose to clarify certain things that he’d said. For ex., in the morning, Rep. Lieu had asked “I would like to ask you, the reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting President, correct?,” and Mueller had responded “That is correct.” But that afternoon, Mueller corrected his response, noting Rep. Lieu’s statement “You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion,” and clarifying “That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report, and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

        As for whether Trump lied in his responses to Mueller, I didn’t claim that his lawyers knew he’d lied. And it’s entirely possible that they suggested he say something like “I do not recall,” where it’s much harder to prove that the person is lying. Also keep in mind that plenty of lawyers have lied on Trump’s behalf (from Michael Cohen, who ended up in jail for it, to the lawyers arguing against removal during the impeachment trial). Other lawyers have allowed him to make false statements in situations where that’s illegal, such as his false certification of his financial disclosure form, where he omitted his debt to Cohen over the Stormy Daniels hush-payments. So you shouldn’t be so quick to assume that if a lawyer supervised it, he wasn’t lying.

        1. Hello Sane people. Please observe endless trolling from the cheerleaders for the Democrat chaos and insurrection machine.

          They want to quibble over nonsense while rioting and anarchy continues in the cities

          They want you to be distracted from the SPIKE IN COVID CASES AS A RESULT OF LARGE BLM PROTESTS

          ALL OF WHICH WERE ILLEGAL GATHERINGS UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH RESTRICITONS

          they want you to misunderstand that YOU are being DISCRIMINATED AGAINST AS A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN

          that’s the Democrats. Remember this come November, that is, if we all survive until then and even get to vote at all

          meanwhile, man up, group up. get your act together, get your sht wired tightly, the ball is in motion, don’t let it land on you unprepared

    4. ““the Mueller investigation found no credible evidence of collusion by Trump”
      False again. They found credible evidence, and they explicitly didn’t consider whether it was sufficiently to bring charges because of the OLC memo that Trump couldn’t be indicted, and it might not have been enough evidence to bring charges,”

      You are lying again. In order for their to be a conspiracy there needs to be more than one person involved. The other participants in a conspiracy would not be subject to OLC memo and no one was charged with any conspiracy that involved Trump and the Russians. Therefore Mueller had to admit Trump was not involved in any conspiracy to coordinate with the Russians.

      1. Anonymous: I agree that there needs to be more than one person for a conspiracy. They also found credible evidence of that, but didn’t file charges because they judged that their evidence was insufficient to prove conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.

        “credible evidence” and “evidence beyond a reasonable doubt” aren’t synonyms.

        1. You did the same thing when you tired to prove Flynn guilty. You said his own words proved his guilt but you never could quote those words. You sent people to look all over but the words didn’t exist. You lied then like you are lying now.

          There was no credible evidence of wrong doing by the President in the Mueller Report. You are lying again.

        2. “They also found credible evidence of that, but didn’t file charges because they judged that their evidence was insufficient to prove conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. ”

          That is an admission that you were lying when you said, ” they explicitly didn’t consider whether it was sufficiently to bring charges because of the OLC memo”

          1. No, it isn’t. It’s me pointing out that “collusion by Trump” (quoting Turley), which is what I was originally responding to is not the same as “The other participants in a conspiracy” (quoting you), which is what I subsequently responded to. Trump is a single person covered by the OLC memo; “other participants” are multiple people not covered by the OLC memo.

            1. Trump cannot engage in a conspiracy alone.
              You lied when you said, ” they explicitly didn’t consider whether it was sufficiently to bring charges because of the OLC memo”

              The OLC memo had nothing to do with Trump being cleared of conspiracy (or collusion)
              You lied about that and are now doubling down on your lie.
              Mueller did not claim that Trump could not be charged of conspiracy because of the OLC memo.
              Trump was cleared of conspiracy because there were no co-conspirators who could be charged.
              Your claim that but for the OLC memo Trump might have been charged with collusion is false.

              What Mueller did say in the Mueller Report:
              “As described in Volume I, the evidence uncovered in the investigation did not establish that the President or those close to him were involved in the charged Russian computer-hacking or active-measure conspiracies, or that the President otherwise had an unlawful relationship with any Russian official.”

              1. I agree that “Trump cannot engage in a conspiracy alone.”

                But your claim “You lied when you said, ”they explicitly didn’t consider whether it was sufficient[] to bring charges because of the OLC memo’” is false. For **Trump** (and no one else), they didn’t determine whether they had sufficient evidence to bring charges (for *anything*: conspiracy, obstruction, or anything else) because of the OLC memo. Their view was that the OLC memo precluded them from charging Trump, so it was pointless for them to reach a determination about whether they could charge him.

                “The OLC memo had nothing to do with Trump being cleared of conspiracy”

                He wasn’t cleared.

                “Your claim that but for the OLC memo Trump might have been charged with collusion is false.”

                Actually, I said “They found credible evidence, and they explicitly didn’t consider whether it was sufficient[] to bring charges because of the OLC memo that Trump couldn’t be indicted, and it might not have been enough evidence to bring charges, in part because the obstruction by Trump and others impeded the collection of evidence.” So don’t lie about what I actually claimed.

                As for your quote from the Mueller Report, the report also says “In some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event. In other instances, when substantial, credible evidence enabled the Office to reach a conclusion with confidence, the report states that the investigation established that certain actions or events occurred. A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts” (emphasis added).

                They didn’t establish conspiracy, but they did have credible evidence of it, simply not enough to bring charges in their view. As I noted earlier, ‘“credible evidence’ and ‘evidence beyond a reasonable doubt’ aren’t synonyms.”

                Many people have argued that they shouldn’t have been using the latter standard, that they only should have used a probable cause standard in deciding whether to indict others for conspiracy. I agree. But for better or worse, they *did* use a proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard in deciding which crimes to indict. Here’s a long discussion of the evidentiary standard in the report (from Jed Shugerman, a law professor at Fordham University) with quotes from multiple sections of the report noting that they were using a reasonable doubt standard:
                https://twitter.com/jedshug/status/1120182200308129793

                1. “Actually, I said “They found credible evidence, and they explicitly didn’t consider whether it was sufficient[] to bring charges because of the OLC memo that Trump couldn’t be indicted””

                  No that is your lie. It is not what Mueller said. The OLC memo was not a consideration in determining that the evidence did not support collusion or conspiracy. Mueller did say that if the evidence supported a conspiracy involving Trump then the co-conspirators would have been charged and by inference those charges would implicate Trump. But Mueller said clearly that the evidence did not support an allegation of conspiracy or collusion with Russia by anybody connected to Trump.

                  What you are trying to claim is that Mueller took the absurd position that maybe Trump committed collusion or conspiracy all by himself with no other co-conspirators. That is ridiculous.

                  Mueller said very clearly that they did determine the evidence did not support collusion or conspiracy. And they said clearly that applies to everyone involbed including the president. You are trying to promote the ridiculous lie that Mueller allowed for the possibility that the evidence might be sufficient for Trump to have conspired alone by himself.

                  1. You keep taking a statement that I made about Trump alone — a statement that I neither say nor imply applies to anyone else — and interpreting it as though it applies to others. Stop already.

                    TURLEY: “the Mueller investigation found no credible evidence of collusion by Trump”
                    ME (in response): “False again. They found credible evidence, and they explicitly didn’t consider whether it was sufficiently to bring charges [against Trump] because of the OLC memo that Trump couldn’t be indicted…”

                    I would have thought the part that I just introduced in brackets was clear, because Turley was talking about Trump alone, and the OLC memo applies to the President alone.

                    You assert that “The OLC memo was not a consideration in determining that the evidence did not support collusion or conspiracy.” And with respect to Trump (who, again, is the one and only person that part of my claim was about), your claim is false. As I noted elsewhere on this page, in the morning of Mueller’s testimony to Congress under oath, Rep. Lieu had asked “I would like to ask you, the reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting President, correct?,” and Mueller had responded “That is correct.” But that afternoon, Mueller corrected his response, noting Rep. Lieu’s statement “You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion,” and clarifying “That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report, and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.” And the OLC memo is the *reason* that they “did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

                    You claim “Mueller did say that if the evidence supported a conspiracy involving Trump then the co-conspirators would have been charged and by inference those charges would implicate Trump,” but again ignore the standard that that evidence had to meet. The report instead said (modifying your claim to make it accurate) “that if the evidence supported beyond a reasonable doubt a conspiracy involving Trump then the co-conspirators would have been charged and by inference those charges would implicate Trump.” Your claim that “Mueller said clearly that the evidence did not support an allegation of conspiracy or collusion with Russia by anybody connected to Trump” is also false as stated. What the report said is “that the evidence did not support” beyond a reasonable doubt an indictment “for conspiracy … with Russia by anybody connected to Trump” (portion in quotations from you, correction from me outside the quotation marks). Not that it didn’t support an “allegation.” And both the report and Mueller personally noted why they addressed “conspiracy” but *not* “collusion.”

                    “What you are trying to claim …”

                    Bullsh*t. That’s your false inference from what I wrote (either that, or you’re purposefully lying, but I’ll assume that it’s a mistake rather than a lie). Don’t attribute your mistake to me. I neither said nor implied what comes after the ellipses.

                    “Mueller said very clearly that they did determine the evidence did not support collusion or conspiracy.”

                    Go ahead and quote what you’re referring to, and let’s see what he actually said. Because I bet that you’re taking a claim “did not determine X” and pretending that it means “did determine [not X].” If you produce the actual quote, we’ll see which of us is wrong.

                    1. “And with respect to Trump (who, again, is the one and only person that part of my claim was about)”

                      You just keep digging your hole deeper and deeper.
                      Your claim about collusion/conspiracy cannot be about one and only one person.
                      Conspiracies must involve more than one and only one person.

                      The OLC memo did play a role in the consideration of other charges against Trump but it played no role in the charge of collusion and you keep doubling down on your lie when you said it did: ” they explicitly didn’t consider whether it was sufficient to bring charges because of the OLC memo that Trump couldn’t be indicted”

                      They did the exact opposite. They explicitly did consider whether it was sufficient to bring charges of collusion (conspiracy) against Trump:
                      “the evidence uncovered in the investigation did not establish that the President or those close to him were involved in the charged Russian computer-hacking or active-measure conspiracies, or that the President otherwise had an unlawful relationship with any Russian official.”

                    2. “If I were to blame….”

                      NTBC always has other people doing the work to correct NTB’s mistakes.

                    3. “Your claim about collusion/conspiracy cannot be about one and only one person.”

                      Sure it can. For example, if 5 people participate in a conspiracy, and one and only one has blue eyes, you can correctly note that one and only one person in that particular conspiracy has blue eyes.

                      In this case, the OLC memo applies to one and only one person who might have been charged / one and only one person for whom there is credible evidence, but insufficient to bring charges when using a reasonable doubt standard.

                      There’s nothing wrong with my response to Turley about his false claim that “the Mueller investigation found no credible evidence of collusion by Trump.” I responded that “They found credible evidence [of conspiracy], and they explicitly didn’t consider whether it was sufficient[] to bring charges [against Trump] because of the OLC memo that Trump couldn’t be indicted.” You can keep misrepresenting what I said and the context in which I said it, but repeating your false argument doesn’t improve it.

                      “Conspiracies must involve more than one and only one person.”

                      Duh.
                      I’ve already agreed with you about that. But that doesn’t imply that all true claims about a conspiracy have to apply to everyone in the conspiracy. It’s very easy to make claims that are true for “one and only one person” in the conspiracy. For example, the terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui was indicted on multiple counts of conspiracy and eventually pleaded guilty. It’s easy to make true claims that apply only to him — true claims “about one and only one person” in the conspiracy — such as “one and only one person in that particular conspiracy is named Zacarias Moussaoui.”

                      “The OLC memo did play a role in the consideration of other charges against Trump but it played no role in the charge of collusion”

                      The OLC memo played a role in all possible charges against Trump. And both the Mueller Report and Mueller himself said so. Also, people don’t get charged with “collusion,” but with “conspiracy” or some other actual crime.

                      I doubt that we’re going to agree, and I’m unlikely to respond further. It seems like a waste of time.

                    4. “Sure it can. For example, if 5 people participate in a conspiracy, and one and only one has blue eyes, you can correctly note that one and only one person in that particular conspiracy has blue eyes.”

                      non-sequtur.

                      If 5 people participate in a conspiracy – all 5 can be indicted – regardless of eye color. But the US has only one president at a time.
                      If 5 people conspire – at least 4 can be indicted – no matter how many have blue eyes.

                    5. “In this case, the OLC memo applies to one and only one person who might have been charged ”
                      Correct – and it does not apply to the other members of the conspiracy.
                      “one and only one person for whom there is credible evidence,”
                      Incorrect in every possible way.
                      “but insufficient to bring charges when using a reasonable doubt standard.”
                      The standard for indictment is preponderance of the evidence.

                    6. You are honestly trying to argue that Mueller had BETTER evidence with respect to Trump than anyone else ?

                      That he could prove a conspiracy – but not establish that a single conspirator was guilty by a proponderance of evidence – except Trump ?

                      So what Mueller had phone records of Trump personally conspiring with Putin – but could not indict Don Jr, who purportedly was in the room at the time ?

                      Really ?

                      So we are supposed to buy the CTHD magical conspiracy theory ?

                    7. “I doubt that we’re going to agree, and I’m unlikely to respond further. It seems like a waste of time.”

                      Of course we are not going to agree, you are neither rational nor logical.

                      Before there was a Mueller the FBI investigated this idiotic mess. Then bent the rules, lied, and engaged in all sorts of misconduct, and STILL ended up having to reject the entire Trump Collusion Delussion.

                      And you are STILL buying it after a 2nd illegitimate investigation that failed to find anything ?

                      Really ?

                      This completely ignores the fact that the whole claim was a farce from the start.

                      The Brennnan Fake IC committee conclusion that Putin favored Trump was an obvious psychotic delusion.

                      Yes, Clearly Putin wanted the guy whose policies by the numbers would be harmful to Putin.

                      And if Putin was so hot on Trump – why wasn’t Trump Tower Moscow approved ?

                      And Trump instead of going to Cambridge analytics and saying – here is another 10M – go produce some really good adds and win me the swing states.

                      Instead of something rational, cheap and legal, Trump gather together a bunch of rank amatuers who managed to win the espionage tour de france and conspire with Putin to produce really crappy social media adds that egually favored Bernie, Trump and Clinton and did not mostly run until after he election and almost no one saw – and this occurred under the noses of the premier intelligence agencies of the world and no one caught it, and the press and mueller and the FBI spent years investigating and did not find a clue ?

                      Do you really think Stone, Manafort, Papadoulis, Page are that good ?
                      Do you really think that Flynn, Page, Papadoulis, Manafort would not have rolled on Trump in a minute if they had anything to tell.

                    8. “Your claim about collusion/conspiracy cannot be about one and only one person.”
                      Sure it can.
                      __________________________________________________________________
                      It can only if you are dishonest and lying.
                      ____________________________________________________________________
                      I responded that “They found credible evidence [of conspiracy], and they explicitly didn’t consider whether it was sufficient[] to bring charges [against Trump] because of the OLC memo
                      _______________________________________________________________________
                      And that is a flat out lie.

                      Mueller concluded that the evidence did not establish that trump was involved in a collusion (they called it conspiracy).

                      You have not quoted anything from the Mueller report to support your claim because there is nothing that supports it. It is a false statement that you are trying to sell as truth. And you try to sell it with dishonest logic instead of just simply quoting where Mueller said what you claim he said.

                      The OLC memo was cited as why Mueller reached no conclusion on the question of did Trump commit obstruction (an offense Trump could commit alone) but it was never cited as a reason for not reaching a conclusion that the evidence did not support collusion\conspiracy.
                      _______________________________________________________________________________
                      It’s very easy to make claims that are true for “one and only one person” in the conspiracy
                      __________________________________________________________________________
                      Of course that is true. But you made the one claim out of the possible millions of claims that cannot be true for only one person. You just keep supplying more evidence that your are a chronic liar.

                    9. I said the first time that this was raised that claiming you had lied was overreach.

                      It is becoming increasly plausible – that or willful blindness.

                      There was no conspiracy of one.

                      There was no other party indicted for conspiracy.

                      Therefore there was no conspiracy at all. PERIOD.

                      Obstruction requires an underlying crime.
                      There is none. Full Stop.

                      Mueller wasted several hundred pages to make political digs – because he failed to “bag Trump” something he knew from day one was not going to happen.

                    10. John Say wrote:
                      Obstruction requires an underlying crime.
                      There is none. Full Stop.
                      ___________________________________________

                      There was an alleged underlying crime that predicated the Special Counsel investigation.
                      Comey provided the narrative for that underlying crime:
                      a) Flynn lied to the FBI
                      b) Trump pressured Comey to “Let Flynn go”
                      c) When b) did not work Trump fired Comey

                      Now imagine what happens to this phony narrative if Flynn and the two FBI agents all together say that Flynn did not lie in that Jan. 24 FBI interview. If the participants in the interview all agree that Flynn did not lie, you are left with Mueller, Comey and Trump pushing the phony story that Flynn lied to the FBI and people are going to wonder WTF.
                      Without the help of Flynn falling on his sword and confirming the underlying crime there would be a lot more questions about the legitimacy of the Mueller probe.

                      But the Flynn-lied-to-the-FBI story is crucial to the Mueller Report narrative far beyond just providing the original underlying crime that Comey claimed was the justification for Rosenstein appointing Mueller. 8 of the 10 instances of possible obstruction that Mueller spent so many pages babbling about flow directly out of the Flynn-lied-to-the-FBI story. Without Flynn-lied-to-the-FBI story most of the obstruction instances are left without a predicate and motive.

                    11. “There was an alleged underlying crime that predicated the Special Counsel investigation.
                      Comey provided the narrative for that underlying crime:
                      a) Flynn lied to the FBI”
                      1) False
                      2) the investigation was over the interview was not subject to 18 USC 1001
                      3). the purported lie was not material. There was nothing illegal about Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak – and none other than Comey said exactly that 2 weeks earlier.
                      4). Classic entrapment – there was no crime involved, and the purpose of the interview – as documented beforehand was not investigative, it was to “get Flynn” – From January 5th forward it was clear the DOJ/FBI was going to have to inform Flynn of XFH and when that happened all hell was going to break lose. Flynn knew how things worked and would quickly have ferreted out the corrupt process that lead to XFH and heads would have rolled – atleast inside the IC where Flynn was in control.
                      The purpose of the interview was to either get Flynn fired or get a basis to further investigate so they did not have to tell him about XFH
                      This is not speculation – it is documented.
                      It is also entrapment – which is a civl rights violation/
                      5)Again no underlying crime
                      b) Trump pressured Comey to “Let Flynn go”
                      1) All constitutional executive powers are vested in the president.
                      2)Trump could have ordered Comey to let Flynn go.
                      3)Trump could and may still pardon Flynn.
                      4)Obama publicly pressured Comey to Let Hillary go – and he did.
                      5). The President can not obstruct justice by suggesting that Comey do what he has the power to order Comey to do, or has the power to do directly himself in multiple ways.
                      c) When b) did not work Trump fired Comey
                      1)Absolutely within the presidents power to do so.
                      Further as rosenstein and later Horowitz documented – there were a long list of excellent reasons to fire Comey.
                      Horowits refered Comey to DOJ for prosecution for lying about CrossFire Hurricane – that would have been a legitimate 18 USC 1001 investigation.

                      You have this odd view that if you have a deep enough chain of noncrimes and civil rights violations that you can hide that fact and pretend you have a crime as a cherry on the top.
                      The law does not work that way. And even more important it should not.

                2. “Their view was that the OLC memo precluded them from charging Trump, so it was pointless for them to reach a determination about whether they could charge him.”

                  NTBC (Needs to be Committed):This twerp is now a mind reader as well as a liar. If they could have shown legitimate charges against Trump they would have. You continue to repeat garbage and gish gallop all over the place to make people believe you have something valuable to say. You don’t.

                3. I am loath to call an error on the facts or law a lie.

                  Other than that you remain incorrect.

                  The OLC memo only needs considered in two specific conditions.

                  You can meet the standard to indict for an alleged crime that Trump did without anyone else.
                  And there are no such allegations.

                  You allege a crime involving a conspiracy and you have indicted the other conspirators, But not Trump.

                  You can never claim to have not indicted Trump as part of a conspiracy because of the OLC memo – unless you have indicted the conspirators.

                  If you have not indicted the conspirators – then you did not have even a weak case against anyone.

                  1. The OLC memo only needs considered in two specific conditions.

                    You can meet the standard to indict for an alleged crime that Trump did without anyone else.
                    And there are no such allegations.

                    You allege a crime involving a conspiracy and you have indicted the other conspirators, But not Trump.

                    __________________________________________________________________
                    No that is not even close to being correct.
                    Here is what Mueller Report says:
                    “Before addressing Article II issues directly, we consider one threshold statutory construction principle that is unique to the presidency: “The principle that general statutes must be read as not applying to the President if they do not expressly apply where application would arguably limit the President’s constitutional role.” OLC, Application of 28 USC. § 458 to Presidential Appointments of Federal Judges, 19 Op. O.L.C. 350, 352 (1995).”

                    In other words, there are some crimes which the OLC opinion does not apply. The reason that the OLC applies to all the instances of Obstruction in the Mueller report is because it is arguable that all those actions are within the limits of the authority given to Trump by the Constitution. But if Mueller found evidence that Trump had stuck up and robbed a bank that would likely not be covered by the OLC opinion because robbing banks is not part of the President’s constitutional role.

                    1. It is irrelevant what the Mueller report says.

                      hundreds of pages of vitriol about the one that got away does not alter the fact that there is no indictable crime.
                      If there was Mueller would have indicted.
                      In fact had Mueller sufficient evidence of an actually indictable offense directly involving Trump – or that Trump participated in as part of a conspiracy – Mueller would have done what Starr did – and drug Trump in front of a grand jury.

                      When people fail to act it is typically because they can not.

                      Mueller’s excuses are just that – bad legal theories to explain what he did not do.

                      The OLC opinion was irrelevant. It prevents ONE thing – indicting Trump. It does not preclude investigating, subpeonaing, or forcing Trump in front of a grand jury. None of those happened – because Mueller did not have the evidence necescary to do so.

                    2. jinn,

                      I do not care about the nonsense regarding the OLC oppinion.

                      I am not sure whether I even agree with the OLC oppinion.

                      Regardless, the OLC oppinion only explains why Mueller did not indict if there was an instance in which he could indict.

                      There was none.

                      If but for the OLC oppinion Mueller could have indicted Trump then
                      He could have indicted others – and he did not.
                      He could have brought Trump in front of a grand jury and he did not.

                4. Reasonable doubt is the standard to convict. That is the only place it is applicable.
                  Probable cause is the standard to get a warrant. While Mueller was given many warrants – we now know he should never have been granted a single one. The FISA court rescinded the last two FISA warrants, and Mueller never had any stronger basis for a warrant than those. If you disagree – then lets get the Mueller warrant applications made public – and we can start prosecuting all of those who lied on the warrant applications, or were aware of those lies or who swore that probable cause existed – when we all know that the warrant applications were full of crap.

                  The standard necescary for an indictment is preponderance of the evidence.
                  The standard necescary to investigate is reasonable suspicion.
                  As Horowitz noted – reasonable suspicion existed – BARELY from July through mid january – and no longer.
                  At that point no further investigation was permissible.
                  Probable cause NEVER existed.
                  If you can not reach reasonable suspicion much less probable cause you certainly can not reach preponderance of the evidence.

                  These standards are not legally ambigious – or they are not supposed to be or we as a nation are lawless.

                  We can not investigate, search or indict people – to suit our curiosity or whim.

                  Mueller did not use the wrong standard – that is complete bunk. As biased as Mueller’s team may be, this was not the JV team.
                  These lawyers know the standard for indictment. the absence of indictment is proof that the relatively low standard of proof was never met.

                  Mueller’s team can play very limited games in their report. They can not in court. Or atleast they are not supposed to be able to

                5. One of the other problems with the SC investigation is that no where in our law is there any provision for a hybrid counter intell/criminal investigation.

                  There are no legal standard in a counter intelligence investigation at all save ONE – that if you target a US person you must get a FISA warrant, and if you wish to prosecute them for a crime – you must pass the case off to an independent criminal investigation and prosecution team.

                  Counter intelligence investigation are completely ujnconstrained by the constitution – because they do not involve the rights of US persons.

                  Criminal investigations must be completely conducted respecting the constitutional rights of US persons.

                  Neitehr the constitution nor the SC law permit an SC Counter intelligence investigation.

                  In that way the Mueller appointment was on its face corrupt from day one.

                  SC’s can only be appointed fro criminal investigations, and only where there is a target with the ability to influence the investigation.
                  The primary reason there was no SC investigation of Clinton, is that she was neither part of FBI, DOJ, or the whitehouse.

            2. The OLC memo is irrelevant.

              The investigation was illegitimate.
              There was no crime. There was no conspiracy, there was no collusion

              Just a delusional left.

              I would note that conspiracy and collusion require 2 people.

              As not one was indicted for conspiring there can be no 2nd protected person.

        3. The standard for indictment is NOT reasonable doubt.

          Mueller did not indict because there was no conspiracy.

          Gowdy addressed the Mueller report best – proscutors speak through the courts. They indict, they prosecute, they convict.

          They do not produce reports. If Mueller did not indict – he is done. The Mueller report is hundreds of pages of we looked under every grain of sand and found nothing – but really there must be something there because we want their to be.

          Wishful thinking is not a crime.

          1. Mueller didn’t indict Whitey Bulger, he protected him. Then he spent 3 years going after Trump with nothing to show for it.

            1. Whitey Bulger’s brother was a democrat kingpin in Massachusetts politics. He used his power the way many democrats do. Is it any wonder that Whitey was on the lam for so long?

          2. John, you make excellent points and totally destroy the continuous nonesense we hear from Commit. Your detractors have a problem. They have no capacity to argue against fact.

            1. I do not need to read the Mueller report.

              Mueller failed to reach the standard of proof necescary to indict – a very low standard of proof.
              That is self evidence.
              Had he reached that standard of proof – he would have done so.

              As to separate claims that he did not indict Trump because of the OLC memo – those are equally bunk.
              Please identify a single act that you think or that you think Mueller thought was a crime that Trump might have committed on his own ?
              There are none.

              So why didn’t mueller indict Trump’s purported conspirators ?

              Simple – there was no crime.

              You can not have a conspiracy of one.

              And you can not claim Trump could not be indicted as part of a conspiracy – if you have not indicted the conspirators.

          3. They do not produce reports.
            ___________________________________________________________________
            The Special counsel is required by law to produce a report to the AG
            The AG can choose to make some or all of that report available to the public.

            1. “The Special counsel is required by law to produce a report to the AG”
              Please cite that part of the law.

              Prior special counsels prosecuted.

              Regardless, as Gowdy noted – that is who proscecutors speak in our legal system.

              1. 28 CFR § 600.8(c) Closing documentation. At the conclusion of the Special Counsel’s work, he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.

                1. Good for you.

                  Now explain how this requirement was met by Rosenstein ?

                  § 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.
                  The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted

                  SC;s a appointed to investigate crimes.
                  Not conduct counter intelligence investigations – those can not constitutionally be done by the same parties.
                  Rosenstein did not appoint Meuller to investigate and alleged crime.

                  Had he done so, the Mueller investigation would have ended on day one when Mueller found that there was no longer reasonable suspicion of said crime.

          4. Mueller was required to provide a report by the Ind Counc law.
            Mueller never considered indicting the president due to the OLC determination. He enumerated 10 instances he considered possible obstruction of justice violations.
            Mueller did indict and convict other members of the Trump campaign and Russians who helped the campaign.

            1. “Mueller was required to provide a report by the Ind Counc law.”
              Mueller was not an independent counsel. He was a special counsel. The IC law has expired and was likely unconstitutional.

              If the SC law requires a report – you should be able to find in the SC law that requirement and cite it.

              The SC law also requires a crime – yet Rosenstein did not identify a crime for Mueller to investigate.

              A merged Criminal/CounterIntelligence investigation would be unconstitutional – as there ware radically different legal standards for each.

              “Mueller never considered indicting the president due to the OLC determination.”
              False. This has been addressed repeatedly. Any conspiracy indictment of Trump that would be blocked by the OLC would not bar the indictment of co-conspirators. No one was indicted for conspiring with Trump.

              “He enumerated 10 instances he considered possible obstruction of justice violations.”
              And none of them are real.
              You can not obstruct injustice.
              You can not obstruct an illegitimate investigation.
              You can not obstruct by excercising constitutional powers.
              Jefferson did everything short of prosecute Burr himself from the whitehouse.
              Absent an actual underlying crime obstruction of justice is not possible – not only not for the president – but for anyone.

              “Mueller did indict and convict other members of the Trump campaign and Russians who helped the campaign.”

              False. There is not a single conviction of a Russian for anything.
              In fact Mueller was directed by the court to quit making allegations that he offered no evidence for.
              I beleive that all prosecutions of russians have been dropped at this time.
              Separatley the prosuctions of russians really was outside of Mueller’s brief and further was an infringement on the foreign policy of the president. As a result of Mueller’s idiotic effort to prosecute russians, american citizens throughout the world are now subject to prosecution by foreign powers for expressing views on foreign elections – even if done from inside the US.
              This was ludicrously stupid on the part of Mueller and proves how desparate the left was to get Trump. They are perfectly happy to restrict the liberty of americans to “get Trump”.

              Further no american has been prosecuted for anything having to do with the compaign.
              All of the charges were process crimes – that should never exist absent an underlying actual crime.
              None of these prosecutions should have occured.

              Mueller’s investigation was illegitimate from day one.
              It found nothing.

              There is more evidence that the Clinton campaign colluded with Russia – which BTW was despicable, but not a crime.

    5. Commit, you lost. Get over yourself and move on. Sifting through the ashes of a failed past strategy for some way to redeem your black heart is pathetic.

  5. The Bolsheviks are desperate!

    Duke Lacrosse DA Mike Nifong was convicted and sent to jail for malicious prosecution.

    Weissmann and District Judge Emmet Sullivan should be in Supermax for the weaponization of justice of the justice system and the corruption of law and fundamental law, in order to promote a full communist takeover and to defend the criminal Obama, leader of the Coup D’etat in America.

    America is in a condition of hysteria, incoherence, chaos, anarchy and rebellion.

    President Abraham Lincoln seized power, neutralized the legislative and judicial branches and ruled by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Union.”

    President Donald Trump must now seize power, neutralize the legislative and judicial branches and rule by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Republic.”

  6. Ha! You’re trying to defend this Stone commutation. Love it. The legal community writ large sees how awful it is. Everyone saw Stone twist it out of Trump by threatening to tell the truth on social media. And historians basically think this:

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/12/politics/trump-president-rankings/?iid=ob_lockedrail_topeditorial

    Probably working for these guys made sense at one time, JT. But the train has left the station. Just saying.

    1. “the legal community” what? has “johnny Buglife” got his finger on the pulse?

      Seems to me, a lawyer out here in flyover, that his trial was tainted bya clearly biased Trump hating foreperson, and a defective voir dire.

      The commutation is appropriate.

    2. WOW! The “legal community” (whatever that is) speaks with a single voice! and CNN is someone’s source for “news”! Maybe a crystal ball is the source of the info about “threats” by the President of the USA to Stone??

  7. The pardon power is “generally beyond the reach of judicial review.” Independently of Weissman’s newfound attempt to get Stone when all else has clearly failed (not to mention the whole Mueller saga, which I have no brief for), if the “generally” here is not capable of being fleshed out in a way that prevents the manipulation of the criminal justice system by the president, then the pardon authority should be abolished or restricted. Otherwise it is a power that we can only expect will be used tyrannically, tendentiously, and politically except in the rarest of cases.

    1. Commutations and pardons are acts of mercy not tyranny.

      “The Framers were well aware of the ways in which criminal laws under the Crown had been abused, and applied in an arbitrary and vindictive manner – not to mention the multitude of offenses for which the death penalty was prescribed. For that reason, there was no opposition to the pardon power itself in the Federal Convention.

      The first reason for the pardon power advanced by Hamilton, was as a remedy against injustices in criminal proceedings – and for this reason, he said, it should be subject to as few restrictions as possible:

      “Humanity and good policy conspire to dictate, that the benign prerogative of pardoning should be as little as possible fettered or embarrassed. The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel.” ~ Alexander Hamilton

      Hamilton went on to argue why this power were better lodged with one man, who would be less likely to be goaded on by others as would be the case in the legislature; One man is more likely to be “a more eligible dispenser of the mercy of government, than a body of men.”

      1. Thanks for that addition. If that’s what Hamilton believed, then I think he was completely wrong, both about one man being more likely to work just results in applying the pardon power (he was too smart for me not to think that this belief was disingenuous) and that the pardon power would prove to be a strictly moderating force – or that even if it were a moderating force only, then that would be mutually exclusive of its subverting the law’s credibility (he was also too smart for me to believe that the latter possibility did not occur to him).

        The way you moderate the “necessary severity” in the criminal justice system (democratically at any rate) is through better (fewer) criminal laws, penalties that more appropriately fit the crimes they ostensibly are punishing, and more educated juries that can nullify the law when it would work an unjust result through its too technical application in a particular case.

  8. “…ethical prosecutors…”

    That sums up the issue perfectly.

    Mr. Weissman is not ethical; in my opinion he is a legal thug operating on partisan principles.

    Very much a Dem Roy Cohen.

    (And the Dems who cheer him on have the same respect for the law that McCarthy had.)

  9. When Weissman speaks of bringing someone before a grand jury, my first thought is that he is correct. However it is Andrew Weissman who needs to be brought before a grand jury, and from there, before a judge and jury. Until those responsible for this attempted “coup” of a President, and spying on a Presidential campaign are brought to justice, our system of justice will never be the same as it was prior to the Obama/Biden administration in 2008. We all know that they used the IRS against political opponents, and never saw justice. If charges are not brought against those involved, prior to November, and if Biden wins, justice will never see the light of day.

    1. “In late September 2017, an exhaustive report by the Treasury Department’s inspector general found that from 2004 to 2013, the IRS used both conservative and liberal keywords to choose targets for further scrutiny, blunting claims that the issue had been an Obama-era partisan scandal.[2][3] The 115 page report confirmed the findings of the prior 2013 report that some conservative organizations had been unfairly targeted, but also found that the pattern of misconduct had been ongoing since 2004 and was non-partisan in nature…

      In January 2014, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) announced that it had found no evidence warranting the filing of federal criminal charges in connection with the affair. The FBI stated it found no evidence of “enemy hunting” of the kind that had been suspected, but that the investigation did reveal the IRS to be a mismanaged bureaucracy enforcing rules that IRS personnel did not fully understand. The officials indicated, however, that the investigation is continuing.[162][163][164][165]..”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy

      1. The failure to properly enforce restrictions on nonprofits (501c3s) acting as PACs and lobbying is the most overlooked and unenforced element of the nonprofit scene.

        In theory nonprofits can “advocate” but not lobby.

        In practice what this has mean for the past 50 years, is that Democrat lead nonprofits can “lobby” as much as they want and only conservative ones get in trouble.

        This is so well known among practicioners but nobody is “studying” or “reporting” or “editorializing” on it because the biggest offenders are pro-black outfits like NAACP.

        Now in general since most of the “nonprofit” scene is getting gobs of money from Democrats like Soros and barely a trickle from “conservatives” — no tax practicioner in this area is ever going to write that down or go on the record about it. It’s a “water cooler” conversation only. IF that.

        Of course a lot of facts are like that now in America– Can’t say them, or lose job! Truth is mostly just what pleases the big money and that big money is mostly blue. IE, Democrat.

        The facts are out there. But, hard to find in this milieu, and even harder to find on an internet locked down by brazenly partisan google, etc. who are pro Democrat gatekeepers and craft their AI censorship routines to protect those who can’t handle the truth from having their feelings hurt.

        But hey,. keep believing whatever pleases you.,

      2. Yeah, Lois Lerner took the 5th for no reason and the IRS played hide-the-ball with their own inspector-general for no reason. That’s the Holder-Lynch Justice Department your son works for.

        1. Re:IRS Targeting Scandal…we now have a partisan report by the partisan agency that they were not being partisan in their unlawful targeting, but in fact we’re being non-partisan with their unlawful acts, according to their partisan internal watchdog. Whew, I feel so much better now. I’d hate to think their unlawful targeting was partisan. They should have to do ALL their unlawful targeting in a non-partisan way.

          1. With all the other USC real reasons to get rid of the Unconstitutional IRS last week’s SCOTUS weaponized ruling on DJT’s Tax Returns the IRS has to be disbanded.

            BTW: I think just any ole AG or DA should demand to every Judge’s , SCOTUS, etc., their tax returns for the last 8 to 10 years!

            That’ll be a fun fishing trip. LOL;)

        2. If you want to know the truth Re. why no bankers went to prison for causing the 2008 depression, esp. main culprit Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs…the prime henchman facilitating the bloodless coup of the DOJ was Eric Holder. This video rated 8.5 of 10 by 127 voters: https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/veneer-justice-kingdom-crime/#:~:text=The%20intriguingly%20titled%20documentary%20The,Crime%20examines%20the%20reasons%20why.&text=Their%20failure%20to%20successfully%20investigate,failing%20in%20America%27s%20legal%20system.

          One of the all time best documentaries extant. Superbly done, no hyperbole, with many split screens including photo copies of the text from the relevant federal laws on one side with DOJ lies on the other side.

          I am curious how this travesty seems to escape Turley’s concern.

  10. Weissmann should beware of fishing expedition malfunctions. There could be a tug of war. You never know what’s at the end of the hook.

  11. Of course it’s easier to strip an honorary degree. It doesn’t require a law school diploma to figure that out. GWU Law isn’t interested in hard work except perhaps Professor Turley and a very few others.

    1. “GWU Law isn’t interested in hard work except perhaps Professor Turley and a very few others.”

      Allan and his crazy blanket statements.

  12. Both Mueller and Weissmann crawling out from underneath their rocks — there’s definitely something THEY want to hide.

  13. The Mueller Report lists 10 possible obstructions of justice by Trump. Lying to federal prosecutors fits within those possible criminal charges.when Trump leaves office.

    1. ” lists 10 possible obstructions”

      “Possible” is a word you ought to check in the dictionary. In the case you are obsessing over possible has turned into the Mueller Report was a joke.

      1. [“Possible” is a word you ought to check in the dictionary. In the case you are obsessing over possible has turned into the Mueller Report was a joke.]

        Allan, coherence is a positive. I suggest practicing up on it.

        1. “coherence” is the word of the day for the Bug man who through his ignorance and avoidence is part of the reason for so much violence violence in the streets.

          Keep repeating the word incoherence. It will not make your guilt disappear though perhaps the voices in your head will decrease in relative volume..

    2. Anon – remember that the Mueller Report was a propaganda vehicle for Weissmann, not actual fact.

    3. ‘In this case, Mueller did not find evidence showing that President Trump or his campaign conspired with the Russian government to obtain hacked emails from the Clinton campaign or Democratic National Committee.’

      Mueller stated on more than one occasion and in writing that ‘Trump was not innocent.’ of collision. He couldn’t say Trump was guilty as he did not have incontrovertible proof. That seems to be the line Trump walks and has walked; not innocent but unable to be proven guilty. As a liar, Trump is a pathological liar, lies for seemingly no reason at all. However, any one lie can be refuted if only with an ‘I was just joking.’ explanation. This explains as clearly as is possible just how, ‘not innocent’ Trump is. That is Mueller’s conundrum. His, ‘not innocent’, explanation might hint at more to come. Bring it on before November. Let’s get rid of this disgrace, this shame, this walking pustule.

      1. “Collusion” is not a legal term and Mueller did not address it though his report details numerous instances of the Trump campaign colluding with the Russians and then lying about it. Criminal conspiracy is the appropriate legal term and Mueller said they could not establish that it occurred, but specifically did not “clear” the campaign of this charge, i.e., prove they did not engage in it. Stonewalling by the President and the campaign was noted in the report.

        1. Not as many times as the socialist liberals flat out conspired which is a crime. So much for that dead issue except for the part about the crimes committed by the far left still needing investigation, charges filed, grand jury and the final jury of citizens.

          1. If you have evidence of “socialist liberals” (or anyone else, for that matter) committing crimes, I suggest that you turn your evidence over to the relevant LE authority(ies).

      2. Not sure what planet gave you a law degree. It is guilty or not guilty. Innocence is not involved. When the court says you are guilty you are. Period. Innocent or not. If the court does not say you are guilty, you are innocent until proven guilty. You’ll never get it, will you?

      3. When exactly did it become the purview of police and prosecuting attorneys to proclaim people “innocent” of anything? EVERYONE IS INNOCENT TILL PROVEN GUILTY YOU PATHETIC TDS VICTIM. Your point is that the lack of a prosecuting attorney proclaiming you are innocent of child rape suggests you are a child rapist, and you need to be pulled in to a grand jury to answer for it.

    4. ‘There was no allegation of a crime by Trump linked to the Stone false statements or threats.’

      There is no direct link between Trump and the hundreds of crimes with which he is associated. Stormy Daniels, tax fraud, money laundering, and many many others, are always once removed by a Cohen, a Stone, a Manafort, etc. Trump just happened to be coming along at the time, yup, yup, yup. For 99% of Americans, without the money to pay the lawyers, without the political pull, they would have been locked up decades ago. Trump has paid dozens of fines, but never admitted guilt. The Trump oxymoron.

    5. The Mueller Report lists 10 possible obstructions of justice by Trump.

      He was obstructing Weismann’s obstruction investigation by dumping documents on him.

  14. “Now a law professor at New York University,”

    Where do high profile left wing criminals, killers and terrorists go when they want to clean themselves up waiting for yet another gig at criminality? Apparently academia is a safe haven for them.

    With Weissmann’s professorship he can train even more lawyers to abuse the system to reap big rewards for themselves and their friends. The model for these miscreants is Michael Avenatti.

  15. Mueller putting his name to an op-ed, Weissman refusing to let go. This gives credence to the accusations of political bias.
    Neither man was incensed when Barr declined to prosecute McCabe, Comey, Clapper, or Brennan, all of whom lied under oath or to federal agents.

    The pre dawn SWAT team raid on Stone’s house tells us all we need to know about the Mueller team. Now it seems that because they couldn’t stitch Trump up for some crime, they want Stone to die in jail for no greater crime than that committed by Bill Clinton.

    Trump rightfully did not pardon Stone but left the stain of conviction on his name.

    1. agreed. commutation was the right move. not pardon. and not letting him rot after his biased conviction lead by an ardently Democratic Trump hating foreperson

  16. I think Andrew Weissmann should be disbarred for a lifetime of unethical behavior. What the devil is he teaching at NYU? How to avoid ethics charges?

    1. GWU Law School faculty tried to strip Attorney General Bill Barr of his honorary degree. Did they strip Michael Avenatti of the degree they provided him permitting him to engage in dishonorable and illegal activities based on his law degree? I don’t think so. That doesn’t make GWU look good.

      1. Allan – an honorary degree is easier to strip than an actual degree. You have a property interest in the degree. Lawyers get involved. 😉

    2. Nothing is preventing you from filing a complaint with the NY Bar Assoc. asking them to disbar him and providing evidence to support your desire that he be disbarred.
      Except, presumably, your unwillingness and/or inability to present a credible argument to them.

      1. they will throw them all in the circular file trust me it’s a waste of time just like talking to you fools here

Leave a Reply