there are two problems with that. One is that it would be a clearly unethical abuse of prosecutorial discretion. Judge's don't like to see prosecutors coming up with tortured legal charges like FARA violations to transparently pressure a witness, and some members of Mueller's legal team have gotten into trouble for precisely that (Andrew Weissmann). The other being that Robert Mueller's mandate is not to "go after the Trump campaign", it was to go after Russian interference in the 2016 election. No mention of Trump. If Mueller was using smaller fries to go after Russian conspirators, that would be one thing. But seeking to pressure Manafort to flip on Trump to give him dirt on something like 'obstruction' or 'lying to investigators', without any evidence of Russian collusion, would constitute what our president lovingly refers to as a witch hunt.

If there was some nexus between Manafort's lobbying and Russia that could be used for leverage, then 1) He wouldn't be charged at trial without that evidence presented, because they can't charge him for the same facts of the crimes again and add on that angle and 2) Podesta and Weber would be material to this nexus given they were just as deeply involved in the lobbying as Manafort and Podesta had close connections to the election too.

I see a lot of potential for abuse with Special Counsel investigations. I think their power is to broad and it's difficult for them to stay within the scope without becoming partisan. The rights of the accused are very important, and I have an issue with prosecutors turning over seemingly every stone to find the dirt they are looking for. We saw it in the 90s with Kenneth Star.

Even other Republicans in the 90s started to see how Kenneth Star's investigation was beginning to become plagued by politics and partisanship. The Clinton Special Counsel investigation felt more like a Republican mechanism to undermine the Presidency rather than a legitimate investigation, and quite honestly the Mueller Special Counsel does feel like that sometimes as well to a lesser extent (not the Russian interference aspect of it but the collusion aspect of it).

In addition to all that, there's also a potential separation of powers issue. A special prosecutor is within the executive branch and therefore is ultimately answerable the president. Nixon argued that he didn't have to comply with a subpoena issued by Archibald Cox since he was is own subordinate.

As shitty as that is, Nixon did have a point (as does Trump with being allowed to obstruct justice within the executive branch or pardoning himself). Perhaps there is a role for the judicial branch in this rather than an appointed body of the executive branch in situations where there is a component of an investigation looking into the executive branch.



I agree with you on both counts. My issues with Special Counsels in general are posted above. I see a lot of potential for abuse. I know that the Special Counsel was appointed to investigate Russian interference, but it doesn't feel like that. It feels like an investigation into Trump, both in how the investigation has publicly unfolded and the timeline in which it was started (right after Trump fired Comey despite US intelligence already knowing for months about interference).

I think Mueller is flipping over every rock that he comes across. I think their scope is too wide. I also think that they will find something incriminating.

I'm glad the special counsels power is broad, if it weren't, criminals would be getting away with even more then they are now. Crimes are crimes.

yathink?



Goom, let's not pull the Tucker Carlson routine here. The meat of the Manafort case is bank fraud and tax fraud. He laundered millions of dollars. Charging for a FARA violation is rare, but Mueller referred inquiries on that very thing for a few other people too.

Mueller is doing what prosecutors do, which is to try to go up the chain, flipping people lower on the totem pole. For all we know Trump is part of a conspiracy, Mueller might suspect that already, and Manafort flipping could be crucial. If Trump tried to obstruct justice by telling Manafort to shut up and get a pardon later, Americans should know about it.

Who knows what the connection is... but we do know Manafort's work there was the reason he became close to a prominent Russian oligarch.



26 Russians charges so far... and it doesn't feel like Russian interference is being investigated?

The Manafort investigation was ongoing when Mueller took over. Prosecutors can use other crimes as leverage to go after a bigger crime. Mueller seems to be handing cases off that aren't overly relevant to his task... so I don't know what the problem is.

This post was edited by IceMage on Aug 3 2018 01:31am

All feelings no facts.

the special counsel's power being broad is a fact. I know you may not like that, but sorry.

it's seemingly broad because it's undefined and unchallenged, not due to legality but rather optics. that's not a fact, it's the lack of a fact. if we're being factual.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3726408-Rosenstein-letter-appointing-Mueller-special.html

I don't get the gripe that is "it's too broad"

that's like saying, "crime is bad, but some crime is okay and should not be investigated"

don't put words in my mouth or i'll put something much more intrusive in yours.

it's not a gripe, it's a fact. Mueller was appointed with broad powers that Trump in reality hasn't dared to challenge. His investigation had unclear perview from the onset, a perview that Trump knew was optics suicide to challenge openly. He has to let it run it's course and be publicly indignant, but privately cooperative with. something that left, right, and center pundits and lawyers agree with. Mueller has shifted from looking for double-agent Russian operatives directly in the Trump campaign to campaign finance payments to pornstars. That's like investigating someone for murder and then changing the charge to petty theft. Mueller can continue to expand, and pull in more and more people, and Trump can't do a damn thing or it looks like obstruction of justice, and a 2018 congress could potentially draw up impeachment documents on said charges.

opinions are facts now? interesting.

are we equating a possibly compromised UNITED STATES PRESIDENT with a murderer? uhh... lol... interesting false equivalency...