Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
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.
|
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.
