Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trey Gowdy damages Mueller's investigation

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Trey Gowdy damages Mueller's investigation

    How badly will take time to determine.

    Besides being stalled in place for over a year, we now have one of Mueller's FBI investigators admitting under oath and for the record that he entered into the investigation with personal bias.

    That means that every document, interview, and detail he worked with is now argue-ably the fruit of the poisoned tree.

    Worse, it brings into question at what point Mueller knew, and opens the accusation that Mueller knew before the team was formed. The is significant, because it opens the door to Mueller being subpoenaed as a witness in a trial in which he is the special prosecutor.

    Mark Furman II.

    The investigation is not only dead in the water, but now the integrity of it's hull is in question.

    Gowdy hasn't lost his prosecutorial touch: he played Strzok like a banjo.

    Now, the question keeps bugging me: who knew about Strzok's unethical bent, and who tapped him for the detail?

    If you wanted an investigation to fail after a certain amount of time, assigning a Strzok to it would be a solid move...
    Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

  • #2
    That was a nice little Moscow-style show trial Gowdy held. Did you note the special rule? Strzok was only permitted to speak if he was asked a question. That way they could simply make accusations in the form of statements and build up a "case" for derailing an investigation that threatens to expose how corrupt the Republican party has become.

    This is the second time they've questioned Strzok, yet they adamantly refuse to release even a redacted transcript of the first one. It must really damage their credibility.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by NoPref View Post
      That was a nice little Moscow-style show trial Gowdy held. Did you note the special rule? Strzok was only permitted to speak if he was asked a question. That way they could simply make accusations in the form of statements and build up a "case" for derailing an investigation that threatens to expose how corrupt the Republican party has become.

      This is the second time they've questioned Strzok, yet they adamantly refuse to release even a redacted transcript of the first one. It must really damage their credibility.
      It's a hearing, and Strzok was supoaened specifically to answer questions, not make speeches, although he managed to do plenty of reading from his prepared, anti-administration statement.

      His poor answers screwed him a lot more than Gowdy did, and it was quite clear that he didn't impress anyone else at the hearing, either.
      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

      Comment


      • #4
        All Trey Gowdy accomplished yesterday at the hearing, along with Gaetz, and other Republicans was make asses out of themselves. They didn't do well at all and severely damaged the Republican brand. I watch most of it, and the Republicans acted like a bunch of little kids and proved nothing.

        And it was a Moscow-style 'show trial' trying to discredit Mueller and his investigation which it didn't do.

        After Gowdey had his ass handed to him by Strzok, he leaned back and sulked like a three-year-old.
        We are not now that strength which in old days
        Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
        Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
        To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by NoPref View Post
          That was a nice little Moscow-style show trial Gowdy held. Did you note the special rule? Strzok was only permitted to speak if he was asked a question. That way they could simply make accusations in the form of statements and build up a "case" for derailing an investigation that threatens to expose how corrupt the Republican party has become.

          This is the second time they've questioned Strzok, yet they adamantly refuse to release even a redacted transcript of the first one. It must really damage their credibility.
          'Special rule'?

          That is the legal protocol for a Congressional hearing. Or a witness examination in a trial, for that matter.

          Unlike Perry Mason re-runs, in real life a person summoned to a legal proceeding can only speak in response to a question. There is a vast body of law regulating every aspect of such proceedings.

          They can't release a transcript until the matter of criminal charges against Strzok is resolved, which is separate from the Congressional inquiry.

          So no, it wasn't some 'show trial'.
          Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

          Comment


          • #6
            Strzok was subpoenaed so the Republicans could put on a show. They already had answers to their questions from the previous closed door hearing. This was just for them to grandstand and to interfere with Mueller's investigation.

            Mueller's shining light into some dark places and the cockroaches are getting nervous.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by NoPref View Post
              Strzok was subpoenaed so the Republicans could put on a show. They already had answers to their questions from the previous closed door hearing. This was just for them to grandstand and to interfere with Mueller's investigation.

              Mueller's shining light into some dark places and the cockroaches are getting nervous.
              Absolutely. Both Trump and the Republicans are scared to death of Mueller and what he is finding out.

              We are not now that strength which in old days
              Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
              Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
              To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by NoPref View Post
                Strzok was subpoenaed so the Republicans could put on a show. They already had answers to their questions from the previous closed door hearing. This was just for them to grandstand and to interfere with Mueller's investigation.

                Mueller's shining light into some dark places and the cockroaches are getting nervous.
                So when the Democrats hold hearings, and they frequently do, theirs are just grandstanding too, right?

                When I watched the public hearings, I understood it to be an opportunity for the American citizenry to watch and form their own opinions. Of course, it's not a sports event or a reality show, so only the more intelligent bothered to watch, but transparency in government requires public hearings.
                Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                  How badly will take time to determine.

                  Besides being stalled in place for over a year, we now have one of Mueller's FBI investigators admitting under oath and for the record that he entered into the investigation with personal bias.

                  That means that every document, interview, and detail he worked with is now argue-ably the fruit of the poisoned tree.

                  Worse, it brings into question at what point Mueller knew, and opens the accusation that Mueller knew before the team was formed. The is significant, because it opens the door to Mueller being subpoenaed as a witness in a trial in which he is the special prosecutor.

                  Mark Furman II.

                  The investigation is not only dead in the water, but now the integrity of it's hull is in question.

                  Gowdy hasn't lost his prosecutorial touch: he played Strzok like a banjo.

                  Now, the question keeps bugging me: who knew about Strzok's unethical bent, and who tapped him for the detail?

                  If you wanted an investigation to fail after a certain amount of time, assigning a Strzok to it would be a solid move...
                  Horse pucky as well as bags of bull. Do you just make up what you don't know or understand?
                  We are not now that strength which in old days
                  Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                  Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                  To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post

                    'Special rule'?

                    That is the legal protocol for a Congressional hearing. Or a witness examination in a trial, for that matter.

                    Unlike Perry Mason re-runs, in real life a person summoned to a legal proceeding can only speak in response to a question. There is a vast body of law regulating every aspect of such proceedings.

                    They can't release a transcript until the matter of criminal charges against Strzok is resolved, which is separate from the Congressional inquiry.

                    So no, it wasn't some 'show trial'.
                    Perhaps not a special rule then, but they sure weren't keen on asking questions, which is the whole point of a hearing. It was just an opportunity to make false statements and accusations in public.

                    That's what makes it a show trial.

                    By the way, here's some info from the CRS on witness testimony:

                    https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/98-338.pdf

                    https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/98-392.pdf


                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Massena View Post
                      All Trey Gowdy accomplished yesterday at the hearing, along with Gaetz, and other Republicans was make asses out of themselves. They didn't do well at all and severely damaged the Republican brand. I watch most of it, and the Republicans acted like a bunch of little kids and proved nothing.

                      And it was a Moscow-style 'show trial' trying to discredit Mueller and his investigation which it didn't do.

                      After Gowdey had his ass handed to him by Strzok, he leaned back and sulked like a three-year-old.
                      Strzok admitted to bias, under oath and on record. I'm just going lay out the facts in simple terms:

                      Strzok worked on the investigation. He has just admitted on the record that he held a personal bias. Therefore everything he did, every document he wrote, every interview he conducted or was part of, every case meeting he attended, is now cast into doubt.

                      The defense can challenge each and every piece of work Strzok did, was part of, or privy to, and then attack any developments made from those works, interviews, and meetings as fruit of the poisoned tree.

                      His admission is akin to a cook admitting that he urinated into a vat of soup stock; no matter how much is added to it, once told no one wants a bowl.

                      To fix this, Mueller will have to go have agents go back and re-do the work already done under even more exacting standards in an attempt to establish that his case file is not contaminated. Which means in a trial situation the jury will be bogged down listening to endless discussions about bias.

                      Take away Trump, politics, everything. Reduce it to a simple generic investigation, and something like this spells disaster.

                      Courtroom procedure is not about drama; it's not like Law and Order. Gowdy got a clean kill on Strzok: an admission under oath and on the record. That is a bell that cannot be unrung. Gowdy is a former (and high achieving) prosecutor, and you could see it in his performance: he got what he wanted on the record.

                      M, this is a mechanic telling you that the grinding noise coming from your transmission is very bad news. Cambronne can give you a better idea of how bad this will be overall, but I know from experience just how bad this is in general. If the defense can impeach the integrity of an investigator the case is heading for the crapper. And this case just had an investigator admit bias under oath and on record.
                      Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                        So when the Democrats hold hearings, and they frequently do, theirs are just grandstanding too, right?
                        So you're agreeing that this was a show trial? Good. Thanks.

                        When I watched the public hearings, I understood it to be an opportunity for the American citizenry to watch and form their own opinions. Of course, it's not a sports event or a reality show, so only the more intelligent bothered to watch, but transparency in government requires public hearings.
                        That's the idea behind televised public hearings. In this case the Republicans abused the process in an attempt to reinforce their tribe's opinions. The show trial descended into a farce.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post

                          Strzok admitted to bias, under oath and on record. I'm just going lay out the facts in simple terms:

                          Strzok worked on the investigation. He has just admitted on the record that he held a personal bias. Therefore everything he did, every document he wrote, every interview he conducted or was part of, every case meeting he attended, is now cast into doubt.

                          The defense can challenge each and every piece of work Strzok did, was part of, or privy to, and then attack any developments made from those works, interviews, and meetings as fruit of the poisoned tree.

                          His admission is akin to a cook admitting that he urinated into a vat of soup stock; no matter how much is added to it, once told no one wants a bowl.

                          To fix this, Mueller will have to go have agents go back and re-do the work already done under even more exacting standards in an attempt to establish that his case file is not contaminated. Which means in a trial situation the jury will be bogged down listening to endless discussions about bias.

                          Take away Trump, politics, everything. Reduce it to a simple generic investigation, and something like this spells disaster.

                          Courtroom procedure is not about drama; it's not like Law and Order. Gowdy got a clean kill on Strzok: an admission under oath and on the record. That is a bell that cannot be unrung. Gowdy is a former (and high achieving) prosecutor, and you could see it in his performance: he got what he wanted on the record.

                          M, this is a mechanic telling you that the grinding noise coming from your transmission is very bad news. Cambronne can give you a better idea of how bad this will be overall, but I know from experience just how bad this is in general. If the defense can impeach the integrity of an investigator the case is heading for the crapper. And this case just had an investigator admit bias under oath and on record.
                          Did you even watch the hearing?

                          Strzok did admit to personal bias, and he also stated under oath, that personal bias had nothing to do with his performance of duty. Seems you left that out. Typical as well as dishonest.
                          We are not now that strength which in old days
                          Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                          Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                          To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by NoPref View Post

                            Perhaps not a special rule then, but they sure weren't keen on asking questions, which is the whole point of a hearing. It was just an opportunity to make false statements and accusations in public.

                            That's what makes it a show trial.
                            Asking questions is not part of a hearing. Getting the right answers is.

                            There's an old saying that is very apt: a good lawyer never asks a question unless he already knows the answer.

                            This wasn't a trial, it was a Congressional hearing.

                            Legal proceedings are generally insanely dull, or pointlessly dramatic. The key in every legal proceeding, however, is the details.

                            And the detail that will echo long and hard is that Strzokadmitted bias under oath and on the record.

                            That statement, just one and a half seconds long by my phone's clock, is a gaping portal for anyone accused by Mueller's investigation to raise the issue of bias and fruits of the poisoned tree from the opening statement to the closing argument.

                            To use a football metaphor, Mueller's the QB and a gap just appeared in his blockers. It not a sack in and of itself, but it is how sacks begin, and the QB now has his work cut out for him not to end up eating the turf.

                            Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor for evidence obtained illegally.

                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_...poisonous_tree

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X