Tag Archives: ethics

“It Does Because It Does”

Posted on by
Reply

The dishonesty of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s case against ex- and brief-Trump Campaign Manager is made manifest in the opening questions Eastern District of Virginia Federal Judge TS Ellis III and Michael Dreeben’s (arguing for the Mueller side) answers.

Ellis noted

Apparently, if I look at the indictment, none of that information has anything to do with links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of Donald Trump. That seems to me to be obvious because they all long predate any contact or any affiliation of this defendant with the campaign.

Then, after a long soliloquy regarding the rationale for a prosecutor indicting a lesser player on lesser charges in order to squeeze that player into extruding information on a larger player, Ellis asked,

Where am I wrong in that regard?

Dreeben: The issue before you is Manafort’s motion to dismiss the charges.

Ellis: Yes, now answer my question.

Dreeben: “our investigatory scope does cover the activities [of the indictment]”

Ellis: Answer my question.

Dreeben: “the authorization for the special counsel to investigate matters is described generally in the appointment order on May”

Ellis: Yes, I have that letter.  Answer my question.  How does that letter include the indictment?

Dreeben: “So the authorization order permits….”

Ellis: “You’re running away from my question again. You know, I’m focused on the indictment that is here.”

Dreeben: “Well, Your Honor, we are the Justice Department.”

And there it is.  Mueller’s team flatly refused to explain how indictments related to 13-year-old events in Ukraine are tied in to an investigation of the relationship between the Trump campaign and Russia, choosing instead to be deliberately evasive.  Here, by the way, are the public parts of the Mueller Special Counsel Authorization Letter (my title for the thing), as quoted by Ellis:

Sub-paragraph b(i):

any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.

Sub-paragraph b(ii):

any matters that arose or may arise directly from the [Mueller] investigation.

Nothing in there about any allegedly nefarious activities in Ukraine.  “Arose or may arise” from the Mueller investigation means exactly that.  Stuff from outside the investigation—the Manafort money laundering charges, for instance—aren’t part of the investigation.  And so Dreeben’s implication that Ellis should just sit down and shut up: “We are the Justice Department.”

Which only emphasizes the Special Counsel’s team’s evasions.

The transcript can be read here.

The Special Counsel Authorizing Letter

Posted on by
Reply

House investigating committees have demanded that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein turn over his letter to Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and Rosenstein has refused to do so.  Now, in a case Mueller brought against ex- and brief-Trump Campaign Manager Paul Rosenstein, the presiding Federal judge TS Ellis has demanded that Mueller turn over to him an unredacted copy of that letter, and he’s given Mueller two weeks to comply, which works out to 18 May.

We’ll see. Two weeks is much too long to give Mueller to produce his copy of Rosenstein’s authorizing letter; 36-48 hours is plenty—especially since Mueller’s team plainly has that copy always ready to hand; they are, after all, responsible persons.

Ellis also needs to be prepared to jail Mueller and possibly Rosenstein for contempt if Mueller doesn’t meet the deadline, whether Ellis’ or mine, or Rosenstein won’t allow him to, and keep them locked up until the letter is produced.

President Donald Trump could speed things along by declassifying the letter, if Mueller/Rosenstein try to hide behind that. This is a national affair, and We the People need, and have the fundamental right, to know what Government’s unelected bureaucrats are doing under the pretense that it’s in our name.

Misunderstanding

Posted on by
Reply

At the tail end of a Wall Street Journal article discussing the relationship between Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Congress (and in particular the House Freedom Caucus), Rosenstein made this remark:

We have a responsibility to work with the Congress. They have a responsibility to understand their duty is not to interfere.

This is a breathtaking lack of understanding by a Federal lawyer. Oversight by Congress does not mean simply watching. Interference is absolutely required if Congress, through its oversight, detects inappropriate or wrong behaviors.

Or would Rosenstein insist that funding cuts—Congress doing its job—are interference?

Major Uncool

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s a stat from Spectator Index.

The people of most of those nations would appear to prefer to be slaves of a conqueror.  The top two nations, on the other hand, have recent and direct experience with Russian dominance.  Which makes Poland’s poor attitude surprising.

On the other hand, the general attitudes of the NATO nations makes one wonder about the utility of NATO at all, and whether we wouldn’t be better served by forming a mutual defense alliance with those eastern European nations that still have some self respect—many of which aren’t listed in the poll.

Poke around the comment thread, too.  There’s at least one who’s arguing with a straight face that Turkey and Russia are not in Europe.

Another Mueller Leak

Posted on by
Reply

The New York Times has published the questions Mueller wants to ask President Donald Trump regarding Mueller’s “investigation” of Trump, the Trump campaign, Trump businesses, and whatever else blows Mueller’s skirt up.  Never mind that this sort of thing is supposed to be secret, or at least known only to the target and his lawyer until they’re asked, answered, and become part of the public record of an actual trial.

How did the NYT get the questions?  They didn’t send a reporter to steal them.  No, the newspaper was given them.  There’s also no reason to believe the Trump team knew these questions and so would have been in a position to leak them.  Negotiations over the nature of a Mueller interrogation of Trump are supposedly in progress, but Mueller wouldn’t give up the questions until the negotiations have been completed and the interrogation set up.

Only Mueller’s team knew these questions.  In a separate article about the questions, the NYT does assert this:

investigators for Mr Mueller agreed days later to share during a meeting with Mr Dowd [then Trump’s lawyer] the questions they wanted to ask Mr Trump.

But there’s no reason to believe that, since the NYT chose not to identify its source for that claim, making it impossible to believe that the claim is more than just an idle rumor.

And what’s Mueller doing about this leak?  A lot of nothing.  Because if Mueller isn’t the one who leaked, he actively approved others to do it.

The NYT had this about the questions in that separate article:

The questions provide the most detailed look yet inside Mr Mueller’s investigation, which has been shrouded in secrecy since he was appointed nearly a year ago.

Umm, no, no secrecy.  Mueller has been making studied leaks right along.

But Mueller is an honorable man. So are all his team, all honorable men.