| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Alan Dershowitz: Stone indictment follows concerning Mueller pattern |
| 2019-01-26 |
| [The Hill] The indictment of former Trump associate Roger Stone follows a long pattern that should raise serious concerns about the special counsel investigation. Like virtually all of these indictments, the indictment of Stone does not charge any substantive crimes relating to Russia that were committed before Robert Mueller was appointed as special counsel. It charges crimes that grew out of the investigation itself and were allegedly committed after Mueller was appointed. Recall that Mueller’s primary job was to uncover crimes that already occurred relating to Russian involvement in the 2016 election. He also was authorized to investigate and prosecute crimes growing out of the investigation, such as perjury and obstruction of justice, but this role was secondary to the primary one. Well, it turns out that the secondary role has produced many more indictments of Americans than the primary one. A review of all the indictments and guilty pleas secured by Mueller shows that nearly all of them fall into three categories. (1) Process crimes growing out of the investigation itself, such as false statements, perjury, obstruction of justice and witness tampering. These crimes resulted from the investigation itself. That doesn’t make them less serious, but it is relevant to evaluating the overall success or failure of Mueller’s primary mission. (2) Crimes that occurred before Mueller was appointed but that cover unrelated business activities by individuals associated with President Trump. The object of these indictments is to pressure the defendants to provide evidence against the resident. (3) One indictment against Russian individuals who will never be brought to justice in the United States. This indictment was largely for show. Mueller’s tactic, as described by U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis, III, is to find crimes committed by associates of President Trump and to indict them in order to put pressure on them to cooperate. This is what Judge Ellis said about the earlier indictment of former Trump presidential campaign chairman Paul Manafort: "You don’t really care about Mr. Manafort’s bank fraud ‐ what you really care about is what information Mr. Manafort could give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment." Judge Ellis also pointed out the dangers of this tactic: "This vernacular to ’sing’ is what prosecutors use. What you got to be careful of is that they may not only sing, they may compose." This is all too common a tactic widely employed by prosecutors, particularly in organized crime and other hierarchical cases. But the fact that it is common does not make it right. Civil libertarians have long expressed concern about the tactic of indicting someone for the primary purpose of getting them to cooperate against the real target. I have been writing about this for decades. In fact, I coined the term "compose" that Judge Ellis cited. But most fair-weather civil libertarians have remained silent with regard to Mueller because his target is President Trump, who they despise. The American Civil Liberties Union, which is flush with cash since Trump became president, has expressed little criticism of Mueller’s anti-civil liberties tactics. It seems clear that the manner by which Roger Stone was arrested ‐ an early-morning raid on his home, observed by media ‐ was intended to put pressure on him to cooperate. Ordinarily, a white-collar defendant is allowed to self-surrender to authorities, unless there is fear of escape, which does not appear to be the case here, as evidenced by his low bail. Whether Stone "sings" or "composes" remains to be seen. He has said he would never cooperate, but attorney Michael Cohen said he would take a bullet for President Trump ‐ before he turned against him in an effort to get a reduced sentence. Prosecutors have many weapons at their disposal to get reluctant witnesses to cooperate, such as threatening to indict family members as in the Michael Flynn case. Civil libertarians should be concerned about the tactics being used by Mueller to get witnesses to sing. All Americans should be concerned about the ends-justify-the-means approach taken by the special prosecutor. If, in the end, Mueller comes up relatively empty on substantive crimes relating to Russia that were committed before he was appointed, and can point only to the three categories of alleged crimes described above, it will be difficult to declare his investigation a success, or his appointment justified by the results. Based on what we have seen thus far, it would have been far better if a nonpartisan commission of experts, like the 9/11 Commission, had been appointed to investigate Russian involvement in the 2016 election and to make recommendations about how to prevent Russia from trying to influence future American elections. Related: PJ - Alan Dershowitz Slams 'Typical Mueller Indictment,' Says Crimes 'Generated by the Investigation' |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #8 After two years and still not a shred of evidence of Russian collusion, Mueller's investigation has proven itself to be more harassment than investigation. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2019-01-26 13:52 |
| #7 #4 charger, nice version. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2019-01-26 12:40 |
| #6 Alan Dershowitz's premature conjecture. |
| Posted by: Victor Emmanuel Trotsky3550 2019-01-26 11:57 |
| #5 They may not like it when the Rule of Law is destroyed. |
| Posted by: Cesare 2019-01-26 11:06 |
| #4 Democrats must be feeling pretty smug this morning, sitting back gloating over their weaponization of the FBI and DOJ to suppress Trump’s political agenda. Next I suppose they’ll put on the full court press to impeach him for no real reason at all. I hope they’re happy with what they’re turning this country into. I hope they’re proud of what they’ve done. Yes, they are. Does the rule of law exist anymore? No, it doesn't. First they came for the Because I was not Then they came for the Because I was not a Then they came for the Jews, and Because Then they came for me— |
| Posted by: charger 2019-01-26 11:05 |
| #3 If Stone can be indicted and arrested on some made-up B.S. charges, anyone can be indicted and arrested (or anyone can be exonerated) if so desired. Does the rule of law exist anymore? Duly noted that Crowdstrike said the Russians hacked the DNC servers. Nothing was said about it being an inside job--most likely by Seth Rich (because of an analysis of download times). Has anyone analyzed the DNC servers besides a Democrat-hired firm? Has anyone really done a honest forensics analysis on the server? First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2019-01-26 10:14 |
| #2 29 federal agents in full SWAT gear, body armor, machine guns, live cnn coverage compliments of a tipster. Well, this is quite a little show the deep state put on, a SWAT team of 29 men to arrest one old man for lying. Is this meant to send some kind of message? I think it has, but not the one they were hoping for. Democrats must be feeling pretty smug this morning, sitting back gloating over their weaponization of the FBI and DOJ to suppress Trump’s political agenda. Next I suppose they’ll put on the full court press to impeach him for no real reason at all. I hope they’re happy with what they’re turning this country into. I hope they’re proud of what they’ve done. |
| Posted by: Chese Threreth4665 2019-01-26 09:23 |
| #1 Strange isn't it, Mueller and his investigators appear to only be concerned about the misdeeds of republicans. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2019-01-26 01:51 |