Friday, August 04, 2017

Ken Starr says a special prosecutor should not exceed his original mandate

Ken Starr says a special prosecutor should not exceed his original mandate

I believe this is the place where the Deltas start coughing and muttering "bullshit" and "blowjob" under their breath, and not just because Starr is saying "do as I say, not as I do."

Here is the actual declaration:

"The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation, including:

(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation"

As far as I can tell, Mueller has stayed within those boundaries. Any financial dealing (a link) between Trump (obviously an individual associated with the campaign) and the Russian government is specifically covered by the first part. That IS Mueller's specific charge, without even having to resort to the broad strokes of the second part of the order.

Here is a comparison of the Starr and Mueller investigations.

11 comments:

  1. How is what Mueller is apparently doing any different than what Starr did moving from Whitewater to oral sex? I call foul.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scoop's point exactly. It's ok, though, because emails and cigars and Ben Ghazi - you know, the astronaut.

      Wait, no, that's Wally Shirra. Never mind.

      Delete
  2. I think Mueller, like Starr, is seriously overstepping his bounds. He was commissioned to investigate a possible connection between the Trump campaign and Russia in an attempt to 'fix' the election for Trump. He has not found anything directly related to that topic, so now he wants subpoena powers so he can look elsewhere.

    There is a major problem with Mueller's investigation. Eight of the people who are working for him have strong financial ties to Obama, Clinton or both. Now, I may be just a 'dumb citizen', but that sure sounds like Conflict of Interest to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, you're thinking of Scott Baio. He's a dumb citizen.

      Obama & Clinton are 600 yards back and fading in the rearview, can we please at least start forgetting about them? Based on my legal credentials (years of watching Law & Order) I think the investigators would have to be tied to the Russians or to Trump for there to be a conflict.

      We don't know what Mueller has in the hole (sorry) but just his up-cards - lying on financial disclosures, lying about meeting with Russians until they got caught, lying about the content of the meeting until they got caught - that's enough right there to go to a grand jury. Job 1 for that grand jury should be a subpoena for Trump's tax returns. Either so very clean that it would be a waste of time like Trump's been saying, or it will be the beginning of finding out which Russians have him by the balls.

      Delete
    2. So what you're saying is this whole business is just a ruse to get Trump's tax returns?

      Delete
    3. Gent. That is not correct. He was not charged to investigate the election specifically. He was charged to investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump." He could, in fact, ignore the entire election, and just concentrate on whether Trump or anyone in his campaign have compromising dealings with Russia. He would exceed his authority if he started to investigate (for example) improper dealings with Saudi Arabia or some other country, because that is not within his charge.

      Obviously falling under part ii of the charge would be any case in which those improper dealings would actually influence the election.

      Getting Trump's tax returns could be at the very heart of the matter. Hardly a ruse. It would certainly be relevant to find massive transactions or indebtedness to Russia, and Trump obviously does not want the records examined, which is a lot of smoke. Is there fire? Who knows? But obviously you can't rely on the word of the man under investigation. If you are charged to investigate, you need to see the evidence that implicates or exonerates him.

      As far as I know, nobody on Mueller's team has financial ties to Hillary Clinton. Some of them have given money to Clinton campaigns, as have Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner. In fact, Kushner has made 99% of his contributions to Democrats!

      Delete
    4. what exactly is a strong financial tie?
      Did Hilary or Obama loan them money?
      Probably 20 conflicts attorney's vetted them before they were hired.
      As a lawyer, impressed does not even begin to convey the feelings I have at the firepower he has assembled. He has hired 3 lawyers who literally wrote the book on their practice areas.
      In legal terms, he has assembled the 1927 Yankees murderer's row.
      Getting this group of people to drop everything and work for him on a moment's notice scares the shit out of me because I am thinking that whatever he said in the interview must have scared the shit out of them...

      Delete
  3. I think Ken Starr WANTS a man date.

    ReplyDelete
  4. At the risk of "re-litigating" (so to speak) a 20-year-old case, Ken Starr was fully justified in shifting his investigation from Whitewater to Lewinsky. Whitewater had to do with a shady land deal in Arkansas, but Starr was never able to prove wrongdoing on Clinton's part. Still there was apparently some evidence that potential witnesses had been persuaded to lie or otherwise not cooperate. Susan McDougal (I think that was her name) did 18 mos in federal prison for refusing to testify. Many of the same people who were alleged to have tampered with Whitewater witnesses were alleged to have tried to keep Lewinsky quiet. Because it was potentially evidence of a pattern and practice of witness tampering and obstruction of justice, Starr investigated and uncovered evidence of perjury.

    I have no sympathy for Clinton. He was at least as shady as Nixon, but with a better smile. He brought it all on himself. I have no sympathy for Trump either. If he had been willing to let the investigation proceed it might have been over by now. But his ego hated being investigated and he threw a tantrum. That said Mueller should avoid expanding the investigation absent evidence of an actual crime being committed.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wow, the audience here skews heavily to the nursing home set.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, guilty as charged - I thought it was lolz for days, or "a hoot" as we used to say, when they came with the story of this hot new "antenna" that lets you get local TV channels for free.

    Even so, between wiki and dead-tree information storage, you can know Harding was a shitty president without personally remembering him. Or so I hear.

    ReplyDelete