[Al_U_Card]

johnu, on 2018-July-28, 09:01, said:

A lot of people have said similar things about a long investigation of Dennison. My personal opinion is that Dennison and Fox Propaganda have spiked the conversation to discredit the investigations by trying to say "look how long these investigations have gone on and they haven't found anything".

The Watergate break-in was on June 17, 1972 and Nixon didn't resign until August 9, 1974, so things went on over 2 years. No telling how long impeachment proceedings would have taken if Nixon hadn't resigned.

The first Whitewater independent counsel was appointed in January 1994 and the final Clinton impeachment proceedings weren't completed until February 1999, so over 5 years.

The conclusions to take away on this are:

1. The investigations haven't taken that long compared to recent historical comparisons.
2. We don't know what Mueller has found out about Dennison. This is a very complex case covering dozens of people over a fairly long period of time.

So it is conceivable that we have yet more time to wait for some actionable evidence to be found/trotted out/used in the next several(?) years. Mark Steyn had this to say about the legal system thereabouts: "The clogged toilet (constipated bowels also) of the DC judicial system." Perhaps circus minimus might also be a similar paraphrase.

[johnu]

Al_U_Card, on 2018-July-28, 10:02, said:

So it is conceivable that we have yet more time to wait for some actionable evidence to be found/trotted out/used in the next several(?) years. Mark Steyn had this to say about the legal system thereabouts: "The clogged toilet (constipated bowels also) of the DC judicial system." Perhaps circus minimus might also be a similar paraphrase.

Were you as angry about the 5 years of Clinton investigations? You don't have to answer because that was purely a rhetorical question.

Based on articles by journalists who follow the case, the interview or grand jury testimony of Dennison would be the beginning of the end of the investigation. If so, months, not years before the end of this investigation.

[Al_U_Card]

johnu, on 2018-July-28, 21:26, said:

Were you as angry about the 5 years of Clinton investigations? You don't have to answer because that was purely a rhetorical question.

Based on articles by journalists who follow the case, the interview or grand jury testimony of Dennison would be the beginning of the end of the investigation. If so, months, not years before the end of this investigation.

No need to project your gut reaction on to me. I could care less about Trump (personally) or about his internal political and ethical machinations. His actions that affect the world (considerable) are of concern but appear to be about as beneficial/risky as most of your CICs. Is he a sleaze-ball? Certainly seems like it but that may be a pre-requisite for political office ...

[Winstonm]

Another example of faux "populism":

Quote

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is considering bypassing Congress to grant a $100 billion tax cut mainly to the wealthy, a legally tenuous maneuver that would cut capital gains taxation and fulfill a long-held ambition of many investors and conservatives.

Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary, said in an interview on the sidelines of the Group of 20 summit meeting in Argentina this month that his department was studying whether it could use its regulatory powers to allow Americans to account for inflation in determining capital gains tax liabilities. The Treasury Department could change the definition of “cost” for calculating capital gains, allowing taxpayers to adjust the initial value of an asset, such as a home or a share of stock, for inflation when it sells.

[kenberg]

Al_U_Card, on 2018-July-28, 10:02, said:

So it is conceivable that we have yet more time to wait for some actionable evidence to be found/trotted out/used in the next several(?) years. Mark Steyn had this to say about the legal system thereabouts: "The clogged toilet (constipated bowels also) of the DC judicial system." Perhaps circus minimus might also be a similar paraphrase.

It can take a while. this brings to mind Jimmy Hoffa as he was being investigated by the Justice Dept under Bobby Kennedy, talking of all the investigation of Hoffa and finding nothing indictable about Hoffa (Hoffa liked to speak of himself in the third person). Nixon set up tapes, and for whatever the reason didn't turn them off or move to a different room at key moments. Usually people are not that helpful.
To some extent I share the dismay over how these things actually work. Al Capone ran a murderous organization, he went to jail for tax evasion. As to Bill Clinton, I always thought that when Linda Tripp came in to see him about her conversation with Monica Lewinsky, the right response would have been to give her the name and telephone number for Paula Jones' attorney. Starr was (in theory) investigating Whitewater, not who was doing what with a cigar. There is a lot to dislike about the American judicial system. My older daughter was given a high school assignment to go to a court room for a few hours and watch the proceedings. She and I went to one, it was appalling. There was no large case but as we watched I thought "This is our justice system?". A similar point was made in Gorky Park (in the book only, they left it out of the movie) where the Soviet investigator Renko, frustrated by the way things work in the USSR, was pleased when his investigation took him to New York. He looked forward to seeing things done right. He was thoroughly stunned when he saw it all as it actually was.

There is a lot to not admire. All that being granted, what Mueller is doing is essential. He must be allowed to carry this forward. Not perfect? Probably not. But it is the very best that we have, and that's it.

[Chas_P]

kenberg, on 2018-July-31, 13:14, said:

Not perfect? Probably not. But it is the very best that we have, and that's it.

The O. J. Simpson trial comes to mind.

[Al_U_Card]

From what I can see, Special Prosecutors are like everything else governmental, they end up being a circus and/or a political football. Getting the sleaze exposed has both a therapeutic and cathartic effect, I suppose, relative to placating the masses, but like show-trials, they have less to do with jurisprudence and more to do with psychology. It may be the best we have but it is a long way from being a best that we can make use of for the betterment of the people or even of the system.

[kenberg]

Chas_P, on 2018-July-31, 17:33, said:

The O. J. Simpson trial comes to mind.

Yes, but that was (of course just my opinion) a bad verdict. Bad verdicts happen, and when a defendant has fame and money, that ups the chances considerably. But verdicts depend on the jury, and of course a jury will not always get it right.

I was more thinking of the day to day running of a system in a way that leaves a lot to be desired. As with, I assume, most others on this thread my experience with the criminal justice system is not large. I'll describe one of the things from when my daughter and I visited the court

A guy was brought up from the jail. His dress suggested that he was at least a bit down and out. He was identified and he stood in front of the judge who asked him what the charges were. The man didn't know, or at least said that he did not know. The judge did not know. They guy who had brought him from the jail to the courtroom did not know. After a bit, it was clear that nobody knew what the charges were, so the judge declared him free to go. Say what? A man has spent the night in jail, he is brought into court, and nobody knows the charges or is able to quickly find out the charges? He certainly did not look like a violent person, he just looked, as I said, like someone down and out. But there are supposed tp be charges, and the judge is supposed to know what the charges are. If so, then he might well dismiss the charges. No doubt the system gets overwhelmed so I can sort of understand this, but I would not call it a display of professionalism.

Back to Mueller. Troubling in a different way, but basically he is doing what is needed. I understand that Manafort appeared before a judge today and (I heard on PBS) the judge said to the prosecutor something like "Hey, you really are not interested in the money laundering, you are trying to turn him for your probe into election tampering, right?" The prosecutor of course denied that he was doing any such thing. Sure, sure. And Starr was really interested in whether Bill was or was not doing it with Monica. Sure. Btw, I am not saying that these are the same. Money laundering is a crime, having sex with Monica was not a crime. Lying about it under oath was, of course.

As I see it, when you are dealing with someone who is rich and powerful, you will not be finding their own fingerprints on a smoking gun. So you have to come at it from the side, as Mueller is doing. I understand the necessity of it. I regret it, but I think that there is no choice. And, parenthetical remark, I have a hell of a lot more regret about what happened to Lewinsky than I do over what is happening to Manfort. Mathematics has a purity to it. Criminal investigations? Not so much.

[Winstonm]

As an aside, I read a book about the OJ trial written by Vince Bugliosi - a famed LA DA who convicted Manson - and he said that the prosecution was abysmal and to blame.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2018-July-31, 20:03, said:

As an aside, I read a book about the OJ trial written by Vince Bugliosi - a famed LA DA who convicted Manson - and he said that the prosecution was abysmal and to blame.

Some prosecutors are better than others, some defense lawyers are better than others, and if you have money you can afford the better. And some juries need to get a grip on reality. I re-watched Chicago recently. Now there is a show for cynics. "I fired two warning shots, right into his head", or "He ran into my knife. He ran into my knife ten times". Ok, that exceeds even my cynicism, but it works because it was not based completely on fantasy. I started by mentioning Hoffa. "They got nothing on Hoffa" is different from "Hoffa didn't do it". Or it should be different.
Skepticism should be non-partisan. When Madeleine Albright went on tv to say she believed Clinton when he said he did not have sex with that woman, my reaction was "Good grief, and she is our Secretary of State?"
Anyway, Mueller is doing what needs to be done, and he has to be supported in his efforts. Hoffa was a corrupt labor leader, Bill did have sex with that woman, and the Trump campaign was involved, to an extent yet to be determined, with the Russians. And this last is by far the most serious of these three items, Clinton's cheesy sexual behavior the least.

[johnu]

kenberg, on 2018-August-01, 06:28, said:

Some prosecutors are better than others, some defense lawyers are better than others, and if you have money you can afford the better.

IIRC, around the time of the OJ trial, a lawyer named Gerry Spence was getting some good press. Back then, I think he was charging a million+ dollars for a murder case.

Gerry Spence

According to the link, he never lost a criminal case as prosecutor of defense attorney, and last lost a civil case in 1969.

[barmar]

johnu, on 2018-August-01, 06:57, said:

According to the link, he never lost a criminal case as prosecutor of defense attorney, and last lost a civil case in 1969.

Of course, one way to achieve that level of success as an attorney is to be very selective about the cases you take -- only take on the cases that you think you can win.

The only times I've been in a courtroom have been the couple of times I've been called for jury duty, and I've never made it to trial (or even voir dire). So all I know is what I see on TV and movies. I suspect the most realistic was the 2001 series "100 Centre Street", about the day-to-day workings of a NY City courthouse; it was created by Sydney Lumet, and Alan Arkin played a disillusioned judge. And a couple of years ago there was the HBO miniseries "The Night Of", in which John Turtorro plays a downtrodden defense attorney assigned as the court-appointed lawyer for a Pakistani-American student accused of killing a woman during a drunken one-night stand.

However, it seems like there should be big difference between what goes on in under-funded, inner-city courthouses and a Special Prosecutor at the national level.

[Winstonm]

The Manafort trial shows what good attorneys can do. By opening the trial with remarks that Manafort was in essence the victim of his unscrupulous underling, Rick Gates, the defense attorneys made it risky for the prosecutors to call Gates as a witness, as it opens him up to cross examination about his role in the crimes. I now see that the prosecution is weighing the idea not calling Gates.

[cherdano]

Winstonm, on 2018-August-01, 17:19, said:

The Manafort trial shows what good attorneys can do. By opening the trial with remarks that Manafort was in essence the victim of his unscrupulous underling, Rick Gates, the defense attorneys made it risky for the prosecutors to call Gates as a witness, as it opens him up to cross examination about his role in the crimes. I now see that the prosecution is weighing the idea not calling Gates.

Or both are a reflection of the fact that the paper trail alone is enough to convict Manafort.

[kenberg]

I expect that ordinary mortals will have trouble with some of the details, what do I know about money laundering, but yes, I hope and expect that documentary evidence will be the key.That, together with witnesses with impeccable credentials that will assist in the understanding of what the documents show.

Surely Mueller is not surprised by "The other dude did it" defense and surely he is prepared for it. I expect there will be a lot of documents, travel logs, documented meetings and so on. Not that I really know diddly about financial stuff.

As to "ordinary people" I would expect them to hear Trump calling for an immediate end to the investigation just as the trial begins, and say to themselves "I think I smell a rat". It would take very substantial ideological ear plugs to not hear it that way.

I thought that the blasting of NATO allies and the sucking up to Putin would be a turning point. I was wrong, perhaps, about that but I retain a faith that we are entering a very changed phase of the Trump presidency. At some point, we puke. And then we see things in a new way.

[ggwhiz]

kenberg, on 2018-August-02, 08:03, said:

Surely Mueller is not surprised by "The other dude did it" defense

Every indication is that this is the oldest and least successful legal defense in history. The prosecution has the resources to prove their case and Manafort has not much more than "take my word for it".

When his 2nd trial begins and playing footsy with the Russians is featured it will be interesting to see who he does throw under the bus as well as does not (Don jr) as to his expectations of a pardon.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2018-August-02, 08:03, said:

I expect that ordinary mortals will have trouble with some of the details, what do I know about money laundering, but yes, I hope and expect that documentary evidence will be the key.That, together with witnesses with impeccable credentials that will assist in the understanding of what the documents show.

Surely Mueller is not surprised by "The other dude did it" defense and surely he is prepared for it. I expect there will be a lot of documents, travel logs, documented meetings and so on. Not that I really know diddly about financial stuff.

As to "ordinary people" I would expect them to hear Trump calling for an immediate end to the investigation just as the trial begins, and say to themselves "I think I smell a rat". It would take very substantial ideological ear plugs to not hear it that way.

I thought that the blasting of NATO allies and the sucking up to Putin would be a turning point. I was wrong, perhaps, about that but I retain a faith that we are entering a very changed phase of the Trump presidency. At some point, we puke. And then we see things in a new way.

(emphasis added to Ken's post)
I learned this same lesson regarding alcohol when I was in my early twenties, yet alcoholics remain stubbornly among us.

[Al_U_Card]

ggwhiz, on 2018-August-02, 08:49, said:

Every indication is that this is the oldest and least successful legal defense in history. The prosecution has the resources to prove their case and Manafort has not much more than "take my word for it".

When his 2nd trial begins and playing footsy with the Russians is featured it will be interesting to see who he does throw under the bus as well as does not (Don jr) as to his expectations of a pardon.

Despite the ethnicity, (Does Omerta only apply to the Italisn mob?) I would expect a conviction but NEVER a confession and since "witness protection" is not available, the underlings will fall on their swords and the more elite among them will be resurrected by PP. As predictable as it is sad.

[Winstonm]

Emphasis added.
A conservative says:

Quote

The Full-Spectrum Corruption of Donald Trump
Everyone and everything he touches rots.

Peter Wehner
By Peter Wehner
Mr. Wehner served in the previous three Republican administrations and is a contributing opinion writer.

Aug. 25, 2018

There’s never been any confusion about the character defects of Donald Trump. The question has always been just how far he would go and whether other individuals and institutions would stand up to him or become complicit in his corruption.

When I first took to these pages three summers ago to write about Mr. Trump, I warned my fellow Republicans to just say no both to him and his candidacy. One of my concerns was that if Mr. Trump were to succeed, he would redefine the Republican Party in his image. That’s already happened in areas like free trade, free markets and the size of government; in attitudes toward ethnic nationalism and white identity politics; in America’s commitment to its traditional allies, in how Republicans view Russia and in their willingness to call out leaders of evil governments like North Korea rather than lavish praise on them. But in no area has Mr. Trump more fundamentally changed the Republican Party than in its attitude toward ethics and political leadership.

For decades, Republicans, and especially conservative Republicans, insisted that character counted in public life. They were particularly vocal about this during the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky scandal, arguing against “compartmentalization” — by which they meant overlooking moral turpitude in the Oval Office because you agree with the president’s policy agenda or because the economy is strong.

Senator Lindsey Graham, then in the House, went so far as to argue that “impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”

All that has changed with Mr. Trump as president. For Republicans, honor and integrity are now passé. We saw it again last week when the president’s longtime lawyer Michael Cohen — standing in court before a judge, under oath — implicated Mr. Trump in criminal activity, while his former campaign chairman was convicted in another courtroom on financial fraud charges. Most Republicans in Congress were either silent or came to Mr. Trump’s defense, which is how this tiresome drama now plays itself out.

It is a stunning turnabout. A party that once spoke with urgency and apparent conviction about the importance of ethical leadership — fidelity, honesty, honor, decency, good manners, setting a good example — has hitched its wagon to the most thoroughly and comprehensively corrupt individual who has ever been elected president. Some of the men who have been elected president have been unscrupulous in certain areas — infidelity, lying, dirty tricks, financial misdeeds — but we’ve never before had the full-spectrum corruption we see in the life of Donald Trump.

For many Republicans, this reality still hasn’t broken through. But facts that don’t penetrate the walls of an ideological silo are facts nonetheless. And the moral indictment against Mr. Trump is obvious and overwhelming. Corruption has been evident in Mr. Trump’s private and public life, in how he has treated his wives, in his business dealings and scams, in his pathological lying and cruelty, in his bullying and shamelessness, in his conspiracy-mongering and appeals to the darkest impulses of Americans. (Senator Bob Corker, a Republican, refers to the president’s race-based comments as a “base stimulator.”) Mr. Trump’s corruptions are ingrained, the result of a lifetime of habits. It was delusional to think he would change for the better once he became president.

Some of us who have been lifelong Republicans and previously served in Republican administrations held out a faint hope that our party would at some point say “Enough!”; that there would be some line Mr. Trump would cross, some boundary he would transgress, some norm he would shatter, some civic guardrail he would uproot, some action he would take, some scheme or scandal he would be involved in that would cause large numbers of Republicans to break with the president. No such luck. Mr. Trump’s corruptions have therefore become theirs. So far there’s been no bottom, and there may never be. It’s quite possible this should have been obvious to me much sooner than it was, that I was blinded to certain realities I should have recognized.

In any case, the Republican Party’s as-yet unbreakable attachment to Mr. Trump is coming at quite a cost. There is the rank hypocrisy, the squandered ability to venerate public character or criticize Democrats who lack it, and the damage to the white Evangelical movement, which has for the most part enthusiastically rallied to Mr. Trump and as a result has been largely discredited. There is also likely to be an electoral price to pay in November.

But the greatest damage is being done to our civic culture and our politics. Mr. Trump and the Republican Party are right now the chief emblem of corruption and cynicism in American political life, of an ethic of might makes right. Dehumanizing others is fashionable and truth is relative. (“Truth isn’t truth,” in the infamous words of Mr. Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani.) They are stripping politics of its high purpose and nobility.

That’s not all politics is; self-interest is always a factor. But if politics is only about power unbounded by morality — if it’s simply about rulers governing by the law of the jungle, about a prince acting like a beast, in the words of Machiavelli — then the whole enterprise will collapse. We have to distinguish between imperfect leaders and corrupt ones, and we need the vocabulary to do so.

A warning to my Republican friends: The worst is yet to come. Thanks to the work of Robert Mueller — a distinguished public servant, not the leader of a “group of Angry Democrat Thugs” — we are going to discover deeper and deeper layers to Mr. Trump’s corruption. When we do, I expect Mr. Trump will unravel further as he feels more cornered, more desperate, more enraged; his behavior will become ever more erratic, disordered and crazed.

Most Republicans, having thrown their MAGA hats over the Trump wall, will stay with him until the end. Was a tax cut, deregulation and court appointments really worth all this?

[barmar]

Quote

For decades, Republicans, and especially conservative Republicans, insisted that character counted in public life. They were particularly vocal about this during the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky scandal, arguing against “compartmentalization” — by which they meant overlooking moral turpitude in the Oval Office because you agree with the president’s policy agenda or because the economy is strong.

Hypocracy in politics is not really new. It's easy to take the moral high ground when the person at fault is a political opponent. But there have been numerous scandals in Congress over the years, and members of their party usually have stood by them or said nothing.

The exception was probably Democrats pushing Al Franken to resign when a minor sexual misconduct issue arose during the height of the MeToo movement. His little joke was nothing compared to what some Congressmen and people campaigning for office were accused of, but they felt they needed to show that they're not hypocrites.