All Things Trump

[Forty Two]

Dude - it's not plagiarism when it is attributed. If the source is acknowledged, it's not plagiarism. Stop being ridiculous.

[Joe]

Federal judge rebukes Mueller team for questionable tactics: http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/38 ... le-tactics

An experienced federal judge has confirmed what I have been arguing for months — namely, that the modus operandi of special counsel Robert Mueller is to charge associates of President Trump with any crime he can find in order to squeeze them into turning against Trump.

This is what Judge T.S. Ellis III said at a hearing Friday: “You don’t really care about Mr. Manafort’s bank fraud. … What you really care about is what information Mr. Manafort could give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment.”

But, as the judge correctly pointed out, it risks the possibility that the squeezed witness will not only sing — he will compose! Here is what he said about that: “This vernacular is to ‘sing,’ is what prosecutors use. What you got to be careful of is, they may not only sing, they may compose.”
I have been using this “compose” metaphor for decades, and I am gratified that a judge borrowed it to express an important civil liberties concern. Every experienced criminal lawyer has seen this phenomenon at work. I have seen it used by prosecutors who threaten wives, parents, siblings and, in one case, the innocent son of a potential witness who was about to graduate law school. Most judges, many of whom were former prosecutors, have also seen it. But few have the courage to expose it publicly, as Judge Ellis has done.

Defenders of Mueller’s tactic argue that the threatened witnesses and their relatives are generally guilty of some crime, or else they wouldn’t be vulnerable to the prosecutor’s threats. This may be true, but the crimes they are threatened to be charged with are often highly technical, elastic charges that are brought only as leverage. They are dropped as soon as the witness cooperates. This was precisely the point Judge Ellis was making with regard to Manafort.

A similar point could be made with regard to President Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and perhaps to his personal attorney, Michael Cohen. Indeed, Flynn pleaded guilty to a highly questionable charge precisely because his son was threatened with prosecution.

Civil libertarians have long criticized this tactic, since the time it was used by Sen. Joseph McCarthy and his minions to pressure witnesses to testify against suspected communists in the 1950s. In recent decades it has been deployed against mobsters, terrorists and corporate predators. But Judges Ellis has accused Mueller of using this questionable approach to develop a political case against the duly elected president of the United States.

For those who argue that everything is fair, if the goal is to prevent a president from being above the law, Judge Ellis provided a compelling response: “What we don’t want in this country, we don’t want anyone with unfettered power. … It’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me the special counsel has unlimited powers to do anything he or she wants.”

He was referring to the manner by which the special counsel was using his power to “tighten the screws” on Manafort by indicting him for an alleged crime that the judge believes has nothing to do “with what the special counsel is authorized to investigate.”

Civil libertarians should be applauding Judge Ellis for seeking to cabin the “unfettered power” of the special counsel to do “anything he wants.” But no, because his ruling may help Trump, and because Trump has applauded it, the civil liberties and criminal defense communities have not been heard from.

That judge is a Republican shill. #FAKEJUDGE

Well, the judge is known for digressions, and it sounds like this is a pet peeve, but he also said:

It looks to me instead that what is happening is that this investigation was underway. It had something. The special prosecutor took it, got indictments, and then in a time-honored practice which I'm fully familiar with -- it exists largely in the drug area. If you get somebody in a conspiracy and get something against them, you can then tighten the screws, and they will begin to provide information in what you're really interested in. That seems to me to be what is happening here. I'm not saying it's illegitimate, but I think we ought to be very clear about these facts and what is happening.

I see why Dershowitz is encouraged by Ellis' criticism, but he leaves out the judge's nod to the practice's legitimacy. Of course, the remainder of Dersowitz's oped paints a more nuanced picture of what he expects to happen.

The judge has not yet ruled on the propriety of the special counsel’s actions, and it is unlikely he will dismiss the charges against Manafort. But Mueller is on notice that he may not have unfettered power to indict Trump’s associates for old crimes that are unrelated to the Russia investigation for the purpose of making them sing or compose against the president. The civil liberties community no longer has an excuse to ignore or defend, as some have done, tactics that pose considerable dangers to civil liberties, just because they are being used against Trump.

Last week was not a good one for special counsel Mueller. Nor was it particularly good for Trump, as his new lawyer Rudy Giuliani presented a somewhat garbled narrative with regard to the payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels. But it was an excellent week for the Constitution and for all Americans, because a federal judge made it clear that no one — not even the special counsel — is above the law and beyond scrutiny by our system of checks and balances.

In the end, it doesn't matter what the judge says in passing, it's what he rules that is important. If he strays from the precedents of higher courts, which have allowed the practices he criticized, his judgement may be reversed on appeal.

[Brian Peacock]

Trump withdraws from 'defective' Iran nuclear agreement.

[Svartalf]

one more bad decision based on #fakefacts

[Brian Peacock]

His justification at the press conference was that if the US didn't withdraw Iran would soon have nuclear weapons.

[Animavore]

Good to see Iran taking the moral high ground on here. Had a feeling they would. America looks weak again.

[Svartalf]

His justification at the press conference was that if the US didn't withdraw Iran would soon have nuclear weapons.

well, now that he has released his big stick, the Persians will get the Atomic weapon even faster, if thtey have to deal with Pakstan or North Korea, what else can be done about it?


and you're right ani, for once Iran has the high moral ground, and macron, who swore high and low he'd make frump change his mind about this matter looks ludicrous once more.

[Seabass]

and macron, who swore high and low he'd make frump change his mind about this matter looks ludicrous once more.

At least he tried. He even kissed and held hands with Trump. The man deserves a medal as far as I'm concerned.

[Brian Peacock]

Even Boris tried his best, talking directly to the President by going on Fox & Friends.

[Animavore]

You can't talk to stupid.

[Svartalf]

you can, stupid will just be what stupid does anyway.

[Brian Peacock]

It strikes me as being totally counter-productive. Iran's major trading partners, Russia and China, will almost certainly seek to retain the arrangement while the US has now placed itself beyond a viable sphere of influence. I mean, what leverage are the US going to have now beyond a bit of impotent sabre rattling, raising the prospect of unilateral air strikes (or proxy strikes through Israel) that are unlikely ever to materialise no matter what John Bolton says?

Hasn't history taught us that 'the Chicago way' doesn't work when it comes to international affairs?

[Forty Two]

Leverage? What leverage do we have now?

[Brian Peacock]

The leverage was applied to bring Iran to the table and agree to admit UNSCOM and halt its nuclear arms program - UN endorsed economic and trading restrictions. Now what? You're going to mention that Iran still has a IBM program aren't you?

[JimC]

Can the EU simply ignore the US, and tell Iran that they will not renew sanctions, and are happy to keep trading with him? That would send a pretty clear message to the US that they're on their own with this, and a clear message from the international community to Iran that they want the nuclear weapons ban to continue...