Please explain Republican principles of justice investigating Presidents

[Greg Davidson]

When President Clinton was first under investigation, Republicans argued that the initial investigator Robert Fiske (a Republican) was not independent enough because he had been appointed by Clinton, and so Ken Starr (a Republican who had worked for Clinton’s opponent and had already advised Paula Jones in her legal actions against Clinton) was later put in charge of the investigation.

In the Trump era, Republicans argue that Robert Mueller (a Republican appointed by the President)  is too biased against Trump and so needs to be replaced by another Trump appointee. After also firing Republican Jim Comey, how do you imagine today's Republicans would feel about an investigator who had worked for Trump's opponent in the last campaign and who had advised those taking legal actions against Trump?

On this critical matter of how to investigate whether the President of the United States is above the law, can any Republican out there defend this position?

[Seriati]

When President Clinton was first under investigation, Republicans argued that the initial investigator Robert Fiske (a Republican) was not independent enough because he had been appointed by Clinton, and so Ken Starr (a Republican who had worked for Clinton’s opponent and had already advised Paula Jones in her legal actions against Clinton) was later put in charge of the investigation.

Did someone on this board make an argument on this point, or are you calling for us to speculate about others motives?

In the Trump era, Republicans argue that Robert Mueller (a Republican appointed by the President)  is too biased against Trump and so needs to be replaced by another Trump appointee.

I have argued about Mueller's conflicts not his biases.  In what world is it not a conflict of interest to interview for a job replacing your friend, and then turn around days later and take a job investigating the termination of such friend? 

The special counsel should have come from outside of the Washington culture.

For all I know, Mueller deliberately picked Clinton partisans to staff his investigation (and we are talking literal partisans, including people who directly represented her interests on relevant matters) to make it possible to clear the President -if necessary- credibly.  It however, undermines his credibility if he wants to bring charges to have staffed in that manner.

You understand at law - the appearance of impropriety - requires recusal.  There's no way to avoid an appearance if Comey's firing is part of the investigation (as it appears to be).

After also firing Republican Jim Comey, how do you imagine today's Republicans would feel about an investigator who had worked for Trump's opponent in the last campaign and who had advised those taking legal actions against Trump?

Not sure what you are asking.  All I can say is Comey would have been fired even faster by Clinton.  We know he was a leaker, we can reasonably suspect that he looked the other way on leakers.  Comey appears to have been the most political FBI director since Hoover, and the best spin you could put on it is that he seems to have tried to harm both sides.  That's not his role.

On this critical matter of how to investigate whether the President of the United States is above the law, can any Republican out there defend this position?

Is that what we are investigating?  Where did you get that idea?  Do you have some evidence that supports a special counsel investigation of whether the President is above the law?  Or heck that he even violated a law?

I sure haven't seen it.

How do you defend pushing an investigation without probable cause, or even credible evidence purely for partisan reasons?

[yossarian22c]

How do you defend pushing an investigation without probable cause, or even credible evidence purely for partisan reasons?

The investigation has resulted in two guilty pleas and two indictments. Why do you act like nothing has come from it? Trump's campaign and transition clearly did some shady stuff, that doesn't mean Trump is guilty but it certainly warrants investigation.

[Seriati]

Yossarian, I guaranty that if Federal agents break into your house illegally, that "investigation" could lead to indictments as well.  Does that justify it?

[yossarian22c]

Yossarian, I guaranty that if Federal agents break into your house illegally, that "investigation" could lead to indictments as well.  Does that justify it?

So you're afraid all the results are fruit of a poisoned tree where the investigation should never have happened? This is a very different argument that they did nothing wrong. Evidence (and guilty pleas) shows that did stuff wrong. Or do you claim both, there should have been no investigation and they did nothing wrong?

[Seriati]

Yossarian, I guaranty that if Federal agents break into your house illegally, that "investigation" could lead to indictments as well.  Does that justify it?

So you're afraid all the results are fruit of a poisoned tree where the investigation should never have happened?

Should me probable cause to investigate the President for "Russian collusion". 

Whether there should be investigations of other people on other topics is neither here nor there.  I note the charges so far have little to do with the claimed investigation.

This is a very different argument that they did nothing wrong. Evidence (and guilty pleas) shows that did stuff wrong.

I didn't say they did nothing wrong.  I mean Flynn pled guilty to lying about conduct that itself wasn't illegal.  Can you explain how such a case would have come about without an investigation in the first place?  It's literally only generated because of the investigation.

It's like convicting someone of "resisting arrest" when the original charge they were arrested for has been proven to be bogus.

Or do you claim both, there should have been no investigation and they did nothing wrong?

My specific claim is that the basis for the investigation was weaponized unverified political research.  If you don't understand why that's a problem I'm not sure I have anyway to explain it to you.  I can only hope you enjoy political prosecutions where the shoe is on the other foot as much.

[TheDrake]

Could a source ever have been someone who LIKED Trump? It seems they would never have been offered the opportunity, would not have taken it, or have covered up or downplayed any evidence.

The memo is not nothing, but feels very much like stuff I've been hearing all along. There's no smoking gun, at best a smoldering peat fire. I imagine lots of warrants are granted on flimsier evidence - particularly by FISA.

And ultimately with any other evidence presented to FISA secret, it remains murky how large of a factor the Steele dossier even was.

The real howler in there:

the public's confidence in the integrity of the FISA process depends on the court's ability to hold the government to the highest standard, particularly as it relates to surveillance of American citizens. However, the rigor in protecting the rights of Americans, which is reinforced by 90 day renewals of surveillance orders, is necessarily dependent on the government's production to the court of all material and relevant facts. This should include information potentially favorable to the target of the FISA application that is known by the government.

Does anybody think FISA ever works that way?

[Greg Davidson]

Seriati,

We are getting to serious threats to the integrity of our country when thoughtful people like yourself still are going along with the Republican efforts to disparage the Justice Department and the FBI.

Please, I am pleading with you - think about why a investigator from the opposite political party appointed by Bill Clinton was considered too biased in favor of him by Republicans, and so they had to go with Ken Starr (who was a Republican who literally had a track record of working against Clinton). And somehow this was acceptable. Trump's allies are arguing that even a widely respected Republican (Mueller was extended as head of the FBI by something like a 98-2 vote) has to be a Democratic plant because he keeps finding evidence of lawbreaking. Is there any reason to believe that Mueller is more biased in favor of Democrats and against Republicans than Robert Fiske or Ken Starr? 

Do you want to ultimately be loyal to tribe, or to principles of justice that should be applied similarly regardless of who is accused of breaking the laws of the United States of America?

[Crunch]

We are getting to serious threats to the integrity of our country when thoughtful people like yourself still are going along with the Republican efforts to disparage the Justice Department and the FBI.

Please, I am pleading with you - think about why a investigator from the opposite political party appointed by Bill Clinton was considered too biased in favor of him by Republicans, and so they had to go with Ken Starr (who was a Republican who literally had a track record of working against Clinton). And somehow this was acceptable. Trump's allies are arguing that even a widely respected Republican (Mueller was extended as head of the FBI by something like a 98-2 vote) has to be a Democratic plant because he keeps finding evidence of lawbreaking. Is there any reason to believe that Mueller is more biased in favor of Democrats and against Republicans than Robert Fiske or Ken Starr? 

Do you want to ultimately be loyal to tribe, or to principles of justice that should be applied similarly regardless of who is accused of breaking the laws of the United States of America?

The principal of justice? You’re not comparing apples and oranges there. There’s a huge difference between Star and what’s happening now and you know that.

From the memo, we know that the DOJ and FBI, on behalf of Hillary Clinton, lied to the FISA court in order to dig up dirt on Trump to dersil his candidacy and later his election and presidency. Defending that is the ultimate form of tribal loyalty and the real threat integrity of our country.

When politicians and their minions use the justice department and police to conduct campaigns against their enemies, that’s the threat. 

[AnonymousMaus]

  Whaaa?  I don't get it!!!  When did the DOJ and FBI become Hilary henchmen???

[Greg Davidson]

Crunch,

Can you answer some basic questions, and if you can't, can you think about why?

Can you explain why Devin Nunes is still involved here after he recused himself from the Russia investigation?

What is the difference between Starr and Mueller? In a small fraction of the time, Mueller has already gotten two guilty pleas and at the end of 4 years Starr only got the perjury about a sex act.

During the investigation of Clinton, Republicans asserted that the President had to be investigated by someone of the opposite political party and not someone of the President's choosing - does it only work that way for Democrats, and for Republican Presidents the rules are that he can only have investigators from his own party, and he's allowed to fire investigators and choose another one any time he wants?

[yossarian22c]

From the memo, we know that the DOJ and FBI, on behalf of Hillary Clinton, lied to the FISA court in order to dig up dirt on Trump to dersil his candidacy and later his election and presidency. Defending that is the ultimate form of tribal loyalty and the real threat integrity of our country.

What specific lies did the FBI tell?

What was specifically was Clinton (not Steele) involved?

[yossarian22c]

What was specifically was Clinton (not Steele) involved?

Why I should wait until I have time to proofread before posting 

How specifically was Clinton (not Steele) involved?

Steele by most accounts didn't give the info to the Clinton campaign but took it directly to the FBI b/c of how serious he felt the matter was.

[Seriati]

Crunch,

Can you answer some basic questions, and if you can't, can you think about why?

Can you explain why Devin Nunes is still involved here after he recused himself from the Russia investigation?

Nunes didn't recuse himself.  I told you this before.  Do your research and quit arguing a falsehood.

The media lied to you when they told you it was a recusal, they deceived you when they used that word over and over to try and make it a reality.

Now ask yourself, why didn't you know this already?  Why did they lie to you repeatedly about it?

What is the difference between Starr and Mueller? In a small fraction of the time, Mueller has already gotten two guilty pleas and at the end of 4 years Starr only got the perjury about a sex act.

One big difference is that Starr was an independent counsel and Mueller is a special prosecutor.  Starr's investigation was such an obvious abuse that Congress refused to reenact the independent counsel law, and put it place a much more limited special prosecutor law.

That law does not permit the kind of wide ranging probe that Starr engaged it.  Yet here we are, pretending that they are the same.

Again, as media consumer, why don't you know the difference?  It's a pretty material piece of information and given how invested  you are in this, it should be something you've read multiple times - unless your media sources are not telling you for some reason - why would that be?

During the investigation of Clinton, Republicans asserted that the President had to be investigated by someone of the opposite political party and not someone of the President's choosing...

You are really missing the point on this.  For the purpose of this investigation, Trump's political party should be read as "Anti-establishment" not Republican.  Appointing Washington insiders to investigate the candidate that is specifically trying to break up the Washington inside is suspect.

Mueller's outstanding reputation is the only thing that's been saving this investigation.

- does it only work that way for Democrats, and for Republican Presidents the rules are that he can only have investigators from his own party, and he's allowed to fire investigators and choose another one any time he wants?

Did Trump fire Mueller?  Must have missed that. 

He certainly has the power to fire them all.  The remedy is literally political not legal.  We both know that Trump firing Mueller will lead to impeachment, whether it costs him office is another question.

Why do you think he's not allowed to fire them?  Why do you think that impeachment is not a sufficient remedy?

[Seriati]

Seriati,

We are getting to serious threats to the integrity of our country when thoughtful people like yourself still are going along with the Republican efforts to disparage the Justice Department and the FBI.

We are getting to serious threats to the integrity of our country when thoughtful people like yourself are still going along with the Democratic efforts to cover up malfeasance and political misuse of government agents.  I can not think of a single reason that we shouldn't want this whole thing brought out into the open.  There are no legitimate secrets here.

Can you tell me one thing in the FISA Memo that should have been classified?  One thing that justified the national media arguing against its release (frankly, that's grossest and most hypocritical embarrassment yet from the media)?

Can you give one credible reason why we should cover up political prosecutions? 

We've been having this debate for years now, ever since the political weaponization of the IRS came out.  The prior administration spied on the opposition campaign during a Presidential  election, with a warrant that was based - to some extent - on unverified opposition research.  I can't conceive of how anyone that believes in our Constitution doesn't have a problem with that.

There should never have been a special prosecutor.  Russian interference should have been investigated by a bipartisan commission appointed by Congress.  This entire process has been politically weaponized from day one, and it never should have been.  Trying to use this flimsy evidence to support the left's dream of impeach was a gross mistake.

Please, I am pleading with you - think about why a investigator from the opposite political party appointed by Bill Clinton was considered too biased in favor of him by Republicans, and so they had to go with Ken Starr (who was a Republican who literally had a track record of working against Clinton).

I don't have background in those appointment decisions.  I'm not seeing a good reason to conduct a two wrongs don't make a right analysis.  If you want to make a point, then make one.

And somehow this was acceptable. Trump's allies are arguing that even a widely respected Republican (Mueller was extended as head of the FBI by something like a 98-2 vote) has to be a Democratic plant because he keeps finding evidence of lawbreaking. Is there any reason to believe that Mueller is more biased in favor of Democrats and against Republicans than Robert Fiske or Ken Starr?

First of all, this verbal salad is a mess.  As far as I can tell, no one -ever- has said that Mueller was a Democratic plant and certainly not because he "keeps finding evidence of lawbreaking."  I'm not aware that there is a serious assertion of bias.

Do you know what a conflict of interest is?  Honestly, it doesn't seem like you've done even threshold level research on this point.  If you want to persuade me, you need to be able to make a case for why Mueller's conflicts of interest are not disqualifying.  It was bad when he was first appointed, fatal even, but if he added Comey's dismissal to his investigation, then the conflicts are truly insurmountable.  This is not an arcane area of law.

Why doesn't it bother you that Mueller has insurmountable conflicts of interest?  Why doesn't it bother you that multiple people on his team have even worse conflicts of interest?  Heck one of his team members represented Hillary's server technician  and was involved in the physical destruction of her hard drives.  Another represented the Clinton foundation.  The interconnection between Mueller, Rosenstein, Comey, McCabe and may of the people on this team is beyond ridiculous.  The standard for recusal here is the appearance of impropriety, and that was met on day one.  So I ask, you, do you actually care about the Rule of Law, or just about a political result?  Cause this investigation was grossly tainted, and it didn't have to be, and you seem to be complaining about the revelation of the taint rather than the taint itself.   You are literally defending corruption.

As far as I can tell the charges brought have next to zero to do with Russian collusion.  You have charges that stem from financial crimes years before the election.  You have charges from "lying to the FBI" about something that wasn't even illegal - which may have only been discovered because of the afore mentioned partisan wiretapping.

The only one that seems to have a connection was Papadopoulos, and again, he was charged with lying to the FBI.  You should read the charges against him.  A big part of his job as a foreign policy adviser was to try and make connections with the Russian government, which is a legitimate endeavor.  When you look at what he was supposed to do, and what he got in trouble for, you won't really see a lot (or rather, I guess through partisan eyes, you'll see everything you're afraid of).

Do you want to ultimately be loyal to tribe, or to principles of justice that should be applied similarly regardless of who is accused of breaking the laws of the United States of America?

I'm pretty absolute on Rule of Law.  Point me to the statute you think you have evidence that Trump violated.  Show me the probable cause of its violation.

If you can't do either, then are you really sure what you are committed to is the Rule of Law?

[NobleHunter]

Russian interference should have been investigated by a bipartisan commission appointed by Congress.

Which would be equivalent to not investigating.

[Seriati]

Russian interference should have been investigated by a bipartisan commission appointed by Congress.

Which would be equivalent to not investigating.

You should update yourself on how these commissions have worked over time.  It could not be farther from the true to say what you just did.

[TheDeamon]

Do you know what a conflict of interest is?  Honestly, it doesn't seem like you've done even threshold level research on this point.  If you want to persuade me, you need to be able to make a case for why Mueller's conflicts of interest are not disqualifying.  It was bad when he was first appointed, fatal even, but if he added Comey's dismissal to his investigation, then the conflicts are truly insurmountable.  This is not an arcane area of law.

Why doesn't it bother you that Mueller has insurmountable conflicts of interest?  Why doesn't it bother you that multiple people on his team have even worse conflicts of interest?  Heck one of his team members represented Hillary's server technician  and was involved in the physical destruction of her hard drives.  Another represented the Clinton foundation.  The interconnection between Mueller, Rosenstein, Comey, McCabe and may of the people on this team is beyond ridiculous.  The standard for recusal here is the appearance of impropriety, and that was met on day one.  So I ask, you, do you actually care about the Rule of Law, or just about a political result?  Cause this investigation was grossly tainted, and it didn't have to be, and you seem to be complaining about the revelation of the taint rather than the taint itself.   You are literally defending corruption.

This is perhaps the best argument for why Trump should complain often about the investigation and not kill it outright. Let it run up an impressive tax payer bill in the interim, blame the Democrats for "an expensive fishing expedition" and kill it some time later(probably if it's still running post-2020).

It also is a very compelling argument for why the Democrats should be complaining about who is involved in the investigation. Of course, all things considered, I think that also is part of how Mueller got the job. All the "good" Democratic options are probably so tightly linked to the Clinton Foundation/the Clinton's in some way, shape, or form so as to make them even more blatant example of "conflict on interest."

[DonaldD]

Who named Mueller to his current position?

[Greg Davidson]

For the purpose of this investigation, Trump's political party should be read as "Anti-establishment" not Republican.  Appointing Washington insiders to investigate the candidate that is specifically trying to break up the Washington inside is suspect.

That's wishful thinking. There appears to be a 95%+ overlap in voters, and Trump has signed into law $1.5 trillion of the most pro-establishment tax cuts imaginable. He's not anti-establishment, because for decades Republicans have been making the very same sort of attacks. In fact, we were talking about the Tea Party on another thread - the Tea Party is establishment, because if you combined the number of people at every Tea Party rally held during the entire Obama Administration, you had fewer Americans marching than did just a few weeks ago in the woman's march, and yet the DC establishment and pundits provided far more coverage to the Tea Party than they did to the women's marches (same thing applies to the immigration reform marches ~2011 - more Americans and far less coverage)

[TheDrake]

Taxpayer bill, yeah. Compared to the seven different committees that probed Benghazi (and by the way, found no indictments or guilty pleas) this one is a lot cheaper and more fruitful. At least this fishing expedition caught some fish.

[Seriati]

For the purpose of this investigation, Trump's political party should be read as "Anti-establishment" not Republican.  Appointing Washington insiders to investigate the candidate that is specifically trying to break up the Washington inside is suspect.

That's wishful thinking. There appears to be a 95%+ overlap in voters....

What a bizarre analysis you are pushing.  Trump was the Republican candidate so yes he got a lot of Republican voters.  Wow.

Why do you think that's relevant? 

Ever heard of the Never Trumpers?  Notice how many establishment candidates of both parties hate his guts?

It's beyond pointing out that everyone knows politicians are scummy, that they don't keep their promises, that they take money from lobbyists to influence their votes. 

Frankly, an anti-establishment candidate for the Democrats - Bernie - almost won his party's vote.  While they didn't turn out to be decisive, take a look back at the establishment "super" voters in the primary, like 90%+ for the establishment candidate, even though the regular voters were like 55/45.

...., and Trump has signed into law $1.5 trillion of the most pro-establishment tax cuts imaginable.

In what world?  Seriously in what world are these the most pro-establishment tax cuts imaginable?

Solar credit tax cuts were pro establishment, flat cut on rates?  not so much.  Winners (who bribe their congressmen well) and losers (who don't bring in votes) are pro establishment tax cuts.

Really, I can boil your point down to one short phrase, "Corporations are bad."  That's it. There's no other logical underpinning on your claim here.

He's not anti-establishment, because for decades Republicans have been making the very same sort of attacks.

He's anti-establishment because he's carrying it out.  Republicans have been making attacks for years and not delivered on them because they are establishment.

Heck, look at the Obamacare vote.  Republicans were all willing to establish their credentials when Obama would overrule them, give them an actual opportunity to achieve an 8 year promise?  They fail completely, cause they are NOT the same as their voters.  Just like the Democratic politicians are not the same as their voters. 

Politicians are cynical, they want power more than they care about policies.  That's why they can "triangulate" and tack to the middle to win an election.

I almost can't fathom, how you can look at the amount of hatred Trump gets and not understand that it's because he's anti-establishment. 

In fact, we were talking about the Tea Party on another thread - the Tea Party is establishment, because if you combined the number of people at every Tea Party rally held during the entire Obama Administration, you had fewer Americans marching than did just a few weeks ago in the woman's march, and yet the DC establishment and pundits provided far more coverage to the Tea Party than they did to the women's marches (same thing applies to the immigration reform marches ~2011 - more Americans and far less coverage)

The Tea Party is establishment today because it was co-opted by politicians.  Anything co-opted becomes establishment. 

But it's a complete joke to claim that the media's overwhelming negative coverage of a grass roots group that was in favor of our constitutional rights is the worse that their overwhelming positive coverage of a liberal group.

Yes, I agree, the media doesn't cover build ups as well as tear downs.  But you know who you see less than the women marching?  How about those right to life marchers.  Much less coverage.

[Greg Davidson]

I almost can't fathom, how you can look at the amount of hatred Trump gets and not understand that it's because he's anti-establishment.

You really can't understand why Trump might earn hatred from a woman, or a Mexican-American, or any person of color, or any American who cares about them, for behavior other than being "anti-establishment"?

How about repeated incidences of what even his close allies refer to as "textbook racism"?

[TheDrake]

I almost can't fathom, how you can look at the amount of hatred Trump gets and not understand that it's because he's anti-establishment.

Really? There are a tremendous number of reasons for people to hate Trump. Many people hated him pretty badly for his bully real estate tactics and blatant disregard for city building codes (ask someone in Santa Monica). Many people hated him for his involvement with beauty pagents even before they knew he was creeping around the dressing rooms. Many people hated him just for being a billionaire. The far left crowd is very much anti-establishment, including a lot of Sanders supporters, and hate him harder than almost anyone else.

As you pointed out, Sanders was anti-establishment, but I don't recall droves of people coming out to protest him. There might have been some of that blowback if he became President, but I can't imagine anywhere near Trump levels.

[Seriati]

So since that was apparently confusing, to spell it, when I was talking about hatred that Trump receives, the context was politicians (but you could include current and former senior government officials as well).  In other words "the establishment" hates him.

I thought that was clear from context.

And if Sanders had been President, his agenda would have been even more dead on arrival than Trump's.

[Wayward Son]

What seems to be missing in all the fuss over whether the FBI is impartial towards Trump is nicely articulated by David Brin:

The crux - mentioned by no pundits or dems - is that investigators and prosecutors - if they adhere to proper procedures - aren't required to be impartial! That's for judges. Investigators are supposed to want to get their man!

Investigators are supposed to gather information, from whatever source they can, even "from mafiosi and from jailhouse snitches" as Brin mentions.  They are supposed to gather it all, then present it to a judge for adjudication.

But even then, the accused gets to look at all that information, and add any that is missing!  And only then, after the accused gets to present his case, about how the information should be viewed, about the reliability of the information, and any including additional information that the investigators missed, only then is someone convicted of a crime.

So those, like Trump, who think that the FBI must be "unbiased" don't understand our legal system.

And more worrisome, if someone like Trump fires all those who are biased against him from the FBI and other investigatory institutions and replaces them with only those who are biased for him, then he has undercut our entire legal system.

Because then he would have an investigatory arm that would be partial to overlooking evidence against him and those with him.

So bias against Trump in the FBI is the last thing we should be worrying about.

[Seriati]

Wayward, those who write up an analysis like yours also don't understand the legal system.

There is no opportunity to challenge a warrant issued by the FISA court - it's a secret star chamber.  There is an express duty on the prosecution team to present exculpatory evidence to the court, and to not misrepresent the reliability of the information presented.  They have a higher duty here.

Second, you are flat out wrong about bias.  Investigators that have a personal or inappropriate bias against a person, including a specific political bias, should recuse themselves and otherwise should take steps to ensure their personal bias isn't influencing their judgement.  Having a "bias" against illegal actions is not a bias, which is what "get your man" is about.  Evidence of a crime should determine your pursuit  of a person, it should not be your dislike of a person that determines your pursuit of evidence of a crime.

In fact, it's flatly unconstitutional for the government to do so.

[TheDrake]

So since that was apparently confusing, to spell it, when I was talking about hatred that Trump receives, the context was politicians (but you could include current and former senior government officials as well).  In other words "the establishment" hates him.

I thought that was clear from context.

And if Sanders had been President, his agenda would have been even more dead on arrival than Trump's.

Even under politicians, same arguments apply. Even under the subset of politicians who currently serve in the the federal elected office, same arguments apply.

[Wayward Son]

Investigators that have a personal or inappropriate bias against a person, including a specific political bias, should recuse themselves and otherwise should take steps to ensure their personal bias isn't influencing their judgement.  Having a "bias" against illegal actions is not a bias, which is what "get your man" is about.  Evidence of a crime should determine your pursuit  of a person, it should not be your dislike of a person that determines your pursuit of evidence of a crime.

In fact, it's flatly unconstitutional for the government to do so.

So you're saying that Ken Starr and every Republican member of the Benghazi investigations should have recused themselves.  Gotcha.

Still, I'm curious.  Exactly what do you base you assertion that "it's flatly unconstitutional" for the government to investigate someone they may have bias against?  I am at a loss to imagine what would prohibit it.

[Fenring]

Still, I'm curious.  Exactly what do you base you assertion that "it's flatly unconstitutional" for the government to investigate someone they may have bias against?  I am at a loss to imagine what would prohibit it.

Wouldn't that be a question of equal treatment under the law?

[Seriati]

So you're saying that Ken Starr and every Republican member of the Benghazi investigations should have recused themselves.  Gotcha.

First of all, Ken Starr had probable cause to start his investigation. 

Second, I'm not aware that anyone involved in the Benghazi investigation was a prosecutor, or got a warrant.  Are you confusing Congressional oversight of a government official with federal investigation of a private citizen?

Still, I'm curious.  Exactly what do you base you assertion that "it's flatly unconstitutional" for the government to investigate someone they may have bias against?  I am at a loss to imagine what would prohibit it.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Evidence of a crime should determine your pursuit  of a person, it should not be your dislike of a person that determines your pursuit of evidence of a crime.

In fact, it's flatly unconstitutional for the government to do so.

To be clear, the government is barred by the fourth amendment from getting a warrant without probable cause.  They are flat out barred from spying on American citizens in the US - which prohibition has been degrading as a result of ongoing FISA abuse, where the government seems to think it's empowered to spy on an American because they once talked to a foreigner.

They are not even permitted to investigate a person without cause or reason.

So yes, choosing to investigate a person for political reasons without evidence of a crime is a violation of that persons Constitutional rights.  Choosing to investigate a person like Carter Page where there is substantive indicators that he was investigated not because of his crime, but because of his position in the opposition political campaign, is a gross and illegal violation of our civil rights.

I honestly can't believe how easily you all are putting politics ahead of your rights on this one.

[TheDrake]

I'm having a hard time seeing Carter Page as a person unfairly targeted due to politics.

Carter Page got his first attention and warrant from FISA in 2014, long before anyone really knew that Trump was running, that he would be a serious contender, or that he would work on the campaign.

[yossarian22c]

Page has a really shady history with Russia. The real question is how someone with such a sketchy past got hired as a foreign policy adviser for the campaign to begin with.

I was unable to find exactly when Page left the campaign, I thought I had read at some point that he resigned from the campaign before the election (possibly before the warrant was issued?).

[Greg Davidson]

And I love how there's still outrage by Republicans that Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch for 20 minutes on a tarmac, but endless dubious defenses of the Trump Administration. Compare these two cases:

(1) a former boss spoke for 20 minutes with the Justice Department head who was the current boss of the FBI Director who was conducting an investigation that involved the spouse of that former boss (that ultimately found no violation of the law)

(2) the current boss of the Justice Department whose Administration (and possibly himself) is under investigation, he has private meetings with the FBI director  asks for loyalty, asks to go easy on his associates who are under investigation, and then that current boss fires that FBI director and says in public that it's because of the investigation. He and his allies then go on to accuse many of the other Justice Department officials who he himself appointed, and go on to deny any wrong-doing (even though multiple members of his Administration have already confessed to breaking the law, and other violations are clear but not prosecuted such as the lying under oath of the head of the Justice Department regarding not having any meetings with Russians during the campaign).

So remind me again why (1) is outrageous but (2) doesn't matter?

(in my opinion (1) was both inappropriate and stupid, but (2) was vastly more outrageous and dangerous to American values)

[godsblackestcrow]

Why do you guys keep talking to these intellectually dishonest partisan hypocrites?

They're not going to suddenly realize what biased hypocrites they are just because you clearly spell it out--they're just going to keep changing the subject to the hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance that they see in you.

The problem conservative hypocrites have is that they only care about liberal hypocrisy. As long as liberal hypocrisy exists, conservative hacks will remain blind to what egregious hypocrites they are proving themselves to be--they're too busy freaking out over the motes in liberal eyes to take an honest look in the mirror.

You partisans have all ruined this country.

Ruined.

You guys divided up into biased teams, and you all refuse to look at ANYTHING objectively (all while ludicrously congratulating yourselves on your intellectual integrity and objectivity).

The internet put the nail in the coffin: now you hypocrites can publish your biased points of view, putting your cognitive dissonance down in black and white for posterity--like the intelligent outliers of generations past--which means you can't actually gain perspective, or learn anything new, because you're so busy defending the stupid opinions you already committed to permanent ink a long time ago.

Further discourse between partisan hypocrites on the internet isn't going to solve any of this--it's just making it all worse.

[TheDeamon]

(1) a former boss spoke for 20 minutes with the Justice Department head who was the current boss of the FBI Director who was conducting an investigation that involved the spouse of that former boss (that ultimately found no violation of the law)

Uhhhh. The FBI Director's testimony said otherwise. They found evidence of laws being violated, but they "found no evidence of intent to violate the law" and thus declined to prosecute.

Edit: Which come to think of it, in light of the standard being applied to members of the Trump Administration. I think that decision probably needs to be reconsidered. Evidently intent doesn't matter if you're aligned with Donald Trump.

[godsblackestcrow]

Uhhh...

Lol.

See?

Pure slanted bias, evincing zero shame (or awareness) of the blatant hypocrisy.

All of you folks who have aligned yourself with one side or the other are the problem.

If you are attacking one side for something, and defending the other side for a similar thing, you are literally the definition of a hypocrite.

Have a cookie for your trenchant insight into the hypocrisy on the other side of the aisle, since you sound like you think you deserve one, but the only thing any of you hypocrites are actually proving with your transparently biased arguments is exactly that: what a shamelessly biased hypocrite you yourself personally are.

You aren't really making cogent, articulate points, and this dialogue isn't productive, it's just a bunch of hypocrites demonstrating how deaf to reason their own hypocrisy makes them...

Congratulations on expanding your critical word counts, twits; y'all are exactly what's wrong with America.

[seekingprometheus]

Aye, maybe we may be what ye say, true; but ye be the soul of hypocrisy, too, benighted Crow.

(Ye ought rather say aught we don't already know.)

[godsblackestcrow]

Caw caw caw!

It takes one to know one, no?

In any case, we find what ye seem to seek to say sooth: we be the worst being in being--whether we refer to our subject in the first person or the second is just a seeming in meaning; ye have it entirely true: the crow is always the blackest villain evil ever knew…

In other words, of course I’m a hypocrite, you fool: that’s precisely how I know you’re one too…

As to aught that ought not be forethought: This is naught that you've sought--we thought ye already knew.

[Greg Davidson]

TheDeamon,

 

They found evidence of laws being violated, but they "found no evidence of intent to violate the law" and thus declined to prosecute.

I challenge you to cite the law that Hillary Clinton violated - and you won't be able to do it.  The most important reason is that it is not a crime to inadvertently disclose classified information in an email. Criminal action requires intent for the relevant statute. But since you are making an assertion that "they found evidence of laws being violated", go right ahead and show us all the basis of how you reached this conclusion

[Fenring]

You partisans have all ruined this country.

If, indeed, partisanship has ruined the country, I find it curious that you focus on one particular brand of partisans (as you see them) rather than the mechanisms that led to the current divided and conquered populace. Sounds more like, as you ironically pointed out subsequently, that you find yourself stuck in the same partisan morass and can't help but follow your marching orders and villify the other side.

[Fenring]

TheDeamon,

 

They found evidence of laws being violated, but they "found no evidence of intent to violate the law" and thus declined to prosecute.

I challenge you to cite the law that Hillary Clinton violated - and you won't be able to do it.  The most important reason is that it is not a crime to inadvertently disclose classified information in an email. Criminal action requires intent for the relevant statute. But since you are making an assertion that "they found evidence of laws being violated", go right ahead and show us all the basis of how you reached this conclusion

Didn't Comey already state clearly that Hillary had engaged in "extreme carelessness", which up until that point was explicitly the standard for criminal wrongdoing according to Hillary's contract? What he said after that was the clincher, which was that in his view no serious prosecutor would go after her for it, which was a peculiarly double-speak way of possibly implying that regardless of exactly what she had done it would be foolhardly for anyone to try to prosecute her for it. I found his phrasing most illuminating, because he could have but clearly did not that that there was simply no crime there to prosecute. But in any case, it was subsequent to this that I heard the claim that "gross negligence" was actually the standard, and she hadn't met it, except that I read the state contract and that's not what it said. And that's certainly not the standard other people have been held to who's been prosecuted over what seems to a layman minor infractions in information handling.

Anyhow I've come across plenty of material, much of which is in emails from her server, demonstrating that (a) she knew she was doing something over the objections of others, (b) Obama knew she was doing it too and refused to communicate with her via her server except with an alias, and (c) it caused considerable technical difficulties to arrange and then maintain this system. And apparently the claim that she wanted only one server for all her data to minimize the amount of devices she need has also been debunked. So the idea, to me, that her actions were "negligent" or "careless" is really dishonest in the first place. She knew exactly what she was doing and she's not stupid, so either it was plainly legal or else it wasn't. I'm not a government legal expert so I can't say more than that, but any implication that she did something there unintentionally is laughable.

[godsblackestcrow]

you find yourself stuck in the same partisan morass

Orange you ever going to figure out that you don't read me right?

I didn't say I was a partisan, I said I was a hypocrite.

I'm a villain, so I vilify. Sorry if it seems to you that I vilify your side more than I do the other, but that you say that I have such a seeming seems to me to reflect the way you see things more than it reflects anything true about my meaning.

[Fenring]

you find yourself stuck in the same partisan morass

Orange you ever going to figure out that you don't read me right?

I didn't say I was a partisan, I said I was a hypocrite.

I'm a villain, so I vilify. Sorry if it seems to you that I vilify your side more than I do the other, but that you say that I have such a seeming seems to me to reflect the way you see things more than it reflects anything true about what I may mean.

Heh, you can say anything about yourself you like. It doesn't mean I have to accept it. The beautiful thing about a position like yours is that you can be right and wrong at the same time. That's sort of the fun of the game, isn't it?

[godsblackestcrow]

you can say anything about yourself you like. It doesn't mean I have to accept it. The beautiful thing about a position like yours is that you can be right and wrong at the same time.

Lol!

That is indeed a beautiful thing, but again: you're not actually talking about my position, you're speaking to a beautiful truth about your own position.

I'm willing to accept that you're usually right about the hypocrisy of partisans who are on the other side, and that you're usually simultaneously wrong too, but I don't actually have to: the point is that the things you think and say reflect on you.

We are all the sole authors of our own hypocrisies...

[Greg Davidson]

Didn't Comey already state clearly that Hillary had engaged in "extreme carelessness", which up until that point was explicitly the standard for criminal wrongdoing according to Hillary's contract? What he said after that was the clincher, which was that in his view no serious prosecutor would go after her for it, which was a peculiarly double-speak way of possibly implying that regardless of exactly what she had done it would be foolhardly for anyone to try to prosecute her for it.

That's a weird and convoluted tale that you have heard from somewhere. First of all, what contract are you referring to? Government employees don't have a contract, and laws associated with classified information don't have anything to do with contracts. This just is not how the laws of the US work with classified information, and I bet your sources don't get specific because there is no real way to defend the assertion that what occurred on Clinton's server was illegal.

 

[Fenring]

That's a weird and convoluted tale that you have heard from somewhere. First of all, what contract are you referring to? Government employees don't have a contract, and laws associated with classified information don't have anything to do with contracts. This just is not how the laws of the US work with classified information, and I bet your sources don't get specific because there is no real way to defend the assertion that what occurred on Clinton's server was illegal.

That's going to be the hard part. Over times I've come across countless documents, some of the government documents, others emails and things. Frankly I'm a bit lazy and I often take mental notes of the contents but I don't keep an organized file with copies of all of these things for later perusal. The one you're asking about is somewhere out there in the internet sea, and if I come across it again randomly I'll link it for you. Sometimes I've found it difficult to actively locate things like this, whereas on occasion they just come your way fortuitously. But yes, as I understand it when people go to work in jobs where they'll be handling classified information they sign documents that specify how they must conduct themselves and which sorts of things are illegal and will be prosecuted. It's this type of document that I'm referring to.

[TheDeamon]

That's a weird and convoluted tale that you have heard from somewhere. First of all, what contract are you referring to? Government employees don't have a contract, and laws associated with classified information don't have anything to do with contracts. This just is not how the laws of the US work with classified information, and I bet your sources don't get specific because there is no real way to defend the assertion that what occurred on Clinton's server was illegal.

That's going to be the hard part. Over times I've come across countless documents, some of the government documents, others emails and things. Frankly I'm a bit lazy and I often take mental notes of the contents but I don't keep an organized file with copies of all of these things for later perusal. The one you're asking about is somewhere out there in the internet sea, and if I come across it again randomly I'll link it for you. Sometimes I've found it difficult to actively locate things like this, whereas on occasion they just come your way fortuitously. But yes, as I understand it when people go to work in jobs where they'll be handling classified information they sign documents that specify how they must conduct themselves and which sorts of things are illegal and will be prosecuted. It's this type of document that I'm referring to.

FWIW, it was discussed  here on Ornery about a year ago when it came up in Congressional Testimony shortly before Comey(I think have the right guy?) was fired by Trump. He was asked point blank about about it, and the reason given basically boiled down to "intent" and how he felt no prosecutor would pursue charges.

Lack of prosecuting attorney action does not equal lack of illegal activity. Which is the position I was disputing, they have plenty of evidence(the unauthorized server hosting scores of highly classified documents met that criteria), what was missing was desire to prosecute, which was in turn attributed to that intent claim.

[TheDrake]

Legal opinions are highly divided, but they generally turn on intention. For some people it is a no brainer that Clinton willfully and knowingly transmitted classified information.

In total, the investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains containing information that was classified at the time it was sent or received. Eight chains contained top secret information, the highest level of classification, 36 chains contained secret information, and the remaining eight contained confidential information. Most of these emails, however, did not contain markings clearly delineating their status.

IIRC, these were sent by aides to Clinton, not by Clinton. I think that generally matters.

As far as violating policy and procedure, there is no gray area. That was clearly true, but not equivalent to being criminal.

[Fenring]

Lack of prosecuting attorney action does not equal lack of illegal activity. Which is the position I was disputing, they have plenty of evidence(the unauthorized server hosting scores of highly classified documents met that criteria), what was missing was desire to prosecute, which was in turn attributed to that intent claim.

This was mainly what I've gathered as well. "No desire to prosecute" can mean anything as varied as "have insufficient evidence" to "are concerned about what will personally happen to them if they try". I think he intentionally used this kind of vague language in order to subtly indicate that there are many realities in play as to why no one would be willing to prosecute her. And of course it should be remembered that this was his opinion about the extent to which others would be willing to prosecute; it's not like he went from door to door asking attorneys if they would personally be willing to do so.

As a side note, Greg, from what I had read on the subject intent was absolutely irrelevant in terms of a breach of this type of law. In the case of many crimes intent has to be shown, but when it comes to handling of classified information my understanding was that intent was in fact not necessary, which creates a great onus on each person to manage their information handling well enough that there will be no accidents.