Robert Mueller investigation

[senorsheep]

the idea that this is not a "partisan group" also is a little confounding. they may be bipartisan in terms of which Presidents they served under (I haven't seen more than a rough breakdown), but prosecutors gonna prosecute/indict.

The "400+ prosecutors" letter was prepared and circulated by the Protect Democracy Project, correctly identified by CNN, WaPo, Vox, and a host of other professional journalists as an anti-Trump activist group. The PDP was created by Obama administration officials and DNC operatives after Trump was elected, is funded by the Democrat donor network, and has had one public function in its entire existence - to oppose Trump in the courts and in the press.

That's not to dismiss the weight of the letter. It says something that 400+ former DOJ prosecutors are willing to sign on and publicly take a stand against a sitting president's scumbaggery. On the other hand, if I want a true non-partisan prosecutorial point of view, give me a random sample of prosecutors, not a population 100% cherry-picked by an activist organization pretending to be non-partisan when it's not.

[Bernie Brewer]

The "400+ prosecutors" letter was prepared and circulated by the Protect Democracy Project, correctly identified by CNN, WaPo, Vox, and a host of other professional journalists as an anti-Trump activist group. The PDP was created by Obama administration officials and DNC operatives after Trump was elected, is funded by the Democrat donor network, and has had one public function in its entire existence - to oppose Trump in the courts and in the press.

That's not to dismiss the weight of the letter. It says something that 400+ former DOJ prosecutors are willing to sign on and publicly take a stand against a sitting president's scumbaggery. On the other hand, if I want a true non-partisan prosecutorial point of view, give me a random sample of prosecutors, not a population 100% cherry-picked by an activist organization pretending to be non-partisan when it's not.

Had I been able to Articulate my original point so eloquently, I could’ve potentially avoided the nonsense of earlier today. Thank you.

[onejayhawk]

..."

Wow is that a terrible misapplication of the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. "Fruit of the poisonous tree" is only about admissibility of evidence. If evidence was collected illegally, and that evidence led to the discovery of other evidence, then both the illegally obtained evidence and its "fruits" can be deemed inadmissible. There is no legitimate argument that illegal gathering of evidence (if it occurred) would somehow mean that it's all well and good for a suspect to engage in obstruction like witness tampering or intimidation or destruction of evidence. That's just a b.s. argument.

You are being obtuse. The poisoned tree is an improper search.

It's a statement (not mine) that Mueller's team has massive 4th Amendment issues that have not been addressed. It now appears likely that the entire investigation was improper. Hence, a poisoned forest. All the statutory language about obstruction has language such as, "in the performance of his/her duties." There are no duties in an improper investigation.

J

[senorsheep]

Had I been able to Articulate my original point so eloquently, I could’ve potentially avoided the nonsense of earlier today. Thank you.

I don't know what your point was; mine was only to say that the letter was clearly not "non-partisan." But just because it was partisan doesn't mean it should be dismissed. Team Trump spun Mueller's findings as "No Russian collusion = complete exoneration of all wrongdoing," when, in fact, there was a plenty of very problematic wrongdoing by Trump and his administration during the investigation. I think it's good that 400+ former DOJ prosecutors, partisan or not, chose to reinforce that point.

[Bernie Brewer]

I don't know what your point was; mine was only to say that the letter was clearly not "non-partisan." But just because it was partisan doesn't mean it should be dismissed. Team Trump spun Mueller's findings as "No Russian collusion = complete exoneration of all wrongdoing," when, in fact, there was a plenty of very problematic wrongdoing by Trump and his administration during the investigation. I think it's good that 400+ former DOJ prosecutors, partisan or not, chose to reinforce that point.

In post #294, I tried to point out in response to Revo post that it wasn't a non-partisan letter.

[revo]

In post #294, I tried to point out in response to Revo post that it wasn't a non-partisan letter.

The letter, after it was initially published, has been continued by this Project Democracy -- and is now up to over 800 prosecutors, BTW -- but it doesn't seem as if they're actually "pushing" anyone to sign it. There's a link from the Medium.com website story on the letter that says "if you're a former prosecutor and you want to sign the letter, here's the link" which then takes them to the Project Democracy website.

That may be an anti-Trump group, sure, but it doesn't seem as if they're actively hunting down former prosecutors and goading them to sign.

[Bernie Brewer]

The letter, after it was initially published, has been continued by this Project Democracy -- and is now up to over 800 prosecutors, BTW -- but it doesn't seem as if they're actually "pushing" anyone to sign it. There's a link from the Medium.com website story on the letter that says "if you're a former prosecutor and you want to sign the letter, here's the link" which then takes them to the Project Democracy website.

That may be an anti-Trump group, sure, but it doesn't seem as if they're actively hunting down former prosecutors and goading them to sign.

I have not suggested anyone has been arm twisted to sign. I am merely a skeptic of its organic creation. If it weren’t tainted by being connected to a known highly partisan organization I’d give it more weight. I’ve also seen where it’s reported that these signers are all prosecutors. I think it’s a lot of former DOJ employees not just prosecutors but I could be wrong. I just don’t care enough to check. My question would be, what is the universe of former DOJ prosecutor? What percentage does this group represent? I have not claimed Trump didn’t attempt to obstruct, he did, but Mueller didn’t find it enough to charge him. And, he essentially left it to others to determine. Barr felt strongly that it was his purview to decide and decided not to charge. Is he tainted? Maybe. Your mileage may vary. Congress Dems think he left it to them. Well then do more than place the AG in contempt. Go the full Monty. Talk about being chickens. They’re actually not chickens. They’re playing the long game and this is all campaign bullshit to regain the White House. Let’s call a spade a spade.

Trump is an unethical scumbag. I didn’t and won’t vote for him. But I won’t vote for a far left liberal either. At the end of the day, I don’t read the Mueller report the way those in the left read it. To me there is no certainty other than Russia interfered and is still interning with the US. And I’m not alone on an island, in not reading the report the same as those in the left. Half the country isn’t convinced there is any there there.

[gcstomp]

"My question would be, what is the universe of former DOJ prosecutor? What percentage does this group represent?"

I would be interested in that too. I suspect it is roughly 50/50 R and D split, and the now than 800 Prosecutors signed on represent a good percent of the remaining sound mind and able bodied retired DOJ prosecutors in total existence. The origin of the letter should not cloud anything, if we are talking the majority of the pool and it is a roughly 50/50 split, or even more R than D which I suspect to be case. The site, Project Democracy website gives option, if you were a former DOJ prosecutor, to sign on to DOJ Prosecutors Alumni Obstruction Letter, with a series of questions to insure you are who you say you are with credentials.

It would add weight if we could know answer of mix signing on, as I am sure this is not partisan in terms of the case for indicting on multiple obstruction cases if not a sitting president is not meh, not maybe kinds there, the obstruction case overwhelming. Though I can admit the originator of letter is partisan, it is basically a how screwed are we about the illegal infractions of sitting president site.

"I have not claimed Trump didn’t attempt to obstruct, he did, but Mueller didn’t find it enough to charge him"
Yeah, thats just not true. I hate to have it repeated 100 times, but Mueller did not have option to indict even if trump did the whole pulled gun on wallstreet and gunned down people caught on film. the existence of pt 2 mueller report is specifically because there was overwhelming evidence with no outlet. mueller left direction for congress to pursue, or otherwise table until trump could be charged, with the needed elements to charge carefully delineated in case after case. it was laid out as the most absurdly detailed charging docs in this way because that was limit of what mueller could do.

the "no collusion" pt 1 where it was insufficient to charge, the trump working as a russian agent or whatever was insufficient evidence, and to be fair was entire reason for the investigation to start. so mueller report failed in its initial primary mission of building a case that trump was a manchurian candidate placed by putin, in that we can feel good. but it also laid open obstruction trail that cant be ignored.

[revo]

Good article describing some of the signers:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/who-signed-the-letter-asserting-trump-would-have-been-charged-with-obstruction-if-he-werent-president-and-what-they-hope-happens-next/2019/05/07/66744532-710b-11e9-8be0-ca575670e91c_story.html?utm_term=.067dc88a0cfe

[B-Fly]

There are no duties in an improper investigation.

J

Absurd and baseless nonsense, Jay.

[Fresno Bob]

Absurd and baseless nonsense, Jay.

I'm tempted to take this as my sig

[revo]

Absurd and baseless nonsense, Jay.

That would be a good name for a band. Or at least a song. Like "What's the Frequency, Kenneth?"

[Ken]

That would be a good name for a band. Or at least a song. Like "What's the Frequency, Kenneth?"

... I get asked that way too often.

[Bernie Brewer]

... I get asked that way too often.

And I keep reading posts about me running for President.

[Kevin Seitzer]

And I keep reading posts about me running for President.

You might as well.

I'm reminded of the old joke: "Look to your left. Look to your right. By the end of the year....one of you will be seeking the Democratic nomination for president."