There are 81 comments.

1. Inactive
   Larry Koler

   @LarryKoler

   2:28 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 10, 2017

   Valiuth (View Comment):
   Let’s though discuss the unmasking scandal? Where is that at the moment?

   Where is the information on why Patrick Fitzgerald went after Scooter Libby when it’s left hanging in the air that Fitzgerald knew who was the leaker on Valerie Plame? This is where our  government doesn’t serve us well: we have a right to know these things.

2. Inactive
   DocJay

   @DocJay

   Post author

   2:40 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 10, 2017

   Larry Koler (View Comment):

   Valiuth (View Comment):
   Let’s though discuss the unmasking scandal? Where is that at the moment?

   Where is the information on why Patrick Fitzgerald went after Scooter Libby when it’s left hanging in the air that Fitzgerald knew who was the leaker on Valerie Plame? This is where our government doesn’t serve us well: we have a right to know these things.

   Yep.  A partisan travesty and W should have pardoned Libby immediately.

3. Member
   Kevin Schulte

   @KevinSchulte

   2:44 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 10, 2017

   DocJay (View Comment):

   Larry Koler (View Comment):

   Valiuth (View Comment):
   Let’s though discuss the unmasking scandal? Where is that at the moment?

   Where is the information on why Patrick Fitzgerald went after Scooter Libby when it’s left hanging in the air that Fitzgerald knew who was the leaker on Valerie Plame? This is where our government doesn’t serve us well: we have a right to know these things.

   Yep. A partisan travesty and W should have pardoned Libby immediately.

   This was when I first abandoned Bush. It spoke volumes.

4. Inactive
   Larry Koler

   @LarryKoler

   3:16 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 10, 2017

   Kevin Schulte (View Comment):

   DocJay (View Comment):

   Larry Koler (View Comment):

   Valiuth (View Comment):
   Let’s though discuss the unmasking scandal? Where is that at the moment?

   Where is the information on why Patrick Fitzgerald went after Scooter Libby when it’s left hanging in the air that Fitzgerald knew who was the leaker on Valerie Plame? This is where our government doesn’t serve us well: we have a right to know these things.

   Yep. A partisan travesty and W should have pardoned Libby immediately.

   This was when I first abandoned Bush. It spoke volumes.

   Agreed — however, I still would leave an out for Bush: For god’s sake tell us why this all happened. Or tell us that he can’t talk about — but, please acknowledge us and recognize that we are losing our faith in these guys.

5. Inactive
   DocJay

   @DocJay

   Post author

   5:47 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 10, 2017

   TeamAmerica (View Comment):
   @DocJay– Fwiw, have you ever thought of having a part-time gig as an online columnist. There is an Australian author I like named John Birmingham who writes for the Brisbane Times. His views are usually too liberal for me but he is very good at political satire (he is also an excellent sci-fi writer; check out his ‘Weapons of Choice’). I’d say you are as least as good, and you might attract a sizeable readership.

   Thanks.  I am happy right here at Ricochet for a number of reasons.  Sometimes I read something I wrote and thank God I do have a day job.

6. Inactive
   NYLibertarianGuy

   @PaulKingsbery

   6:39 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 10, 2017

   Ed G. (View Comment):

   NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):

   Ed G. (View Comment):

   DocJay (View Comment):

   NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):

   …..

   That in itself is not a crime. But it looks bad in view of Manafort’s past ties to pro-Russian factions in Ukraine.

   It looks less bad that he was removed from the campaign though.

   Don’t you think this is about ” go to jail or sing like a bird ?

   His foreign ties may have indeed been hidden by him and his old GOP bonafides put out front. Who knows ?

   Also: let’s not forget that there is no specific charge let alone smoking gun. Looks bad? What looks bad? Bad how? Politically or criminally? Let’s keep our heads firmly in place here. No need to become Manafort fans, but are we really so inured to all this that our first response isn’t: what’s the charge and what’s the evidence? Perhaps more importantly: this witch hunt is intolerable; either produce specific charges and specific evidence or drop it immediately – this is America and you don’t just get to root around people’s lives endlessly simply because some partisan smear campaign got out of control. Every single Republican should be saying this first and last, every time they speak.

   I don’t think you understand how investigations work. When there is suspicion that criminal conduct has occurred, prosecutors begin an investigation and follow the evidence. Here, Manafort’s admitted disclosure failings give more than an adequate basis for suspicion to investigate. To prejudge the entire investigation as a “witch hunt” is almost as irresponsible as assuming that Manafort is guilty. It is certainly no less of a partisan position.

   …..

   You are really a great asset to Ricochet NYLG. I mean that. Thanks for explaining how investigations work. Seriously. Because I was operating with the false idea that an investigation was supposed to start with an identifiable crime/event and then an investigation would find and examine evidence regarding that crime. Now I realize that it’s enough to simply suspect someone is a nogoodnik.

   Are you suggesting that Mueller’s investigation is illegal or just improvident?  You (and others, to be fair) seem to be deliberately vague on this point.  In either case, why doesn’t Trump just shut it down?  He clearly has the legal authority to do so.

7. Member
   Judge Mental

   @JudgeMental

   6:49 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 10, 2017

   NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):

   Ed G. (View Comment):

   NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):

   Ed G. (View Comment):

   DocJay (View Comment):

   NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):

   …..

   That in itself is not a crime. But it looks bad in view of Manafort’s past ties to pro-Russian factions in Ukraine.

   It looks less bad that he was removed from the campaign though.

   Don’t you think this is about ” go to jail or sing like a bird ?

   His foreign ties may have indeed been hidden by him and his old GOP bonafides put out front. Who knows ?

   Also: let’s not forget that there is no specific charge let alone smoking gun. Looks bad? What looks bad? Bad how? Politically or criminally? Let’s keep our heads firmly in place here. No need to become Manafort fans, but are we really so inured to all this that our first response isn’t: what’s the charge and what’s the evidence? Perhaps more importantly: this witch hunt is intolerable; either produce specific charges and specific evidence or drop it immediately – this is America and you don’t just get to root around people’s lives endlessly simply because some partisan smear campaign got out of control. Every single Republican should be saying this first and last, every time they speak.

   I don’t think you understand how investigations work. When there is suspicion that criminal conduct has occurred, prosecutors begin an investigation and follow the evidence. Here, Manafort’s admitted disclosure failings give more than an adequate basis for suspicion to investigate. To prejudge the entire investigation as a “witch hunt” is almost as irresponsible as assuming that Manafort is guilty. It is certainly no less of a partisan position.

   …..

   You are really a great asset to Ricochet NYLG. I mean that. Thanks for explaining how investigations work. Seriously. Because I was operating with the false idea that an investigation was supposed to start with an identifiable crime/event and then an investigation would find and examine evidence regarding that crime. Now I realize that it’s enough to simply suspect someone is a nogoodnik.

   Are you suggesting that Mueller’s investigation is illegal or just improvident? You (and others, to be fair) seem to be deliberately vague on this point. In either case, why doesn’t Trump just shut it down? He clearly has the legal authority to do so.

   It’s illegal on multiple levels.  He has legal authority.  And it’s political suicide to shut it down.

8. Member
   Ed G.

   @EdG

   

   7:18 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 10, 2017

   NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):

   Ed G. (View Comment):

   NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):

   …..

   I don’t think you understand how investigations work. When there is suspicion that criminal conduct has occurred, prosecutors begin an investigation and follow the evidence. Here, Manafort’s admitted disclosure failings give more than an adequate basis for suspicion to investigate. To prejudge the entire investigation as a “witch hunt” is almost as irresponsible as assuming that Manafort is guilty. It is certainly no less of a partisan position.

   …..

   You are really a great asset to Ricochet NYLG. I mean that. Thanks for explaining how investigations work. Seriously. Because I was operating with the false idea that an investigation was supposed to start with an identifiable crime/event and then an investigation would find and examine evidence regarding that crime. Now I realize that it’s enough to simply suspect someone is a nogoodnik.

   Are you suggesting that Mueller’s investigation is illegal or just improvident? You (and others, to be fair) seem to be deliberately vague on this point. In either case, why doesn’t Trump just shut it down? He clearly has the legal authority to do so.

   How can I have been vague, deliberately or otherwise, on your point? I’ve never addressed your point. Do I have to address it in order to think that this is an investigation in search of a crime rather than an investigation of identifiable criminal conduct?

   As far as why Trump doesn’t shut it down since he has the legal authority to do so: you are the one with great understanding, can’t you guess the plausible (obvious) answers to your own question?

9. Inactive
   NYLibertarianGuy

   @PaulKingsbery

   8:21 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 10, 2017

   Ed G. (View Comment):

   NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):

   Ed G. (View Comment):

   NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):

   …..

   I don’t think you understand how investigations work. When there is suspicion that criminal conduct has occurred, prosecutors begin an investigation and follow the evidence. Here, Manafort’s admitted disclosure failings give more than an adequate basis for suspicion to investigate. To prejudge the entire investigation as a “witch hunt” is almost as irresponsible as assuming that Manafort is guilty. It is certainly no less of a partisan position.

   …..

   You are really a great asset to Ricochet NYLG. I mean that. Thanks for explaining how investigations work. Seriously. Because I was operating with the false idea that an investigation was supposed to start with an identifiable crime/event and then an investigation would find and examine evidence regarding that crime. Now I realize that it’s enough to simply suspect someone is a nogoodnik.

   Are you suggesting that Mueller’s investigation is illegal or just improvident? You (and others, to be fair) seem to be deliberately vague on this point. In either case, why doesn’t Trump just shut it down? He clearly has the legal authority to do so.

   How can I have been vague, deliberately or otherwise, on your point? I’ve never addressed your point. Do I have to address it in order to think that this is an investigation in search of a crime rather than an investigation of identifiable criminal conduct?

   As far as why Trump doesn’t shut it down since he has the legal authority to do so: you are the one with great understanding, can’t you guess the plausible (obvious) answers to your own question?

   You suggest that Mueller is doing something wrong, but you are vague about what exactly that is.  What statute or rule states that investigations can only look into “identifiable” criminal conduct rather than suspected criminal conduct?  Manafort’s and Kushner’s false disclosures could very well have violated 18 USC § 1001, no? How are § 1001 violations not “identifiable” crimes?

   Since you know more about how investigations are supposed to work than the former Director of the FBI, it would be helpful to know by what standard you are claiming his conduct is wrong.

   I honestly don’t know why Trump hasn’t shut down the investigation, given that he’s always complaining about how “unfair” it is. Seems to me that he mightt think there’s a chance it will clear him. If it does, then all your denunciations will look pretty ridiculous in hindsight.

10. Member
    Ed G.

    @EdG

    

    8:43 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 10, 2017

    NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):

    …..

    Are you suggesting that Mueller’s investigation is illegal or just improvident? You (and others, to be fair) seem to be deliberately vague on this point. In either case, why doesn’t Trump just shut it down? He clearly has the legal authority to do so.

    How can I have been vague, deliberately or otherwise, on your point? I’ve never addressed your point. Do I have to address it in order to think that this is an investigation in search of a crime rather than an investigation of identifiable criminal conduct?

    As far as why Trump doesn’t shut it down since he has the legal authority to do so: you are the one with great understanding, can’t you guess the plausible (obvious) answers to your own question?

    You suggest that Mueller is doing something wrong, but you are vague about what exactly that is. What statute or rule states that investigations can only look into “identifiable” criminal conduct rather than suspected criminal conduct? Manafort’s and Kushner’s false disclosures could very well have violated 18 USC § 1001, no? How are § 1001 violations not “identifiable” crimes?

    Since you know more about how investigations are supposed to work than the former Director of the FBI…..

    When did I suggest that Mueller is doing something wrong? When did I suggest that my point is based on statute or rule? When did I say I know more about investigations than anyone?

    Regarding USC § 1001: if a false statement was made then that could be a violation if the false statement was materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent. Is Mueller’s investigation limited to whether Manfort or Kushner made materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements? Seems to me there’d have to be evidence of a bigger crime in order for the disclosures in question to become “material”.

11. Inactive
    NYLibertarianGuy

    @PaulKingsbery

    8:54 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 10, 2017

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):

    You suggest that Mueller is doing something wrong, but you are vague about what exactly that is. What statute or rule states that investigations can only look into “identifiable” criminal conduct rather than suspected criminal conduct? Manafort’s and Kushner’s false disclosures could very well have violated 18 USC § 1001, no? How are § 1001 violations not “identifiable” crimes?

    Since you know more about how investigations are supposed to work than the former Director of the FBI…..

    When did I suggest that Mueller is doing something wrong? When did I suggest that my point is based on statute or rule? When did I say I know more about investigations than anyone?

    Regarding USC § 1001: if a false statement was made then that could be a violation if the false statement was materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent. Is Mueller’s investigation limited to whether Manfort or Kushner made materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements? Seems to me there’d have to be evidence of a bigger crime in order for the disclosures in question to become “material”.

    You made the following statement:  “[Mueller’s] witch hunt is intolerable; either produce specific charges and specific evidence or drop it immediately – this is America and you don’t just get to root around people’s lives endlessly simply because some partisan smear campaign got out of control.”  Other than Ed G.’s treatise on criminal procedure, on what is this assertion based?

    Regarding the scope of the investigation, neither you nor I know the answers to your questions, particularly about whether there is evidence of a “bigger crime.”  But given that you are attacking Mueller’s integrity, the burden is on you to substantiate the basis of your claim.

12. Inactive
    NYLibertarianGuy

    @PaulKingsbery

    9:01 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 10, 2017

    DocJay (View Comment):

     

    It looks less bad that he was removed from the campaign though.

    Don’t you think this is about ” go to jail or sing like a bird ?

    His foreign ties may have indeed been hidden by him and his old GOP bonafides put out front. Who knows ?

    Agree 100% that it looks better that Manafort was removed from the campaign.  One of the top 3 moves that Trump made.  That still leaves two open questions:  What did Manafort actually do during the campaign?  How did he get the job in the first place?

    It’s entirely possible that Trump did nothing wrong in hiring Manafort and hired him thinking he was a mainline GOP swamp creature who might be useful to the extent he knew something about running a political campaign. But I don’t think it’s out-of-bounds to investigate how someone like Manafort, with clear ties to pro-Putin groups in Ukraine, came to lead the presidential campaign of the GOP’s nominee, if only for a limited period of time.

13. Member
    Ed G.

    @EdG

    

    9:13 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 10, 2017

    NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    …..

    You made the following statement: “[Mueller’s] witch hunt is intolerable; either produce specific charges and specific evidence or drop it immediately – this is America and you don’t just get to root around people’s lives endlessly simply because some partisan smear campaign got out of control.” Other than Ed G.’s treatise on criminal procedure, on what is this assertion based?

    Regarding the scope of the investigation, neither you nor I know the answers to your questions, particularly about whether there is evidence of a “bigger crime.” But given that you are attacking Mueller’s integrity, the burden is on you to substantiate the basis of your claim.

    You added the “[Mueller]” part, not me.

    It could be an intolerable witch hunt without anyone doing anything technically or legally wrong. Plus I wasn’t limiting my remark to Manafort.

    Do you really think I was making a technical statement based statute? If so, then: I wasn’t.

    If there is no basis for a bigger crime even having taken place then there’s no basis for investigation to find such crime.

    If there’s no basis for a bigger crime then on what basis would a disclosure misstatement count as “material” according to the statute?

    I’m not attacking Mueller’s integrity.

    So far I’ve wasted so much time telling you I didn’t say what you think I said. Got anything real or is this just your schtick?

     

14. Inactive
    DocJay

    @DocJay

    Post author

    11:42 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 10, 2017

    NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):

    DocJay (View Comment):

    It looks less bad that he was removed from the campaign though.

    Don’t you think this is about ” go to jail or sing like a bird ?

    His foreign ties may have indeed been hidden by him and his old GOP bonafides put out front. Who knows ?

    Agree 100% that it looks better that Manafort was removed from the campaign. One of the top 3 moves that Trump made. That still leaves two open questions: What did Manafort actually do during the campaign? How did he get the job in the first place?

    It’s entirely possible that Trump did nothing wrong in hiring Manafort and hired him thinking he was a mainline GOP swamp creature who might be useful to the extent he knew something about running a political campaign. But I don’t think it’s out-of-bounds to investigate how someone like Manafort, with clear ties to pro-Putin groups in Ukraine, came to lead the presidential campaign of the GOP’s nominee, if only for a limited period of time.

    He was hired before anyone cared about Russia and before Russia was used as the cover up for DNC leaks.

    I think the Russia narrative is part of a game the dems used to justify spying, unmasking, wreaking havoc on their adversary.

    You must appreciate that some people substantially distrust any D.C. insiders  including the FBI?.   I know a few people in Boston that trust the FBI less than me but I don’t trust them much.

    Comey covered for Hilary , Lynch , others, even the president ,  probably at the presidents request but maybe just as service.   We will never prove this , no one is investigating.   Why ?

    Mueller and his great reputation hired a bunch of Clinton donors.

    Mueller is friends with Comey who’s leaks contributed to his pal being hired.

    Now Mueller is going after Manafort, his estranged son in law , and others looking for any crime.  Any financial crime, not to prove Russian ( bonus if it does )  stuff but  to hot seat the scoundrel til he squeals  on someone.   He doesn’t even need to tell the truth to get a deal, just say stuff detrimental to the president or his family.

    My view is common and although I doubt you share it, it has merit.  This is why we view this as a witch hunt.

    You seem to feel strongly in the honor and patriotism of public servants at the top of the FBI.  I’d love for you to be right.

    How would you feel if all my chain of reasoning turns out to be true?  If they are not honorable at all?

    I’ll  be happy if you’re right.  Will you be hopping mad if I’m right ?

     

15. Inactive
    Larry Koler

    @LarryKoler

    8:47 AM EDT ⋅ Aug 11, 2017

    Trump should fire Mueller and appoint a professional and not a political hack.

    How? You ask.

    Direct Rosenstein to do this. If he won’t do this then fire him or anyone else who won’t do what they’re ordered to do.

    And I think Rosenstein should be fired, too.

16. Coolidge
    Chris Campion

    @ChrisCampion

    5:57 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 11, 2017

    DocJay (View Comment):

    NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):

    DocJay (View Comment):

    NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):

    Pilli (View Comment):
    Pre-dawn? Is there such a thing? Don’t the Cretins know that life begins after coffee at 9:00 AM. Good Grief!

    As for Manafort, he’s toast. Unless Trump does his pardon thing. Interesting thought: What if Trump pardoned each person that was being investigated in this fiasco? One at a time as their names were made public. None of them would have any reason to testify. Case over?

    A pardon would not itself relieve anyone of his or her responsibility to testify. It might change the leverage that the Special Counsel has over potential witnesses, but failure to give testimony to a grand jury is still punishable as civil contempt. In fact, often prosecutors have to grant immunity to witnesses in order to compel their testimony before a grand jury.

    Plus, I expect at some point, issuing a high number of pardons would begin to reflect poorly on the President. But then again, nothing else he has done seems to discourage his supporters. So what do I know?

    What I’ve learned from Clinton/Obama is that people can do whatever they want to legally and get away with it if they come from the protected class. I doubt teflon Don will have as much leeway.

    Yes pardons for true crimes would reflect very poorly to all but the president’s serious supporters. Pardons for a witch hunt ‘find a crime’ for the man might be dismissed easily, at least by me.

    So, just a follow up question on that. What if–and this is entirely speculative and hypothetical–Mueller discovered strong evidence that Manafort himself was receiving undisclosed payments from Russian sources? Nothing about the campaign as a whole or the President mind you, just that Manafort was in the back pocket of Russian oligarchs or their fellow travelers while working as the manager of Trump’s campaign. Would that fall into the “witch hunt” category or the “true crime” category, in your view?

    If it’s a crime it’s a crime. Tax evasion about some old Ukraine garbage or business issue pre campaign is witch hunt. I am positive a guy like him isn’t clean.

    Using his position in the campaign to get personal bribes from anyone, foreign powers being worse, seems like it ought to be punished. Severely.

    It wasn’t for Hillary.

17. Inactive
    Randy Webster

    @RandyWebster

    6:01 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 11, 2017

    Chris Campion (View Comment):
    It wasn’t for Hillary.

    I’m of the “Hillary ought to be in jail” school.

18. Member
    DrewInWisconsin

    @DrewInWisconsin

    6:04 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 11, 2017

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Chris Campion (View Comment):
    It wasn’t for Hillary.

    I’m of the “Hillary ought to be in jail” school.

    If we were still a nation of laws, she would be.

19. Inactive
    DocJay

    @DocJay

    Post author

    6:49 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 11, 2017

    I’m for Hilary getting publicly humiliated before her jail stint.  No need to search for crimes, just actually prosecute them.   Maybe by going after someone close to her, Weiner maybe, the FBI could do what they’re trying to do to Manafort.    Wait, the FBI helped the cover up, so no they won’t,   I guess a special prosecutor with a different law enforcement agency without partisan hacks in it.

20. Member
    Boss Mongo

    @BossMongo

    7:17 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 11, 2017

    DocJay (View Comment):
    My view is common and although I doubt you share it, it has merit. This is why we view this as a witch hunt.

    Concur.

21. Member
    Boss Mongo

    @BossMongo

    7:18 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 11, 2017

    DocJay (View Comment):
    How would you feel if all my chain of reasoning turns out to be true? If they are not honorable at all?

    Richard Jewel could not be reached for comment…