Home Music Articles Forums Blog Chat More...      

add to bookmarks
Prev Topic | Next Topic

Author
Posts
(Read 4923 times)
J.A.Stewart
Forum Full Member


Registered: 11/13/04
Posts: 4641
Location: Somewhere In Time, USA
 
Re:Mueller vs. Edward R. Morrow
Sunday, December 23 2018 @ 06:12 PM CST

The Last Word photo TLW_zpseqhhdwac.jpg

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


Registered: 02/08/08
Posts: 4473
Location: N/A
 
Re:Mueller vs. Edward R. Morrow
Sunday, December 23 2018 @ 08:10 PM CST

Quote by: MikeRobinson
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.



give.it.a.rest.

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
Sunday, December 23 2018 @ 10:15 PM CST

Quote by: MikeRobinson
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.)



No Mike. You may live in a land of made-up facts, but the rest of us don't. For a recent example, see the judge in the Flynn case who brought a sledgehammer down on such nonsense talk just last week. Go read the severely excoriating transcript from the sentencing hearing.

You haven't the slightest idea about the state of conversation within the legal system. To pretend otherwise is transparent silliness.

And stop lying. The purpose of the investigation is not "to bring down the President." It is to investigate the extent of Russian interference - multiple attempts at which have already been successfully revealed, substantiated, and prosecuted. If you have to argue against a strawman then you have nothing of value to say.

I think the problem here is that YOU are the one who actually thinks DJT willingly and knowingly colluded with a hostile foreign power. If that weren't the case you would surely want to see him vindicated by an exhaustive investigation. That would be the best and most decisive of all possible outcomes.

Quote by: MikeRobinson
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.



This is a nonsense statement. Is the fact that it was 19 pages impressive to you? Mueller was appointed to senior positions by four different presidents, is a Bronze Star and Purple Heart Marine Officer, was director of the FBI for twelve years, United States Attorney, United States Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, and Acting United States Deputy Attorney General. You routinely pretend he's some sort of hack, so don't now try to sell a feeble line about how much you respect former service or professional experience.

Multiple State and Federal Courts, multiple veteran judges, multiple Grand Juries, Congress, and the expert legal community agree that the investigation is warranted and proceeding with due process. But don't let the preponderance of evidence distract you from a more convenient fiction.

Quote by: MikeRobinson
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.



This is wrong. Legal experts have explained that it is wrong. The Deputy AG in full possession of the facts has confirmed that it is wrong. Barr himself admits that he does not possess relevant details. If the details weren't relevant he wouldn't be "in the dark about many facts."

You don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about with respect to these matters. You are rambling about nonsense and expect the rest of us to either not notice or to entertain the charade.

Quote by: MikeRobinson
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.



More ridiculousness. Supported by citations? Has there ever been a legal brief presented without citations? Do you not think comprehensive legal briefs, authored by excellent attorneys, are presented for the losing side in every court case - even when those attorneys know they will lose?

You are not capable of assessing the quality of a legal argument. If you think you can then you are delusional. If you think anyone else thinks you can then you need stop and consider that these posts of yours might be having a wholly different impact on people's opinions than you might like to think.

Also, you claimed to be "convinced" that the investigation was somehow illegitimate long before you ever heard of any memo, so don't pretend this is anything other than the latest anecdote that you've seized upon in an attempt to justify an inherently specious and a priori position. If Barr came out today and said, "my opinion was fatally flawed," it wouldn't change your attitude toward the investigation in the least.

TO EVERYONE ELSE

Yes. I know I am intentionally belaboring a thread on a subject no one wants to continue. It's evident at this point that if posts of this sort remain unchallenged then the authors will interpret the absence of challenge as tacit consent and will continue to proliferate them.

I will not initiate any post not directly related to music and music production.

Likewise, if there is no further reply to this post I will happily, abruptly, and decisively quit the subject.

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


Registered: 08/29/11
Posts: 926
Location: Chattanooga, TN United States
 
Re:Mueller vs. Edward R. Morrow
Monday, December 24 2018 @ 09:11 AM CST

I hope that you have actually read Mr. Barr’s 19-page brief, because, if you had, you would know precisely what I mean by “citations.”   Almost every point made is accompanied by footnoted citations of legal cases, of the Congressional Record, and of Justice Department procedural documents.
As one attorney columnist recently noted, “if the post of Attorney General had an essay requirement, this would give him the job.”
(Of course we know that he had the job once already.   And that, when he wrote this last summer, he had no idea that he would be asked to do it again.)

Faced with this, all I now would ask is that the opposition create their own brief, similarly constructed and rebutting each point made by Barr, one by one in order.   It can also include whatever other points (with citations) that they may consider relevant.   Which, of course, “is exactly what attorneys do” in any legal case which they prosecute or defend.   Easy peasy.

The over-arching legal question here really has become whether the Judiciary is entitled to power of judicial review over Executive decisions that are apparently within the Executive’s granted powers and prerogatives, as it has already “simply done” with regard to the Legislature.   But Barr of course does not take it that far.   Particularly troublesome is Mueller’s assertion that the firing of Comey was “obstruction of justice” – a felony crime – when the investigation supposedly obstructed did not even exist nor had been contemplated yet.   To refer to Mueller as “a zealous prosecutor” is under-statement.

It is perfectly legitimate to ask whether a special prosecutor should have the power to subpoena the Executive that s/he may give answer for the motivations behind an(y) administrative decision, and might then find a felony offense based on the responses given.   It is appropriate, and precedented, to discuss Constitutionality and “chilling effects.”

Now, “either the Russians illegally influenced the election, and the Electors, with the provably-illegal involvement of the Executive, or they did not.”   That remains to be demonstrated, if it may.   But this brief really “has nothing to do with Russians.”   These questions and legal positions address the legitimacy and the propriety of the investigation, and of all those that are sure to immediately follow if this one sets a precedent.

Therefore, let the opposition oppose it – if they may – in identical manner:   with a point-by-point opposing brief, similarly constructed, to be sent to the Attorney General, the Congress, and the Press.
MikeRobinson
Forum Full Member


Registered: 08/29/11
Posts: 926
Location: Chattanooga, TN United States
 
Re:Mueller vs. Edward R. Morrow
Monday, December 24 2018 @ 09:15 AM CST

<< duplicate – “internal server error” – deleted >>
chikoppi
Forum Full Member


Registered: 04/02/04
Posts: 2057
Location: N/A
 
Re:Mueller vs. Edward R. Morrow
Monday, December 24 2018 @ 04:47 PM CST

Quote by: MikeRobinson
I hope that you have actually read Mr. Barr’s 19-page brief, because, if you had, you would know precisely what I mean by “citations.”   Almost every point made is accompanied by citations of legal cases, of the Congressional Record, and of Justice Department procedural documents.
As one attorney columnist recently noted, “if the post of Attorney General had an essay requirement, this would give him the job.”
(Of course we know that he had the job once already.   And that, when he wrote this last summer, he had no idea that he would be asked to do it again.)



Legal briefs contain citations as a matter of course. That is the purpose of a brief. Every brief that has ever been submitted by the losing side in court has included copious citations. In a single Supreme Court case there may well over a hundred briefs filed.

Briefs are presented as documentation for arguments advanced during court proceedings. A brief is not a legal action and cannot carry force of law.

I do not think the columnist's quip about an "essay requirement" was intended as flattering.


Quote by: MikeRobinson
Faced with this, all I now would ask is that the opposition create their own brief, similarly constructed and rebutting each point made by Barr, one by one in order.   It can also include whatever other points (with citations) that they may consider relevant.   Which, of course, “is exactly what attorneys do” in any legal case which they prosecute or defend.   Easy peasy.



That's not at all how the court system works. It isn't a high school debate club and no one gives a rat's ass what John Q. "I've never cracked a law book in my life" may think about the merits of a legal argument.

Until the argument is presented to a judge in a relevant proceeding it is meaningless, just like the thousands of other pontifications offered up each year by lawyers and attorneys who publicly speculate on legal matters.

If DJT's attorneys want to challenge a subpoena in court or petition to have testimony thrown out there is absolutely nothing standing in their way. They could have done so months ago.

It is up to them to present the argument. Until they do there is nothing before the court to be adjudicated.

Go pester Rudy Giuliani.


Quote by: MikeRobinson
The over-arching legal question here really has become whether the Judiciary is entitled to power of judicial review over Executive decisions that are apparently within the Executive’s granted powers and prerogatives, as it has already “simply done” with regard to the Legislature.   But Barr of course does not take it that far.   Particularly troublesome is Mueller’s assertion that the firing of Comey was “obstruction of justice” – a felony crime – when the investigation supposedly obstructed did not even exist nor had been contemplated yet.   To refer to Mueller as “a zealous prosecutor” is under-statement.



Except there were multiple investigations into Russian interference well preceding the election. Obstruction of those investigations would also be a crime. Mueller's mandate includes the prosecution of any and all federal crimes uncovered during the investigation. He can also refer evidence of prior criminal activity to other jurisdictions, as he did with Cohen.

If DJT's crack legal team wants to argue otherwise it's up to them to challenge in court, not on Fox News.

Maybe you think Rudy Giuliani visits Macjams?


Quote by: MikeRobinson
It is perfectly legitimate to ask whether a special prosecutor should have the power to subpoena the Executive that s/he may give answer for the motivations behind an(y) administrative decision, and might then find a felony offense based on the responses given.   It is appropriate, and precedented, to discuss Constitutionality and “chilling effects.”



Great! Why haven't they put it in front of a judge? They've been sitting on it for six months. They were certainly in possession of it before DJT submitted his written responses. Surely that would have been the ideal opportunity.

Maybe it's because the people who actually understand the law aren't quite so impressed as you would like to think.


Quote by: MikeRobinson
Now, “either the Russians illegally influenced the election, and the Electors, with the provably-illegal involvement of the Executive, or they did not.”   That remains to be demonstrated, if it may.   But this brief really “has nothing to do with Russians.”   These questions and legal positions address the legitimacy and the propriety of the investigation, and of all those that are sure to immediately follow if this one sets a precedent.



Great. I look forward to it being tried in court.

The Russian government did illegally influence the election. Multiple indictments have already been handed down. That much is a done deal. The degree to which that interference may or may not have been effective is irrelevant. "Attempted" bank robbery is also a crime.

Whether or not anyone associated with the campaign knowingly collaborated, to what extent they may have done so and in what capacity, is a matter under investigation. DJT is far from the only person of interest and obstruction of justice is far from the only charge that may result.


Quote by: MikeRobinson
Therefore, let the opposition oppose it – if they may – in identical manner:   with a point-by-point opposing brief, similarly constructed, to be sent to the Attorney General, the Congress, and the Press.



Nope. Civics 101.

Prosecutorial procedure and the admissibility of whatever criminal evidence Mueller presents can be challenged - in court. Congress can subpoena Mueller at any time, even if the investigation is halted or he is removed, and compel him to read out any details of the investigation they choose. It is Congress, not Mueller, the Justice Department, or the courts, who will determine whether the actions of a President warrant impeachment or censure. A federal criminal conviction is not a requirement for impeachment, as it is an act of Congress, not the courts, that determines what action rises to the degree of high crime and misdemeanor and whether to convict.

I don't know why you're so terrified about what this investigation will reveal. Congress isn't going to move to impeachment proceedings based on minor infractions. The bar is pretty high and not likely to be invoked even if serious civil crimes are in play. Reaching a supermajority would require overt evidence of severely malign actions.

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


Registered: 06/04/07
Posts: 416
Location: Plasticville,
 
Re:Mueller vs. Edward R. Morrow
Monday, December 24 2018 @ 07:51 PM CST

Quote by: chikoppi


TO EVERYONE ELSE

Yes. I know I am intentionally belaboring a thread on a subject no one wants to continue. It's evident at this point that if posts of this sort remain unchallenged then the authors will interpret the absence of challenge as tacit consent and will continue to proliferate them.

I will not initiate any post not directly related to music and music production.

Likewise, if there is no further reply to this post I will happily, abruptly, and decisively quit the subject.



There was a time, once years ago, when I commended you (in private) for your astonishing level of patience, persistence and relentless intelligence in countering a never-ending barrage of misinformed nonsense in a forum here. I asked how you managed to not only keep countering the idiocy but, more importantly, how you did so with such poise and control. I'm often considered a fairly patient individual but what you do had me dumbfounded.

But you replied exactly as you said above: "if posts of this sort remain unchallenged then the authors will interpret the absence of challenge as tacit consent and will continue to proliferate them."

That was something that made a huge impression with me. Silence will be treated as assent. Or, at least, a lack of disagreement. And I felt a little tiny spark of realization that this was important; this has to happen in the little places, the unimportant forums and employee lunch rooms and informal places where the liars have come to speak freely and loudly and relentlessly. For if nobody else says anything there, those lies can then become the fabric of what everyone hears everywhere.

And now, in my own little circles, I'll speak up. Not to argue, not to confront, but simply to speak up and serve notice that tacit assent is not happening. I'm not in your league, Chikoppi, but perhaps the differences made by speaking truth to misinformation can have a cumulative effect.

Thanks for the intelligence, the patience and the relentless will to keep at it. I'd treat you to a pecan pie if I were anywhere near Chicago.

***Chikoppi 2020 *****
magnatone
Forum Full Member


Registered: 02/08/08
Posts: 4473
Location: N/A
 
Re:Mueller vs. Edward R. Morrow
Monday, December 24 2018 @ 08:52 PM CST

Quote by: mr_mordenus
Quote by: chikoppi


TO EVERYONE ELSE

Yes. I know I am intentionally belaboring a thread on a subject no one wants to continue. It's evident at this point that if posts of this sort remain unchallenged then the authors will interpret the absence of challenge as tacit consent and will continue to proliferate them.

I will not initiate any post not directly related to music and music production.

Likewise, if there is no further reply to this post I will happily, abruptly, and decisively quit the subject.



There was a time, once years ago, when I commended you (in private) for your astonishing level of patience, persistence and relentless intelligence in countering a never-ending barrage of misinformed nonsense in a forum here. I asked how you managed to not only keep countering the idiocy but, more importantly, how you did so with such poise and control. I'm often considered a fairly patient individual but what you do had me dumbfounded.

But you replied exactly as you said above: "if posts of this sort remain unchallenged then the authors will interpret the absence of challenge as tacit consent and will continue to proliferate them."

That was something that made a huge impression with me. Silence will be treated as assent. Or, at least, a lack of disagreement. And I felt a little tiny spark of realization that this was important; this has to happen in the little places, the unimportant forums and employee lunch rooms and informal places where the liars have come to speak freely and loudly and relentlessly. For if nobody else says anything there, those lies can then become the fabric of what everyone hears everywhere.

And now, in my own little circles, I'll speak up. Not to argue, not to confront, but simply to speak up and serve notice that tacit assent is not happening. I'm not in your league, Chikoppi, but perhaps the differences made by speaking truth to misinformation can have a cumulative effect.

Thanks for the intelligence, the patience and the relentless will to keep at it. I'd treat you to a pecan pie if I were anywhere near Chicago.

***Chikoppi 2020 *****



agree wholeheartedly! and for the record, my request to give.it.a.rest. was a response to Mike, who promised to "graciously yield the debate floor" about 25 posts ago.

*** Chikoppi 2020 ***


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


Registered: 08/29/11
Posts: 926
Location: Chattanooga, TN United States
 
Re:Mueller vs. Edward R. Morrow
Wednesday, December 26 2018 @ 09:23 AM CST

Good point – last word from me.

I yield the point that “you and yours” feel differently.

I yield the point that “you and yours” feel differently.

I yield the point that “you and yours” feel differently.

We all will soon see what the New Year will bring, but I don’t think that it will be “good tidings of great joy” for Mr. Mueller, for his “probe,” nor for the endless other “probes” that would surely follow it if this one continues.  I think that he politicized the process of Justice, and cared nothing for who nor what he “burned.”   It seemed, to me at least, that the ends justified the means, no matter what those means were.   But, there are a growing number of people in the Justice Department, in the Judiciary, and in Congress, who are now circling in opposition to what he has done and has been doing.   These are people who are hyper-sensitive to the concept of “precedents.”   They are looking at this particular investigation – and, beyond it.

I yield the point that “you and yours” feel differently.

In my [very widely shared ...] opinion, Mueller foolishly allowed himself and his team to become headline-grabbing “zealous prosecutors” who were pushed headlong by equally-zealous political opponents of the sitting President in pursuit of precisely one target – “number one” is a transparent pseudonym – and of precisely one outcome against that target.   He has made no particular effort, I think, to conceal it.   There are people who, like myself, equate such methods (in principle and in effect, though not in detail) with those of Sen. McCarthy, and who do not wish for their institutions to be seen in this light nor to be used in this way – right now, nor in the future.

I yield the point that “you and yours” feel differently.

The Barr brief is certainly a bombshell, being of the form that it is and being written by the particular author who wrote it (as well as the midsummer time in which he did so), but I think that it articulates the [legal] position of many people within the Courts and within the Federal Government.   Furthermore, there are others.
  • It is now likely that the judge will reject Flynn’s confession on the basis that it was obtained through blackmail, and constitutes a rather improbable confession of treason(!) by a decorated officer who very recently held a very high government post.   The sentencing has been postponed, obviously in anticipation that “we have not heard the last of this yet.”
  • The judge in another case has demanded a great deal of ancillary information.   He has not yet stated what ruling(s) he now intends to make, but it is abundantly clear that he has questions about the investigation and its processes and is not apparently willing to respond to its indictments ex facie.
  • A case has been filed in Federal court asserting that the methods of this “investigation” consist of blackmail and perjury which warrant that one or more of the attorneys should be disbarred and criminally prosecuted.   The first hearing on this case will be in about three weeks.
  • Sen. Feinstein – a key decision-maker – expressed shock, but also admiration, at Barr’s 19 pages.
  • There is a quite-unprecedented “completely sealed” case zooming through the Supreme Court and apparently receiving a cool reception there. Why such infernal never-before until-now secrecy??
  • The acting Attorney General declined to recuse himself, stating in this letter, among other things, that he does not wish to “create a precedent in a ‘close call’ situation.”   (Read:   “politically motivated.”)
  • And, so on.
I yield the point that “you and yours” feel differently.

These are not the sort of things that grab daily headlines in Fox News.   They move more slowly and deliberatively among people who, first and foremost, love lex lata and judicial institutions.   These people are not merely writing “op-ed” pieces to be tried in the court of public opinion – they are deliberating in their chambers.   And, they possess the power both to effect change and to take the long view of things.

It is certainly valid, I think, to take this long view.   To be concerned about “where might this sort of thing lead?”   And, to carefully consider what we have actually seen taking place, and being – perhaps in absence of such a long view – apparently said and done.   There are legitimate issues that have been brought forward both by this immediate investigation and by the non-judicial surroundings in which it sits.
  • Are we really prepared to hear someone tell a sitting President (or, by logical extension, “any other executive-branch official” ) that his wife and son will not face criminal prosecution prison if he resigns?
  • If a President who makes an [unpopular, with some] administrative personnel decision on the advice of his subordinates can be accused of a felony based on an examination of his “intentions” by some minion of the Justice Department, do we not have a profound problem here?
There are those who certainly think so, but Mueller apparently is not among them.

I believe that the consensus is building, among people with the power to deliberate and then to act, that “this is not the way that we want to go [again].”

I yield the point that “you and yours” feel differently.

We will all soon see what the New Year will bring.

I yield the point that “you and yours” feel differently.

I yield the point that “you and yours” feel differently.

I yield the point that “you and yours” feel differently.
 
chikoppi
Forum Full Member


Registered: 04/02/04
Posts: 2057
Location: N/A
 
Re:Mueller vs. Edward R. Morrow
Wednesday, December 26 2018 @ 07:23 PM CST

Quote by: MikeRobinson
The Barr brief is certainly a bombshell, being of the form that it is and being written by the particular author who wrote it (as well as the midsummer time in which he did so), but I think that it articulates the [legal
position of many people within the Courts and within the Federal Government.   Furthermore, there are others.
  • It is now likely that the judge will reject Flynn’s confession on the basis that it was obtained through blackmail, and constitutes a rather improbable confession of treason(!) by a decorated officer who very recently held a very high government post.   The sentencing has been postponed, obviously in anticipation that “we have not heard the last of this yet.”
  • The judge in another case has demanded a great deal of ancillary information.   He has not yet stated what ruling(s) he now intends to make, but it is abundantly clear that he has questions about the investigation and its processes and is not apparently willing to respond to its indictments ex facie.
  • A case has been filed in Federal court asserting that the methods of this “investigation” consist of blackmail and perjury which warrant that one or more of the attorneys should be disbarred and criminally prosecuted.   The first hearing on this case will be in about three weeks.
  • Sen. Feinstein – a key decision-maker – expressed shock, but also admiration, at Barr’s 19 pages.
  • There is a quite-unprecedented “completely sealed” case zooming through the Supreme Court and apparently receiving a cool reception there. Why such infernal never-before until-now secrecy??
  • The acting Attorney General declined to recuse himself, stating in this letter, among other things, that he does not wish to “create a precedent in a ‘close call’ situation.”   (Read:   “politically motivated.”)
  • And, so on.
I yield the point that “you and yours” feel differently.



No. No. And no.

"Facts" are not "feelings." When you state something as a fact it is either right or wrong.

Take, for instance, your very first bullet above. You could not be more wrong.

"It is now likely that the judge will reject Flynn’s confession on the basis that it was obtained through blackmail, and constitutes a rather improbable confession of treason(!) by a decorated officer who very recently held a very high government post."

The EXACT OPPOSITE has ALREADY HAPPENED. The judge rejected the initial plea deal for being too lenient, excoriated Flynn for the severity of his crimes, asked why he wasn't charged with treason when it seemed warranted by the evidence, and reprimanded his attorneys for insinuating that he was treated less than fairly. Neither is this the first time this has been pointed out to you.

District Judge Emmet Sullivan: "Arguably you sold your country out. I can't hide my disgust, my disdain."

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2018/12/18/flynn-sentencing-abruptly-postponed-judge-states-disgust/

The same is true for the case under seal regarding a subpoena and a foreign corporation. It is not "never-before until now" secrecy. The corporation in question is at least partially owned by a foreign government, which makes it a FSIA case. The case may have national security implications and is part of an ongoing investigation, a seal is not uncommon. The only uncommon factor is the elevation of an appeal to the Supreme Court, which suggests the foreign government in question really doesn't want those records revealed.

There is nothing at all in the references to which you linked to suggest an "apparently cool reception" by the Supreme Court. That's more nonsense you made up. The SC is considering the appeal and has made no statement or decision.

You are making shit up.

It is obvious you are making shit up.

I don't understand why you would think this approach is helpful in any way. You are 1) spreading falsehoods that are easily fact checked 2) demonstrating that you are not in possession of the facts, and 3) demonstrating that your position is premised on falsehoods and therefore not compatible with with reality.

What you "feel" to be true is irrelevant. The issue is not what you "feel," but that you invent obvious fictions and try to pass them off as facts. No thanks. I'll start by working to verify what is actually true and let my assessment be guided appropriately.

Next time you bemoan "fake news," consider your own complicity.

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