LawTalkers - We are all Slave now.

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)

- Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - We are all Slave now. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=882)

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 515247)

Fine with talking about this stuff, but the Mark Penn value add = 0.

Quote:

Mueller is torturing everybody in Trump's circle to find out if chargeable collusion took place.

Maybe, maybe not. What Rosenstein authorized him to go after is broader than just looking at collusion, and is not public. What we know about what Mueller is doing comes from a few public charges and a lot of leaks from defense lawyers, neither of which gives a complete picture of what Mueller knows or is pursuing.

Quote:

I think he's more principled than Starr, so I believe his aim is simply to flip people to find out the truth.

Dunno, Starr was pretty principled. Not my principles, but he had them. The main difference between then seems more to be that was nothing to Whitewater, but it's clear that the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc.

Quote:

But "flipping people" is ruining people's lives. Cohen's an idiot. Manafort's a shady fuck. Flynn's a greed-addled fool. And let's not even get into Roger Stone (who seems to want to be indicted). And what they did may be criminal.

"may"?

Quote:

But it was also something else:

A set of "crimes" which would never have been uncovered or pursued but for Mueller's desire to flip these people on Trump.

If I want to charge you with a felony under the Fed Crim Code, I can do it. The Code is so broad, it's almost impossible for any American to live his life without having violated it numerous times. Cohen, Manafort, et al. would be under zero scrutiny right now if Trump had lost. Like millions of other shady operators, they'd be going about their shady business and no one would care. (Manafort was the subject of an earlier DOJ investigation for the same stuff for which he is now charged. That investigation was dropped.)

I understand these people "bought the ticket and so take the ride." I get it. But this sort of selective destruction bugs me now the same way it bugged me regarding Clinton. The same way it bugged me regarding Conrad Black and Martha Stewart. The same it way it really irks the shit out of me that Fed prosecutors take deterrent value of prosecuting high profile people into account in their decisions to prosecute.

We're having a national conversation about targeting minorities for prosecution at the state and locals levels. We all agree that's wrong. And that is not at all close to what Mueller is doing. But selective prosecution, targeting people to "flip" in a very political investigation, is also treating one person differently than others. I'm not suggesting we should ban it, because it does serve some purposes. But right now, it may not be raised as a defense. That should be changed. People should be able to plead selective prosecution as a defense and a sentencing mitigation. Otherwise, people like Mueller and Starr are basically granted God-like powers to rampantly destroy as they see fit. No one should have that kind of power.

Mueller has not been given God-like powers. He reports to Rosenstein, under specific authority granted by Rosenstein. This is different from Starr, who got to do whatever he wants.

Second, Mueller is not running a political investigation. Republicans are mounting a political defense. There's a big difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 515247)

There's reason to investigate Trump.

It's becoming increasingly clear that they didn't start out investigating Trump, but rather foreign efforts to interfere. A candidate and campaign with any sense at all would have realized that this is done to protect the candidate not persecute him. It seems the candidate did not want protection and was just fine with whatever foreign help he could get.

Quote:

Mueller is torturing everybody in Trump's circle to find out if chargeable collusion took place.

Trump associated himself with criminals, and they're being criminally prosecuted for it. I don't see the Lewinsky parallel at all.

Quote:

Cohen's an idiot.

Cohen's been on the edge of criminality for years and then seemed to go out an overtly try to illegally sell access. Why should he not face prosecution (by the SDNY no less) for that?

Quote:

But it was also something else:

A set of "crimes" which would never have been uncovered or pursued but for Mueller's desire to flip these people on Trump.

This is an indictment about how bad we are at prosecuting white collar crime.

If Trump, Cohen and Manafort have been up to the money-laundering it sure looks like they've been up to, we should be lamenting that so few prosecutions for that type of crime happen, rather than viewing them as victims.

BTW, y'all should be listening to Trump, Inc., which pretty regularly creates "wow, how wasn't that something I learned during the campaign" moments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 515247)

There are parallels between Starr's prosecution of Clinton and the current mess.

There's reason to investigate Trump. There was no legitimate reason to investigate Clinton. That is an important difference.

But once we get beyond the validity of the investigation into Russian meddling, we have to look at the scope of the investigation. Starr tortured the McDougals, Lewinsky, and a whole host of Clinton associates for no other reason than to nail the President. In the end, he came up with a blow job.

Mueller is torturing everybody in Trump's circle to find out if chargeable collusion took place. I think he's more principled than Starr, so I believe his aim is simply to flip people to find out the truth. But "flipping people" is ruining people's lives. Cohen's an idiot. Manafort's a shady fuck. Flynn's a greed-addled fool. And let's not even get into Roger Stone (who seems to want to be indicted). And what they did may be criminal. But it was also something else:

A set of "crimes" which would never have been uncovered or pursued but for Mueller's desire to flip these people on Trump.

This is absolute garbage. You should be ashamed you even thought it, let alone wrote it.

TM

Re: Michael Avenatti

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 515248)

Did I say that was her only reason? Of course she wants publicity. But not as much as Avenatti. Not even close.

Honestly, I think it's as much about the politics for him as the publicity. He's a Former Emmanuel op research guy. The publicity seems to be the strategy more than the goal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 515252)

This is absolute garbage. You should be ashamed you even thought it, let alone wrote it.

TM

I did crim defense. Prosecutors are frightening creatures. Too much power. Way too much.

Re: Michael Avenatti

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 515253)

Honestly, I think it's as much about the politics for him as the publicity. He's a Former Emmanuel op research guy. The publicity seems to be the strategy more than the goal.

I could buy that.

Speaking of strategy, or lack thereof: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018...ive-takes-hold

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 515254)

I did crim defense. Prosecutors are frightening creatures. Too much power. Way too much.

Is there some country you know of where that isn't true?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 515254)

I did crim defense. Prosecutors are frightening creatures. Too much power. Way too much.

Look, I get it. But the fact that you are trying to draw some weak ass comparison between Starr's investigation (which was built on nothing and basically found nothing) and Mueller's, which has brought back a number of indictments and exposed evidence of serious crime and unprecedented levels of interference from a foreign government with the fucking blessing and encouragement (at best) of the current President of the United States on what looks to be a quid pro quo basis, makes your whole post ridiculous.

You started off saying it's all a big nothing burger. Now you're talking about crimes that were committed that wouldn't have been prosecuted because we wouldn't have known about them without there being a special counsel. What? Just stop it.

TM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 515256)

Is there some country you know of where that isn't true?

It may be true that prosecutors have way too much power in all countries, but that does not mean that they don't have a greater tendency to abuse that power in this country. And even if that is not the case, it does not mean that Sebastian cannot have viscerally negative reactions to prosecutorial abuses in this country, even if it is just as bad or worse in other countries. That all being said, I completely agree with Thurgreed that Sebastian should be ashamed for even having thought the ideas that ended up being the words that he typed into that post. This adds to the following, non-exhaustive list of things that Sebastian should be totally ashamed about:

-Trump
-Not apologizing about Trump
-Desperately and absurdly trying to find positive aspects of the Trump presidency, in a ridiculous "at least he makes the train run on time" fashion, so that he can somehow feel o.k. with himself about not apologizing for Trump
-The whole horns in rock fiasco
-Calling Lil Jon "Little John"
-The "crisp" and "floral" bouquet of his favorite small batch craft-distilled gin
-Not being ashamed about any of the above (except the Lil Jon thing, which he said he is ashamed about and I will take him at his word on that)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 515258)

He should be ashamed about comparing Starr and Mueller.

He also should be ashamed that the criminality of Flynn, Manafort and Cohen make him think of prosecutorial misconduct, unless he has such a sensitive gag reflex that sunshine and shoes and puppies also elicit the same response, in which case he should seek Scotch and medical help, in that order.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 515259)

Given that he is the only one here that voted to make Trump President, his opinion on Starr/Mueller is the most important, is it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 515260)

Given that he is the only one here that voted to make Trump President, his opinion on Starr/Mueller is the most important, is it?

Not seeing it. You're suggesting we need to change his mind before the next election, and that means we should entertain fatuous comparisons of things that are quite different?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 515259)

I agree with this, although I think I covered this all already when I said: "That all being said, I completely agree with Thurgreed that Sebastian should be ashamed for even having thought the ideas that ended up being the words that he typed into that post."

Some other things he should be ashamed of (again, non-exhaustive):

-Citing that lunatic Cernovich as a neutral unbiased source.
-Every conversation he has allegedly had at every suburban cocktail party has allegedly attended. Ever.
-Every time he used the phrase "echo chamber." Normally I would give him one free pass, but fuck that.
-The fact that I suspect he secretly kind of likes the Dave Matthews Band.
-The fact the he is soon going to disingenuously deny his secret admiration for the Dave Matthews Band.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 515262)

Someone somewhere better be ashamed for the whole anti-piper in Rock sentiments expressed here not long ago.

More Murphys here for the Harvard/Yale Crowd.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 515263)

Someone somewhere better be ashamed for the whole anti-piper in Rock sentiments expressed here not long ago.

More Murphys here for the Harvard/Yale Crowd.

Objecting to bagpipes in rock seems to like objecting to haggis at a buffet. It's probably an acquired taste, but, hey, whatever gets your kilt going.