Home Music Articles Forums Blog Chat More...      

add to bookmarks
Prev Topic | Next Topic

Author
Posts
(Read 6652 times)


 
* Post Removed *
Tuesday, December 18 2018 @ 11:17 PM CST

* This message has been removed *
J.A.Stewart
Forum Full Member


Registered: 11/13/04
Posts: 4650
Location: Somewhere In Time, USA
 
Re:Mueller vs. Edward R. Morrow
Wednesday, December 19 2018 @ 11:57 AM CST

What this verbal melange has reminded me of is perhaps the best song title of all time...

A Simple Desultory Philippic...

And that further reminds me of a later S&G song, The Boxer, which incisively observes, "... a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest...".

Indeed.


MY LATEST: A demo version of my Work-In-Progress DAILY GRIND
MikeRobinson
Forum Full Member


Registered: 08/29/11
Posts: 941
Location: Chattanooga, TN United States
 
Re:Mueller vs. Edward R. Morrow
Thursday, December 20 2018 @ 05:44 PM CST

Yes, by now I, too would really like to hear from someone else . . . anyone else . . .
J.A.Stewart
Forum Full Member


Registered: 11/13/04
Posts: 4650
Location: Somewhere In Time, USA
 
Re:Mueller vs. Edward R. Morrow
Thursday, December 20 2018 @ 06:44 PM CST

Quote by: MikeRobinson
Yes, by now I, too would really like to hear from someone else . . . anyone else . . .



Sure. Here you go, from a couple of Far Lefties at Fox...


MY LATEST: A demo version of my Work-In-Progress DAILY GRIND
MikeRobinson
Forum Full Member


Registered: 08/29/11
Posts: 941
Location: Chattanooga, TN United States
 
Re:Mueller vs. Edward R. Morrow
Saturday, December 22 2018 @ 07:56 AM CST

Six months ago, William Barr, Trump’s nominee for attorney general, wrote an apparently-unsolicited memo which has now been made public.   It has interesting things to say about Mr. Mueller’s methods and motivations – from an attorney’s and senior prosecutor’s point of view.

here is the memo itself.

here is the Wall Street Journal article surrounding it.

“Everyone can get their fifteen minutes of fame,” and spend tens of millions of taxpayer dollars doing it, but eventually the opposition reaches a crest, and begins to make compelling arguments against you and your methods.   In this case, the fundamental legal interpretations which support and which seek to give credence to the investigation’s very existence.   These are not politicians speaking here.

I always prefer to read for myself the actual text that is being discussed in any “breaking news” story, which is why I provided a link to it.   I encourage you to read it first, as well.

In this memo, the prosecutor first establishes several legal principles, then sets forth a list of specific arguments and, in subsequent lengthy sections citing settled court decisions and the Congressional Record, exhaustively argues as only an attorney can do.   I would particularly call your attention to his discussion of his second point, and you can start fairly near the last few pages of the memo to capture the essential point, since he does repeat himself somewhat.   The WSJ article is also a well-grounded and level-handed analysis of it.
magnatone
Forum Full Member


Registered: 02/08/08
Posts: 4475
Location: N/A
 
Re:Mueller vs. Edward R. Morrow
Saturday, December 22 2018 @ 10:52 AM CST

Quote by: MikeRobinson
Six months ago, William Barr, Trump’s nominee for attorney general, wrote an apparently-unsolicited memo which has now been made public.   It has interesting things to say about Mr. Mueller’s methods and motivations – from an attorney’s and senior prosecutor’s point of view.

here is the memo itself.

here is the Wall Street Journal article surrounding it.

“Everyone can get their fifteen minutes of fame,” and spend tens of millions of taxpayer dollars doing it, but eventually the opposition reaches a crest, and begins to make compelling arguments against you and your methods.   In this case, the fundamental legal interpretations which support and which seek to give credence to the investigation’s very existence.   These are not politicians speaking here.

I always prefer to read for myself the actual text that is being discussed in any “breaking news” story, which is why I provided a link to it.   I encourage you to read it first, as well.

In this memo, the prosecutor first establishes several legal principles, then sets forth a list of specific arguments and, in subsequent lengthy sections citing settled court decisions and the Congressional Record, exhaustively argues as only an attorney can do.   I would particularly call your attention to his discussion of his second point, and you can start fairly near the last few pages of the memo to capture the essential point, since he does repeat himself somewhat.   The WSJ article is also a well-grounded and level-handed analysis of it.




my most recent song: "First Light (solo piano)"
chikoppi
Forum Full Member


Registered: 04/02/04
Posts: 2057
Location: N/A
 
Re:Mueller vs. Edward R. Morrow
Saturday, December 22 2018 @ 11:04 AM CST

Quote by: MikeRobinson
Six months ago, William Barr, Trump’s nominee for attorney general, wrote an apparently-unsolicited memo which has now been made public.   It has interesting things to say about Mr. Mueller’s methods and motivations – from an attorney’s and senior prosecutor’s point of view.

here is the memo itself.

here is the Wall Street Journal article surrounding it.

“Everyone can get their fifteen minutes of fame,” and spend tens of millions of taxpayer dollars doing it, but eventually the opposition reaches a crest, and begins to make compelling arguments against you and your methods.   In this case, the fundamental legal interpretations which support and which seek to give credence to the investigation’s very existence.   These are not politicians speaking here.

I always prefer to read for myself the actual text that is being discussed in any “breaking news” story, which is why I provided a link to it.   I encourage you to read it first, as well.

In this memo, the prosecutor first establishes several legal principles, then sets forth a list of specific arguments and, in subsequent lengthy sections citing settled court decisions and the Congressional Record, exhaustively argues as only an attorney can do.   I would particularly call your attention to his discussion of his second point, and you can start fairly near the last few pages of the memo to capture the essential point, since he does repeat himself somewhat.   The WSJ article is also a well-grounded and level-handed analysis of it.



1) You are shopping only for anecdotes that confirm your biases while pointedly ignoring the vast accumulation and totality of contradictory evidence. This is not how to best to determine what is likely true, but how to avoid it.

2) You are rendering an opinion on a narrow subject about which you have absolutely no expertise. You are not qualified to determine what is and is not "well-grounded," which is why you should rely instead on the consensus of expert opinion rather than cherry-picking anecdotes.

For instance, here is Marty Lederman, Professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the Office of Legal Counsel from 2009-10, and Attorney Advisor at the Office of Legal Counsel from 1994-02.

the first huge and striking problem with Barr’s memo is that he unjustifiably makes countless assumptions about what Mueller is doing; about Mueller’s purported “theory” of presidential criminal culpability; about Mueller’s “sweeping” and “all-encompassing” “interpretation” of the statute and Constitution; about “Mueller’s core premise(s)”; ...about “unprecedented” steps Mueller is proposing to take; about “Mueller’s proposed regime”; about “Mueller’s immediate target”; about Mueller’s presumed failure to “provide a standard” for what constitutes “corruptly” trying to impede proceedings; about Mueller’s “demands” that the President submit to interrogation; etc.

To read this memo, you’d think Barr were replying to a legal brief that Mueller had submitted in support of a prosecution of the President for obstruction of a federal proceeding. Yet as Barr concedes at the outset, he was “in the dark about many facts.” Indeed, he presumably was “in the dark” about virtually everything he wrote about.


https://www.justsecurity.org/61975/legal-arguments-bill-barrs-memo-mueller-investigation/

Here is (a very diplomatic) Rob Rosentein, United States Deputy Attorney General.

At a press conference today, Rosenstein declared that the Mueller investigation “is being handled appropriately.” When asked to weigh in on the memo, Rosenstein said that, “Bill Barr was an excellent attorney general during the approximately 14 months that he served in 1991 to 1993” and he predicted that he “will be an outstanding attorney general when he is confirmed next year.” But he added that the department’s handling of the obstruction matter has been “informed by our knowledge of the actual facts of the case, which Mr. Barr didn’t have.”

Barr's memo may have been an honest attempt to convey his thinking. Considering it was a) unsolicited and b) written at a time when DJT was publicly expressing great dissatisfaction with the refusal of then AG Jeff Sessions to impede the investigation, it may also have been an attempt at self-promotion. Barr may be a talented lawyer, but the consensus legal opinion seems to be that the content of the memo, as well as tthe decision to render it, is highly questionable.

“Ya, that idea is dildos.” Skwisgaar Skwigelf
GET SONG FEEDBACK --> MacJams Critics Circles
MikeRobinson
Forum Full Member


Registered: 08/29/11
Posts: 941
Location: Chattanooga, TN United States
 
Re:Mueller vs. Edward R. Morrow
Saturday, December 22 2018 @ 01:42 PM CST

“We shall see,” Chikoppi, but by now I plainly see the handwriting on the wall.   I hope that you read the actual legal brief cover-to-cover and did not merely content yourself with what commentators had to say about it.   Because, when someone who has served as Attorney General and who is likely to do so again is the one expressing these opinions and citations, I believe that his is a well-argued legal position that is likely to be seen by others to have merit and influence.   And, by now, he is not alone.

It is curious to me that the various rebuttals, including the ones you have cited, are either apologistic (“We’re from the government, trust us.” ), or seem to focus ad hominem on the author and his possible “motives.”   (This of course being a central tenet of what said writer is objecting to.)   I have not yet seen any counter-argument being constructed and presented which formally seeks to rebut this brief point-by-point strictly on its terms, as an opposing attorney might seek to do in a legal case.

The matters of law that are argued in such a brief do not rely upon privileged (classified) knowledge, in contrast to what Mr. Rosenstein tacitly implies in his diplomacy, and the concern that it would set dangerous precedents with widespread chilling effects are, I think, quite legitimate.   If “investigations” such as these are allowed to continue unchallenged, I agree with the writer that there would be no good end to it.   There are Constitutional issues as well as purely pragmatic, functional ones.   The President of the United States, a single person, is The Executive Branch, with plenary powers, duties and prerogatives held by no other person:
“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”
chikoppi
Forum Full Member


Registered: 04/02/04
Posts: 2057
Location: N/A
 
Re:Mueller vs. Edward R. Morrow
Saturday, December 22 2018 @ 08:32 PM CST

Quote by: MikeRobinson
“We shall see,” Chikoppi, but by now I plainly see the handwriting on the wall.   I hope that you read the actual legal brief cover-to-cover and did not merely content yourself with what commentators had to say about it.   Because, when someone who has served as Attorney General and who is likely to do so again is the one expressing these opinions and citations, I believe that his is a well-argued legal position that is likely to be seen by others to have merit and influence.   And, by now, he is not alone.


Are you a lawyer? No. Do you have relevant experience in constitutional law? No. How would you tell the difference between "a well reasoned legal opinion" and "a stack of nonsense legalese completely unsupported by precedent or case law?" You wouldn't.

But now you've convinced yourself that you can? And you expect the rest of us to play along?

Sorry Mike, but I'll follow the opinion of the actual Deputy AG, the person who knows the full details of the investigation, and the consensus actual legal experts...because I'm actually interested in what is real.

Quote by: MikeRobinson
It is curious to me that the various rebuttals, including the ones you have cited, are either apologistic (“We’re from the government, trust us.” ), or seem to focus ad hominem on the author and his possible “motives.”   (This of course being a central tenet of what said writer is objecting to.)   I have not yet seen any counter-argument being constructed and presented which formally seeks to rebut this brief point-by-point strictly on its terms, as an opposing attorney might seek to do in a legal case.


It is curious to me that you apparently did not actually read the critique.

First, an "apologetic" is not an "appeal to authority" (which is the term you meant to use, or should have). Second, referencing relevant expertise is not the same as an appeal to authority. Third, referencing expert consensus involves considering the totality of expert opinion, not just the bits you like or that you think support your biases.

Finally, the critique I cited most certainly DID address the legal acuity of the brief itself.

Quote by: MikeRobinson
The matters of law that are argued in such a brief do not rely upon privileged (classified) knowledge, in contrast to what Mr. Rosenstein tacitly implies in his diplomacy, and the concern that it would set dangerous precedents with widespread chilling effects are, I think, quite legitimate.


Yeah Mike, not knowing the details is actually a huge liability. The details are what would determine the relevant case law. Barr himself acknowledges he is "in the dark about many facts" and Rosenstein confirms that this lack of knowledge is consequential. Again, I'll trust the judgement of the Georgetown law professor and peers where legal opinion is concerned.

Stop pretending your opinion (or mine, or any other than those of actual experts) is worth consideration in these matters. It's ridiculous.

Quote by: MikeRobinson
If “investigations” such as these are allowed to continue unchallenged, I agree with the writer that there would be no good end to it.   There are Constitutional issues as well as purely pragmatic, functional ones.   The President of the United States, a single person, is The Executive Branch, with plenary powers, duties and prerogatives held by no other person:
“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”


There's so very much wrong in this statement.

First, it is literally Congress' constitutional responsibility. It's Congress' mandate to conduct government oversight. The President answers to Congress and to the law. What you are suggesting is that Congress should abdicate its responsibility and that the President should not be bound by law...go ask Nixon if that's how it works.

Second, for the goddamn umpteenth time...the investigation is not limited to that actions of DJT and has already uncovered crimes relevant to its scope. It has already been successful.

The more you write the worse your position becomes.

“Ya, that idea is dildos.” Skwisgaar Skwigelf
GET SONG FEEDBACK --> MacJams Critics Circles
 
MikeRobinson
Forum Full Member


Registered: 08/29/11
Posts: 941
Location: Chattanooga, TN United States
 
Re:Mueller vs. Edward R. Morrow
Sunday, December 23 2018 @ 02:43 PM CST

Like it or not, Chikoppi, “the investigation that is supposed to bring down the President” is very rapidly going down by its own hands.   It reached too far and burned-up too much in order to reach “party number one.”   Mueller really hasn’t handled it very well:   he now has opposition or at least questions he can’t answer popping-up all over the legal system.   But, this is part of the process – everything that you do gets reviewed, and may be challenged internally or externally, even before you’ve finished doing it.   You don’t live in a vacuum.   (All of which Mueller himself knows, too.   He’s not a new kid on this block.)

Nevertheless, when a former Attorney General, who is still so highly regarded as to be nominated for the post a second time, writes a 19-page legal brief ... people stop and listen.   Even though what he says are “his opinions and impressions,” people think about what such a man’s opinions and impressions are, and why he holds them.   As everyone should.

As I said, there is no “secret, classified knowledge” that somehow alters the principles of law which Barr discusses.   These would be the same no matter what juicy details are now under lock and key.   Mueller is not a special, privileged case in spite of the identity of his target – nor is he the first prosecutor who had a President in his sights.  Materials regarding special prosecutor activities are often classified or sealed, as are the deliberations of any grand jury.   This is universal.   The issues in this memo, although immediately focused at this proceeding, actually go much farther – and that’s a very major reason why it’s so important.

A memo like this demands thought and consideration, and stands quite distant from politics and un-informed opinion.   The credibility of its author is beyond question.   The questions raised in this long-overdue memo are legitimate, balanced, timely, supported by citations, and not political.   This is not a defense of any public official – it concerns the processes and premises themselves, and of what implications there could be both now and in the future.   These implications are quite serious and do not have easy answers.

This memo demands consideration, and is getting it.   The assessment (and astonishment) embedded in Sen. Feinstein’s reaction letter is typical.   I hope that it gets people thinking.