LaxPower Back-Up Stick

MD - if your predictions come true, then the investigation will not have been a waste of money. I would argue that if confidence in our institutions is restored (either way) then the money will have been well spent. And the rest of this screed is not aimed at you.

To argue that legal prosecutions are justified in terms of spoils reaped by the state., I just can't get my head around that

it just doesn't fly with me.

Setting precedents like that is very VERY dangerous. The work of lazy and irresponsible politicians and "journalists". How do folks feel about the precedent of executive orders allowing whoever is POUTS to effectively write law? How about getting rid of the filibuster for court nominees? Heck let's suspend habeas corpus, and the right to a trial, if it means we can get the "bad guys" right!?! let's shout down free speech of folks we don't agree with.....

man.... I am just shaking my head. talk about opening the door to a totalitarian state. people have lost their minds.

HooDat wrote:MD - if your predictions come true, then the investigation will not have been a waste of money. I would argue that if confidence in our institutions is restored (either way) then the money will have been well spent. And the rest of this screed is not aimed at you.

To argue that legal prosecutions are justified in terms of spoils reaped by the state., I just can't get my head around that

it just doesn't fly with me.

Setting precedents like that is very VERY dangerous. The work of lazy and irresponsible politicians and "journalists". How do folks feel about the precedent of executive orders allowing whoever is POUTS to effectively write law? How about getting rid of the filibuster for court nominees? Heck let's suspend habeas corpus, and the right to a trial, if it means we can get the "bad guys" right!?! let's shout down free speech of folks we don't agree with.....

man.... I am just shaking my head. talk about opening the door to a totalitarian state. people have lost their minds.

I'd argue that, based on the convictions and plea deals already, we're way past 'waste of money'.

Thanks for not including me in the screed.

But I don't think anyone is actually suggesting "legal prosecutions are justified in terms of spoils reaped by the state". At least not anyone I've heard.
It'd indeed be an awful precedent.

But that's not what anyone on here has actually said, and I haven't heard any of the pundits making that case. But as a pushback on the contrasting notion that we should measure prosecutions on how much cost to taxpayer funds to put criminals away, it does seem relevant to point out that there's no financial net cost of this specific investigation and prosecution. But only relevant because it's been a Trumpist talking point and by POTUS himself.

As you know, I share the concern you express about blowing away all sorts of norms, simply to accrue greater power or just 'because we can' hurt our 'enemies'. Left/right, it all worries me.

Yep

Folks on the Old LP brought up the issue of the cost of the Special Counsel's investigation, in the course of regular broadsides on what someone described as the "criminalization of politics." I think Trinity or whoever brought up the multimillion-dollar Manafort forfeiture was just aiming at those comments, which of course disregarded the longer, more tortured and more costly Starr Hunt of several El Presidente's ago. No one is suggesting that profit or even cost-effectiveness should be the impetus or aim of an investigation. It is just clear, though, that Mueller's team has done a superb, super-professional job.

I said the Manafort fines had more than paid for the Mueller investigation, the lucky by-product of good police work. i don’t know what is scary about that. Trump could pay for a year of his gold-plated golf with the remainder. Flynn is ready to be sentenced in November. We’ll learn more then unless there are further indictments before the midterms.

Trump-proof aspects of Manafort deal rankle lawyers

..

TRUMP WANTS VOTERS — AND RUSSIA — TO KNOW WHAT THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION LOOKED LIKE ON AUGUST 1, 2017, NOT SEPTEMBER 14, 2018

"Not long after the release of the Flynn status hearing, Trump ordered the release of yet more stuff on the Steele dossier (the stuff in the first paragraph), plus unredacted texts on what the investigation looked like before August 1, 2017."

[snip]

"Depending on how much the various parties put into these texts (I doubt Comey was much of a texter, for example), this will show unbelievable detail on how FBI runs counterintelligence investigations.

But it will also show voters what the investigation looked like before some key evidence came in, such as the communications surrounding the June 9 meeting and whatever the FBI seized from Paul Manafort’s home. Andrew McCabe was the last person in a key role on this investigation, and Christopher Wray took over that role on August 1.

It’s a desperate gambit, I think, throwing the last of the Steele dossier details out there, plus a picture of what the investigation looked like before the FBI learned that the President’s son entered into a conspiracy with Russians exchanging Hillary emails for sanction relief.

Which I take as yet more confirmation that that conspiracy — and whatever Manafort just gave the government — would (will, eventually) utterly damn the President."

...A DESPERATE GAMBIT...

..

Phil Mudd (ex-fbi) calls Trump’s gambit cherry-picking and weaponizing Intelligence. The same mistake that led to Iraq.

Good ole FBI

https://howiecarrshow.com/2018/04/13/ro ... in-boston/

Trinity wrote:Phil Mudd (ex-fbi) calls Trump’s gambit cherry-picking and weaponizing Intelligence. The same mistake that led to Iraq.

Do I need to post all the pretends who supported the invasion again? Any members of congress get rich (from stock ownership) from the invasion?

TAATS

No, Fatty. You don’t.

runrussellrun wrote:Good ole FBI

https://howiecarrshow.com/2018/04/13/ro ... in-boston/

Good ole POTUS

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... dence.html

TAATS

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/ ... ent-terror

runrussellrun wrote:

Trinity wrote:Phil Mudd (ex-fbi) calls Trump’s gambit cherry-picking and weaponizing Intelligence. The same mistake that led to Iraq.

Do I need to post all the pretends who supported the invasion again? Any members of congress get rich (from stock ownership) from the invasion?

TAATS

Here are the vote breakdowns of the Iraq Resolution (Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002)

House
96.4% of House Republicans supported it
39.2% of House Democratics supported it

Senate:
97.9% of Republicans supported it
58% of Democrats supported it

TANATS

holmes435 wrote:

runrussellrun wrote:

Trinity wrote:Phil Mudd (ex-fbi) calls Trump’s gambit cherry-picking and weaponizing Intelligence. The same mistake that led to Iraq.

Do I need to post all the pretends who supported the invasion again? Any members of congress get rich (from stock ownership) from the invasion?

TAATS

Here are the vote breakdowns of the Iraq Resolution (Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002)

House
96.4% of House Republicans supported it
39.2% of House Democratics supported it

Senate:
97.9% of Republicans supported it
58% of Democrats supported it

TANATS

The Un-American patriot act votes of 2001 & 2006 has similar "party" line breakdowns. 98 YEAS and 89 yeas respectively (US Senate)
The HOUSE, in 2001 voted YEAH 211/145 R and D respectively. 71% of house democrats voted for the UN-Constitutional PATRIOT act. (357 yeas to 66 nahs overall )
5 years later, while the Senate votes didn't change much, the HOUSE did. 280 YEAHS to 138 Nays. Only 13 claimed to be R's in the no catergory.

YOU have convinced me, TANATS. I apologize. (or rather, roughly 6 out of 10 Democratic Senators are the same, and 40% of the House Dems are the same. according to your invasion vote. )

TAMATS (they are mostly all the same ), except the Senate when it comes to our privacy... they are MOSTLY all the same.

How did the annual funding votes breakdown (for war on terror)

They are indeed similar. I just feel in today's climate one party is noticeably less terrible than the other.

I yearn for the old days when R's had big, great ideas that had merit and improved the country, when they were a much better foil to the D's, keeping some of the more idiotic D ideas in check.

Look how many people Bush and Cheney were able to mislead to disastrous effect. That’s the point.
Wash Po says Mike Cohen is cooperating on Russia with Mueller. For hours.

Cohen Boasts Of Aiding Mueller Investigation

"On Thursday night, Cohen tweeted: “Good for @MichaelCohen212 for providing critical information to the #MuellerInvestigation without a cooperation agreement. No one should question his integrity, veracity or loyalty to his family and country over @POTUS @realDonaldTrump.”

The tweet was deleted almost immediately and was later reposted by his attorney, Lanny Davis, who said he wrote the tweet for Cohen and asked him to tweet it because he has a “much larger following.” Davis said he was delayed posting the tweet on his own account, so Cohen tweeted it first."

tick....tick....tick....

..

Attorneys have to keep up the pressure....they have bills to pay just like the rest of us.

Cohen’s Russian story better match the one told by Manafort, Gates and Flynn.

Mueller is investigating the finances of some Trump Tower meeting participants.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-sec ... er-meeting

Old Papadop must be a real menace. He may never get out of prison.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/george-pap ... 018-09-07/