Provoking new crimes rather than uncovering past crimes mueller’s modus operandi electricity lab physics

##########

The recent guilty plea of Michael Cohen of lying represents the dominant trend in Mueller’s approach to prosecution. The vast majority of indictments and guilty pleas obtained against Americans by Mueller have not been for substantive crimes relating to his mandate: namely, to uncover crimes involving illegal contacts with Russia. british gas jokes They have involved indictments and guilty pleas either for lying, or for financial crimes by individuals unrelated to the Russia probe. If this remains true after the filing of the Mueller report, it would represent a significant failure on Mueller’s part.

Mueller was appointed Special Counsel not to provoke individuals into committing new crimes, but rather to uncover past crimes specifically involving alleged illegal coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian agents. No one doubted that Russia attempted to influence the 2016 election in favor of Donald Trump and against Hillary Clinton. But Mueller’s mandate was not to prosecute Russians or to point the finger at Vladimir Putin. His mandate was to uncover crimes committed by the Trump campaign with regard to Russia’s attempts to influence the election.

It was always an uphill struggle for Mueller, since collusion itself is not a crime. In other words, even if he could show that individuals in the Trump campaign had colluded with Russian agents to help elect Trump, that would be a serious political sin, but not a federal crime. Even if Mueller could prove that members of the Trump team had colluded with Julian Assange to use material that Assange had unlawfully obtained, that, too, would not be a crime. What would be a crime is something that no one claims happened: namely, that members of the Trump campaign told Assange to hack the Democratic National Committee before Assange did so. Merely using the product of an already committed theft of information is not a crime. gas upper stomach If you don’t believe me, ask the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian and other newspapers that used material illegally obtained by Assange with full knowledge that it was illegally obtained. Not only did they use information from Assange, but also from Chelsea Manning and from the stolen Pentagon Papers. The First Amendment protects publication by the media of stolen information. It also protects use of such information by a political campaign, since political campaigns are also covered by the First Amendment.

It is important to note that Special Counsel Robert Mueller does not have a roving commission to ferret out political sin, to provoke new crimes, or to publish non-criminal conclusions that may be embarrassing to the President. His mandate, like that of every other prosecutor, is to uncover past crimes. In Mueller’s case those crimes must relate to Russia. electricity out in one room He also has the authority to prosecute crimes growing out of the Russia probe, but that is collateral to his central mission. In the end, Mueller should be judged by how successful he has been in satisfying his central mission. Judged by that standard and based on what we now know, he seems to be an abysmal failure.

Perhaps more will come out when his report is published, but it is unlikely that he uncovered anything dramatically new with regard to allegations that the Trump campaign acted illegally in an attempt to help Russia undercut Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Even if the report alleges uncharged criminal behavior, it must be remembered that much of what will be in the report are merely allegations based on uncross-examined evidence. Some of that evidence seems to come from admitted liars, who have pleaded guilty for lying. These liars would make poor witnesses in an actual trial, but if their evidence serves as a basis for conclusions reached in the Mueller report, then these conclusions may seem more credible than they actually are. We must, of course, wait for the publication of the Mueller report before reaching any final judgments, but if the Mueller report merely catalogues all the guilty pleas and indictments achieved thus far for lying and unrelated financial crimes, and tries to build a case of guilt by association around them, the American public will be justly critical of the process.

First of all, the special counsel wasn’t appointed to find any crimes, he was appointed to investigate whether or not any crimes were committed. The absence of crimes being committed after thorough investigation cannot and should not be qualified as an "abysmal failure". electricity in costa rica for travelers The thoroughness of the investigation is what we should measure the quality of the special counsel’s work by. Your argument is like saying a doctor is a failure if he/she concludes a patient is healthy after examination. Or to stay in your field of expertise it is like saying a police officer has done a bad job after a thorough investigation which exonerates a suspect.

Second of all, the special counsel wasn’t appointed to just look at possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. He was appointed to investigate the Russian Government’s efforts in interfering in the US 2016 Presidential elections, including coordination between Russia and individuals linked to the Trump campaign (and anything that might arise from the investigation). The heavy spotlight on the collusion angle might be put there by the press, and not in the least by the Trump camp itself, but that doesn’t alter the actual mandate of the special counsel, which is about Russian interference in the US 2016 Presidential elections. Measured by the actual mandate, it seems the special counsel is actually doing a thorough job and looking at the actual indictments so far, it also seems that the investigation hasn’t been a useless exercise based on hot air.

Thanks for reacting. gas urban dictionary I agree that Mr. Mueller would have failed as a special counsel if, in the end, his only result would be a list of indictments of people that committed a crime provoked by Mr. Mueller. However, Mr. Dershowitz is not saying that. He says that if we measure the quality of the investigation of what we know now, by the standard of the central mission, Mr. Mueller is an abysmal failure. I disagree with that, as the central mission was to investigate the Russian Government’s interference in the US 2016 elections. In my belief and based on what I’ve seen, that’s exactly what he is doing. The people that were indicted on charges of lying or committing (unrelated) crimes in the past, made the choice to commit those crimes themselves and are indeed collateral to the central mission.

As to your version of my analogy. I agree with you there as well. But if you are trying to tie Mr. k electric company duplicate bill Mueller or the investigation to this analogy, I think you are wrong. Mr. Mueller is not gravely hurting the patient (USA) during this investigation. If any damage to the country is occurring at this time, if that is the case, it is being done by politicians and media that are unable to let this investigation run its course. So in your version of the analogy, the damage to the patient occurred because loved ones of the patient storm into the operating room, and start pulling at the surgeon’s hands, telling him how to do his job and start to take matters into their own hands.

I disagree that "the American public will be justly critical of the process". In the absence of the Mueller probe how would most Americans have learned about the potential depth of foreign/Russian and other damaging influence upon our current leadership? How would we have seen how poorly we are being represented by our current administration? How would we have more fully noticed just how "off center" our country has become and we continue to live in a dream world? How would we begin to understand why it is that there has been such a "shift" towards Russia and away from our traditional allies? Realistically, how would we more clearly learn of what might be the "real" danger to our social fabric but for his probe?

Mueller is an investigative arm of the political oversight powers legally being exercised by our Congress and he is working thru our Justice Department. He seems to have scratched something which most Americans want to see more fully explored as they believe it may well effect the governing decisions being made by our leadership. This is not a Star Chamber functioning; it is an oversight act of both political parties, done under our Constitution, and the public is getting some input as to his activities.

Mueller is NOT an abysmal failure if he finds "nothing illegal" after he has completed his original task. He just would have properly done his job! Perhaps there was no "collusion" there to be found in the first place as Trump has constantly stated. If this is Mueller’s conclusion do you believe that he failed? Are you of the belief that there was "something there" and Mueller just missed it? Are the "people of interest" presumed to be guilty of "something illegal" and Mueller just failed to find "it"? Perhaps Mueller will agree with you! Have you "prejudged"?

As to "guilt by association", if it appears that our leadership "hangs around" with a bunch of "bad actors", as an American voter I want to know that. Your Jewish mother probably told you the same thing my Jewish mother told me: in part you are known by the type of friends you have and the type of influence they may exercise over you. This is true of politicians, too.

I like you very much, but here you may have missed the mark by doing that which no independent investigator should do: reach a conclusion and then seek the facts to prove it. Mueller will not prove to have been "an abysmal failure" no matter what "facts" he has found so long as his report fairly presents those facts and does not characterize them improperly. hp gas online booking hyderabad Then Congress can act, if necessary.