Blog powered by Typepad

« And, lo, I bring thee glad tidings of great joy - well, 'gladdish'! | Main | The age of the untalented »

Friday, 22 March 2019


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Manafort 7.5 years in a Federal institution. Credited time served. Appealed.

Richard Pinedo 6 months Federal incarceration & 6 months home confinement.

Alex van der Zwaan sentenced to 30 days low security Federal institution then deported.

George Papadopoulos sentenced to 14 days low security Federal institution. Appealed.

Michael Flynn – Mueller sentence recommendation “little to no time.”

W. Samuel Patten – Pled to FARA nondisclosure ($50K for inauguration event tickets for the benefit of an alleged pro-Russian Ukrainian diplomat. “Complications” owing to also being an Obama era State Department supported official [Victoria Nuland] resulting in the requirement of the $50K to be paid back to the Ukrainian Government.)

Rick Gates – Sentence to be determined.

Michael Cohen – Sentence to be determined.

Roger Stone – Indicted : Innocence or Guilt yet to be determined.

Various Russian Nationals – Presumed Guilty. Sentenced to Bob-picked firing squad if ever apprehended and delivered onto US soil.

Estimated Costs To The US Taxpayer - $48.7+ Million Bucks.


I do believe that you are likely to be disappointed. As Mueller has recommended no further charges, this is unlikely to drive Brexit off the front pages.

The release has largely been a predictable comedy. Some of the far left has expressed outrage that Trump wasn't immediately frog-marched out of the White House. On the right there's mostly downplaying. But there's also the 180 degree turn of many who said it was all a deep-state conspiracy and now, since there are no further indictments recommended, are celebrating our legal institutions.

We'll probably be hearing "No collusion!" parroted even more from certain quarters. But then the lack of collusion is also proven by full moons and Tuesdays.

JK, you'd be my first pick.

There is collusion in this alright. Mueller just wasn't charged to go after 'that' collusion. Hopefully AG Barr will. If not, no justice, no peace, no trust.


Another shoe's to drop bear in mind.

IG Horowitz is, as we type, still beavering away. No 180° from this quarter yet!

Besides the IG there are over a dozen investigations still being carried out by SDNY, NY state, DC and others. There's a long way to go.

Ordinarily Bob my thinking where 'the separate sovereigns' concept is concerned "might/could possibly be" skewed into thinking any of those dissociated allegations have bearing. However, owing to the very evident fact the SC handed those as yet unproved cases off leads me to the inevitable conclusion all that stuff (pardon the legalese) is totally irrelevant. Mind "the stuff" handed off to SDNY and the DC Circuit only.

As I understand the applicable reach of the wholly standalone New York state's prosecutoral reach there must needs be before any of that power can be exercised - New York's Assembly and Senate agreed, a total overturn of over a century's worth of precedent will have to take place. And any such legislation will have to be made retroactive. Personally I'm thinking even the bluest of New York's citizenry will be hesitant to thereby allow their representatives to give away their state's judicial protections just to squeeze the nuts (again, pardon the legalese) of a sole miscreant.

Here's some background on New York state's historical judicial practice:

I admit, given the obvious detestation of Trump, the state-level pols of New York would enthusiastically throw the baby out with the bathwater to get even the most ephemeral of shadow thrown Trump's way but whether the municipal-level politicians would so lackadaisically give up their state's protections against double jeopardy I kinda doubt.

I do not much doubt where the John and Jane Q. Citizens of New York are concerned.


At this point it's a guessing game:

It also seems the final outcome could depend on politics more than strictly legal matters.

Yes Bob it is, a guessing game for now.

I've read your's provided now here's you mine.

A final thought, politics is always more than the strictly legal.


All I'll say is that anyone who wants to see all the Republican spin in one article should read the one you linked. In the study of rhetoric it's called fast talking, even though it's in writing. The sheer number of fallacious arguments makes it unlikely to be answered.

The BS starts in the title: "After Mueller’s Exoneration of Trump, Full Disclosure". Mueller has, in fact, not exonerated Trump.

It ends with the victimization-flavored "If a victorious Democratic nominee had been subjected to such an investigation, there would never have been a special counsel ...", which is pure speculation.

We agree on politics though, at least on the national level.

Come now Bob, you think had Hillary won (the "a victorious Democratic nominee") there would never have been an SG" to be mere spinning speculation?

And in stating, "There will be no further indictments" in the full knowledge Mueller having been tasked, whether explicitly or implicitly, to find something anything by which 'all the good people' might be rid of Trump he's not been, for all intents and purposes, exonerated?

True the House scavenger hunt will continue apace but is a crime as defined by statute be likely to come of any of that? Sure there'll be innuendo and loads of bullshit spewed all liquidy and at gale force right up to the moment of (and perhaps, after) the Electoral College result of 2020 being announced - However I'd submit it very unlikely we'll be seeing anymore predawn SWAT raids on septus and octogenarians and if not CNN entertainments like that that can't be looked upon as an exoneration?

Far as your characterizing "fast talking" since it took something over six hundred and seventy days to get it summed up I hate to imagine what your definition of 'slow and deliberate' might amount to.

Okay Bob, you have the last word.

"Okay Bob, you have the last word."

Now that's an example of why you probably have some kind of training in logic, maybe in law. You need to understand it to abuse it effectively.

The comments to this entry are closed.