At what point does the Mueller investigation become a self-licking lollipop? I don’t doubt that the various Trump Administration and campaign officials lied to the FBI. I think they’re a bunch of creeps and lowlifes who are incapable of uttering a simple declarative sentence without lying. But based on my understanding every single crime with which they have been charged emerged from the investigation, i.e. would not have occurred but for the investigation.
I have been steadfast in my determination to let the Mueller investigation run its course and remain so but I find the nature of the crimes that are being prosecuted unsettling.
“I think they’re a bunch of creeps and lowlifes”
That’s what they would say about anybody after 24 months of nonstop propaganda to further that end. Also, most of these people are attorneys, nuff said.
I think it’s been clear for a very long time the investigation is political. Robert Muller should be thinking about his legacy at this point in his life. Right now, it reads tool and political operative for hire. But then, he’s an attorney, too.
I don’t have much sympathy or concern for those getting indicted. They are big boys and should know the game.
I continue to remain on the fence until the investigation is complete, which sounds like it will be soon.
My point actually had little to do with those being indicted. My point was that it looks to me as though there were a very real risk of the Mueller investigation becoming a self-licking lollipop, existing primarily to maintain its own existence. They really need to produce evidence of an underlying crime. Scaring people with guilty consciences into lying to the FBI isn’t enough.
“They really need to produce evidence of an underlying crime.”
Not really, obviously, since they haven’t, and have been a successful franchise now for two years. Mueller provides a near daily diet of suspicion against the president, his family, and anyone he has ever associated with. The media hangs on every word, then runs with it, extrapolating rumor into what ifs.
“They really need to produce evidence of an underlying crime.”
What power in this nation could compel that? Answer: A Democratic President.
I am opposed to prosecuting anybody for lying to the FBI. If that is going to be crime, there should be a “materiality” component.
It’s not even good for most criminal investigations if people learn not to talk to them.
Does sound like they are going for whatever they can get instead of substantial charges that would lead to long, lingering appeals.
Lets see what the final report will say, if and when we get to read it in its entirety.
A recent Vox explainer does a good and fair job of cataloging all of the indictments, pleas, and whatnot. The BL(N)UF:
Now, several of the lies were about Russia ties. And there was a lie about the Stormy Daniels hush money.
It might not be such an issue if it weren’t for the febrile imaginations of the people sitting in front of the TV, rubbing a box of Lucky Charms and chanting “they’re magically delicious” in hopes this will be the night Rachel informs them Donald Trump was lead out of the White House in handcuffs.
When you have a population as deranged as in the United States, where Russians are under every bed and because it’s cold at their house the planet can’t be getting warmer, it becomes difficult to argue the investigation is accomplishing any net good. Partisans of all stripes are too invested in magical thinking to reasonably deal with any of this and so become more and more vicious and intentionally ignorant to protect themselves from confronting reality.
@James Joyner
And your own irresponsibility in the wreckless pushing of Russian global conspiracies makes you personally responsible for contributing to the situation.
Not that you’re able to care.
“And your own irresponsibility in the wreckless pushing of Russian global conspiracies ”
Funny isn’t it that the Russians have gone from being an evil empire to a group of angels who would never interfere with another country to promote their own agenda. Now they are an altruistic, pure as the driven snow group of good guys. All we get is extremes. It just isn’t possible, for some people, to realize that the Russians arent responsible for every bad thing in the world, but that they probably do interfere in the internal politics of other countries just like most other major powers, including the US.
Steve
My view of Russian foreign policy is that the Russians are the consummate foreign policy realists. Their interests are in descending order Russian security, the security of fellow Slavs, and the security of fellow Orthodox and they pursue those interests with steely-eyed determination. Those are all pretty self-serving interests. Annexation of the Crimean peninsula? That falls under Russian security. It has been understood in Russia for several centuries that Russia needs a warm water port and the port at Sevastopol is it. Everything else that American anti-Russian agitators fulminate about fits into one of those classifications. They’re actually outraged that Russia would dare to have interests or pursue them.
Is that an extreme position?
I also think that as long as we keep expanding NATO into their near abroad and overthrowing governments friendly to them they will continue to conduct information ops in the United States. Will they continue to do so in the unlikely event that we stop? I don’t know. It may have become a reflex by this time.
Ben.
I believe you are sincere about the climate dangers you say we face.
I’m not a name caller, I’ll just say i don’t buy it. Neither you or I have done climate research (if it’s even doable) to prove or disprove supposed dangers of increased levels of co-2. What we do have are displays of data and explanations and exhortations from people and groups who do have a dog in this fight. Something to gain.
Anyway, it’s a little long, but I’d like to offer this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ
“What we do have are displays of data and explanations and exhortations from people and groups who do have a dog in this fight.”
When is that ever not true? The scientists promoting relativity were physicists, and had something to gain. The people promoting any kind of biological research are biologists ( or biochemists, etc) and have something to gain. What you are claiming is that any and all research is impossibly biased beaus the people doing the research come from that field. Yet somehow science keeps turning out results that we then use and find to be true.
Steve
I don’t agree with the entirety of Gray Shambler’s comment but he does have a point. I think we should consider the possibility that “science” is not “turning out results” as it used to for very much the reason he notes. Look at all of the unreproducible psychology findings being churned out.
We’re not the only ones with this problem, viz. Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union. Or the problems with bogus findings among Chinese scientists.
This report from the National Academy of Sciences delves into the subject at some length, referring to it as the “politicization of science”. Their prescription, of course, is more money but they also suggest that scientists need more rigorous training in statistics. That’s a problem I have pointed out. A half century ago when I was a graduate student I tutored doctoral students in statistics. I was appalled at their level of knowledge. Maybe it’s improved since but I doubt it.
“I don’t agree with the entirety of Gray Shambler’s comment but he does have a point. ”
No he doesn’t. The science stands on its merits or it doesn’t. As far as I can tell, science is still turning out results just as well as it has in the past. The problem was that in the past no one bothered to repeat the studies that others had done. The attempt to replicate studies is relatively new. I agree that a lot of this is not understanding statistics very well. Certainly in medicine most people dont understand what p values really mean. (And most of us would not really include psychology as a science and take their studies with a grain of salt anyway.)
The other problem is that good research is expensive. It is difficult enough to fund a study. Getting funds to repeat and confirm someone else’s study is even more difficult. (There is actually a current movement afoot by some physicians to completely reject RTCs and studies of all sorts. Decisions should be made entirely based upon the physician’s best judgments based upon experience.)
Steve
1. Its already self-licking, for its real purpose is to dirty Trump up and disrupt.
2. It has terribly sullied Muellers reputation, to the degree he even deserved a good rep. See his Boston and FBI days.
3. The Roger Stone raid was a travesty. A complete and ugly travesty no matter the truth, falsity or significance of the charges. See “2.”
“The other problem is that good research is expensive. It is difficult enough to fund a study.”
That’s true. And studies on any natural occurrence or distribution or activity, such as migration patterns in Monarch butterflies, must now be attended with the phrase, “affects of man made climate change on”, to have a snowball’s chance of being funded.
How about some specifics, and perspective?
So Stone falls. Yet people who have committed crimes much more serious than any of the Mueller indictments remain: Hillary Clinton, James Comey, Clapper, Brennen, Steele, Strzok, Page, McCabe, Ohr (Mr. and Mrs.), Rice, and Yates.
Lying to Congress or the FBI; mishandling classified information, obstruction, destroying evidence. A case could be made that the Mueller investigation itself destroyed evidence when it wiped clean the Strzok and Page cellphones to delete text messages requested by IG Horowitz. But no pre-dawn, guns-drawn raids.
In contravention of campaign finance law, Hillary paid through her attorneys millions of dollars to a foreign national to use his connections with a foreign government to compile a dossier whereby both the foreign national and the foreign government could interfere with a presidential election. She destroyed her cell phones and servers.
Sally Yates opened the Flynn investigation under the pretense that he violated the Logan Act, a 1799 law widely believed unconstitutional and never successfully used to prosecute anyone, and a law he didn’t violate since talking to the Russian ambassador was his job as National Security Advisor. John Kerry? He negotiates with after Trump canceled the Iran deal
Later, after the setup, Flynn was indicted for lying about lawful actions, as was Stone, and Papadopoulos. In the case of Stone he testified he had contact with people solely by phone when he also spoke via email and text. He claimed to have used a single intermediary in communicating with Wikileaks when he used two. He said he didn’t discuss his conversations with his intermediary when he did. Those are three of the seven charges.
Clapper lied to Congress, as did Brennan and Comey. McCabe lied to the IG. Barack Obama weaponized federal agencies to attack his political opponents.
Strzok disregarded his oath of office and used his power to attempt to destroy Trump.
Comey leaked classified FBI memos to impel the appointment of his best bro as Special Counsel. Nothing.
Do I really need to go on? There is no argument that any of these citations are beyond Mueller’s scope. He passed that hurdle long ago. Witch hunt is not a term I would use, but abuse of power is. They just want to get Trump, or disable him. And of course what is a common thread? All these people were in on the election meddling. They are covering their own asses. Fine presidency you have there, Trump. Be a shame if somthin’ happened to it.
@Ben Wolf:
I have no idea what you’re talking about. You don’t think Russia has been exploiting fissures in Western polities to sew discord? Engaging in cyber warfare?