Allen Dershowitz, a pretty bright guy and unaffiliated with Trump, also made this same point.
Dershowitz has been pushing his tongue so far up Trump’s ass to curry favor he’s become a complete laughing stock lately. Friends of mine that work in booking talk radio programs always joked about how easy it was to book Dershowitz to come on. He covets attention almost as much as Trump does.
Do you disagree w/ the burning papers analogy in my post? Do you agree that there are things that are legal and appropriate in one context that become illegal when done with corrupt intent?
The other news today is that Manafort’s notes from the Russian Lawyer Meeting include something to imply that the conversation moved quickly between a discussion of the RNC and donations:
While this seems like the sort of detail that one could really hang the Trump team with, the fact that it has been made public sort of makes me worry that - assuming Manafort hadn’t already noticed this fact and distributed it internally to the others - Team Trump is going to be able to use this information to ensure that they have a shared story on this detail. As something secret which only Manafort knew, it would be easier for Mueller to trip them up in private sessions.
My confidence is always very low concerning the WH Clusterfuck. I doubt this will inspire fellow GOP to even blink. We’ll get Orangetumor saying, “I didn’t know about this! How would I? I’m not a smart guy. I never said I was a smart guy! And what about HER emails?”
Seem like Mueller has crossed Trump’s red line regarding looking into his finances.
*
"Special counsel Bob Mueller has teamed up with the IRS. According to sources familiar with his investigation into alleged Russian election interference, his probe has enlisted the help of agents from the IRS’ Criminal Investigations unit.
This unit—known as CI—is one of the federal government’s most tight-knit, specialized, and secretive investigative entities. Its 2,500 agents focus exclusively on financial crime, including tax evasion and money laundering. A former colleague of Mueller’s said he always liked working with IRS’ special agents, especially when he was a U.S. Attorney.
And it goes without saying that the IRS has access to Trump’s tax returns—documents that the president has long resisted releasing to the public."*
Okay, a little more confidence after reading about the IRS CI team!
Even if no impeachment, I really hope we get to see his real finances. I doubt he’s a rich as he claims, but even if he is, they can suspend jail time for back taxes plus a fine of $100 billion.
More setting yourself up for disappointment 
Yes, Mueller is investigating Manafort and Flynn. No indication whatsoever that any of that “help of agents from the IRS” has anything to do with Trump. It’s the same Manafort and Flynn line of investigation.
I find the breathless and hopeful anticipation that you personify here hilarious.
We find your certainty that the investigation will amount to nothing hilarious as well. I find the investigation interesting, and I’m looking forward to seeing its results.
Well OK, as long as they’re not looking at Trump. :smack:
Who cares if they “get” Manafort? I don’t.
I think I know a couple people that should head down to Houston. They’d carry the water out of there in no time.
Trump does.
There were a 100 people in dinosaur costumes today in DC that protested something or other (no one knows, really cuz - dinosaur costumes).
That must be another indication that Trump is doomed.
What makes you think that? Your hopes and dreams that Manafort knows something that will doom Trump?
You’re assuming he won’t flip. What are the odds that a man described by his own family as having “no moral or legal compass” is going to waste his connection to the President in his own behalf, true or not?
Even presuming Trump’s complete innocence in all things, his only real hope is that Manafort can’t provide sufficient evidence against him to back whatever claim he makes.
Okrah, why keep coming back with the same “who cares about Manafort” question? Gotta put down some “denounced trump/russia” on the time sheet? Getting a little hell from the boss about time spent on other, less-essential, topics are ya?
Easy to say. Bottom line is that Dershowitz is a very accomplished legal scholar, and carries much more weight than anyone on this board, including you. So it’s silly for you to just brush off positions as “a joke” which he thinks are correct.
Your analogy is invalid.
Of course “there are things that are legal and appropriate in one context that become illegal when done with corrupt intent”. But that’s only because sometimes you need malevolent intent in addition to physically violating the relevant statute. Anyone who burns a pile of papers on their desk which hinders a criminal investigation has from a purely technical standpoint obstructed justice, and the question of intent is relevant as to whether they had that additional element of intent which is necessary under the law.
The Dershowitz argument here is something else. He’s saying that a president deciding to not prosecute anyone is by definition not obstruction of justice. Because it’s the president’s job to make these decisions under the constitution and relevant laws (the DOJ is under the law and constitution simply an arm of the president). A president stopping an investigation with the intention of stopping harm to himself personally might be terrible policy and bad for the country etc., by from a purely legal standpoint he’s making a decision that is his to make and is technically and by definition is not obstruction. In that case, intent can’t enter into the picture.
[As a thought experiment which would perhaps bring out the distinction, imagine a case of someone who acts to prevent an investigation from taking place with zero personal interests at stake but purely out of a genuine believe that the subject is innocent and that the investigation is a witch-hunt. First consider some civilian outsider doing this. Then imagine the head of the DOJ doing this exact same thing. Same actions, same intent. Do you agree that the first case is obstruction of justice and the second case is not? The difference is that obstruction by definition means someone does not have legal authority to “obstruct”.]
It seems like a compelling argument to me. Of course, I’m not a legal scholar and this could be wrong. (I believe other legal experts disagree with Dershowitz about this.) But as long as recognized legal experts are maintaining this position and it hasn’t been tested by the courts, it’s silly for lesser experts or non-experts to mock it.
I think the issue of evidence would also determine whether Manafort will flip to begin with, and for two reasons.
Firstly, it would be very difficult for Mueller to offer Manafort a really good deal if he can’t back it up with much beyond Manafort’s word. Mueller has to be sensitive to what happened to Ken Starr, and he has to be aware that leveling serious charges against a president has the potential to create serious blowback against himself if the public and history deem them to have been unwarranted. If he lets Manafort off the hook in order to go after Trump and history judges that to have been the wrong decision, then that would not do good things for his life and legacy, as that would be evidence that he was “out to get” Trump. And if he doesn’t offer Manafort a good deal then he’s that much less likely to flip.
Second, from Manafort’s own perspective much of the same calculation applies. He has his own reputation - both as a consultant and person - to uphold, and being perceived as a guy who turned on his former boss in order to save his skin is not going to be helpful to him. To the extent that he actually has real evidence of what he’s saying, then that’s ameliorated somewhat, but if his evidence is unconvincing then he might be sunk. That’s even assuming it’s true that he has no moral compass (I have no idea).
More generally, people on this MB have been hyperventilating over every new indication that Mueller is looking into this or that or speaking to this guy or that guy, as if Mueller would never do any of that unless he intended to indict someone - and Trump in particular - over it. But that doesn’t seem valid to me. ISTM that Mueller is just doing his job. He was appointed to the task of investigating this matter and he seems to be going about it exactly as one would expect of someone who took that task seriously. He might be investigating very thoroughly and in the process of uncovering extremely incriminating evidence that Trump and/or his people engaged in the worst sort of crimes, and he might be investigating very thoroughly and in the process of finding that there’s nothing to any of these allegations, or (most likely) anywhere in between. But I don’t see any indication to this point that points to anything other than Mueller doing a thorough job of investigating, which is exactly what he was hired to do and what his reputation suggested that he would do.
So…Firing Comment wasn’t obstruction, just the President deciding to not prosecute himself (anyone would include himself)? Bit of a stretch, don’t cha think.
In any case, this wasn’t close to the prosecution mode yet. He obstructed an investigation. Admitted to it on TV as well.
HEADLINES FROM A POSSIBLE FUTURE:
New York Times: “Trump Resigns, Pence Sworn In as 46th President of the United States”
USA Today: “Trump, Manafort, Kushner Indicted for Racketeering”
Washington Post: “House Votes to Impeach”
Okrahoma Times-Picayune: “Berkeley Drum Circle Turns Violent After Police Officer Struck with Hacky Sack”