• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bush/Mueller refuse to give Congress subpoenaed documents

M

marke

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 3, 2018
Messages
34,752
Reaction score
3,961
Location
north carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
In 2001 Congress was investigating the infamous criminal activities of the Boston FBI, committed during the late 1960s through the mid 1980s and then covered up thereafter.

House Hearing, 107 Congress, Investigation Into Allegations of Justice Department Misconduct in New England - Volume 1

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-107hhrg78051/html/CHRG-107hhrg78051.htm

The Washington Post ran an article after Congress subpoenaed document from the Justice Department related to the crimes:

Bush Invokes Executive Privilege on Hill, December 14, 2001. Why did Bush do that? Was it on the advice of his newly appointed FBI Director, Robert Mueller, who had spent several years in Boston during the period in question as U.S. Attorney? Probably.

Here are quotes from the House investigation:

Thursday, Dec. 13, 2001 Rep. Horn: ...And I want to put on the record that there's a new Attorney General, there's a new Director of the FBI, and it needs to clean house...

Rep. Morella: ...The Justice Department's proposed new policy that Congress would never be able to review deliberative documents is a radical change in policy. ...

Rep. Burton: ...It's particularly troubling that the Justice Department is restricting this committee's access to documents that would be germane to the case of the FBI's handling of confidential informants in the Boston organized crime investigation. ...

Tep. Tierney: ...As a result of these actions, the FBI's credibility has been seriously damaged and more importantly, the lives of countless individuals were ruined. ...

And the White House has issued this executive order and they're blocking us. ...

And I don't know if George W. Bush knows the gravity of this or not. He's probably taking the advice of his legal counsel and the Attorney General and the people over at the Justice Department... (Or, the new FBI Director, Robert Mueller, who spent years in Boston and was well acquainted with dozens of law enforcement people there who could be exposed by any new revelations about ongoing corruption in law enforcement dating back more than 30 years.)
 
....And I don't know if George W. Bush knows the gravity of this or not. He's probably taking the advice of his legal counsel and the Attorney General and the people over at the Justice Department... (Or, the new FBI Director, Robert Mueller, who spent years in Boston and was well acquainted with dozens of law enforcement people there who could be exposed by any new revelations about ongoing corruption in law enforcement dating back more than 30 years.)
Click to expand...

Debunked...

https://www.civicsnation.org/2018/05/03/fact-checking-claims-robert-muellers-fbi-past/
 
marke said:
In 2001 Congress was investigating the infamous criminal activities of the Boston FBI, committed during the late 1960s through the mid 1980s and then covered up thereafter.

House Hearing, 107 Congress, Investigation Into Allegations of Justice Department Misconduct in New England - Volume 1

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-107hhrg78051/html/CHRG-107hhrg78051.htm

The Washington Post ran an article after Congress subpoenaed document from the Justice Department related to the crimes:

Bush Invokes Executive Privilege on Hill, December 14, 2001. Why did Bush do that? Was it on the advice of his newly appointed FBI Director, Robert Mueller, who had spent several years in Boston during the period in question as U.S. Attorney? Probably.

Here are quotes from the House investigation:

Thursday, Dec. 13, 2001 Rep. Horn: ...And I want to put on the record that there's a new Attorney General, there's a new Director of the FBI, and it needs to clean house...

Rep. Morella: ...The Justice Department's proposed new policy that Congress would never be able to review deliberative documents is a radical change in policy. ...

Rep. Burton: ...It's particularly troubling that the Justice Department is restricting this committee's access to documents that would be germane to the case of the FBI's handling of confidential informants in the Boston organized crime investigation. ...

Tep. Tierney: ...As a result of these actions, the FBI's credibility has been seriously damaged and more importantly, the lives of countless individuals were ruined. ...

And the White House has issued this executive order and they're blocking us. ...

And I don't know if George W. Bush knows the gravity of this or not. He's probably taking the advice of his legal counsel and the Attorney General and the people over at the Justice Department... (Or, the new FBI Director, Robert Mueller, who spent years in Boston and was well acquainted with dozens of law enforcement people there who could be exposed by any new revelations about ongoing corruption in law enforcement dating back more than 30 years.)
Click to expand...

OP-er, did you yourself bother even to carefully read the document you've referenced so as to be sure that you've correctly identified the contextual nature of the passages you quoted from it? I suspect you didn't, and yet you appear to have inferred meaning from the content in the document. I suspect you didn't read the document because the passage you've attributed to Rep. Burton was, in fact, not by him uttered or entered into the record as a prepared statement that wasn't read aloud during the hearing. Rep. Gilman made the remark you've attributed to Burton. The document clearly indicates as much; moreover the remak very shortly follows the following:
[...] I will now yield to Mr. Gilman.​
Mr. Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Click to expand...
The style with which the hearing testimony has been transcribed, and thus indicates transitions from one speaker to the next, is obvious and unmistakable to anyone's who actually read the damn thing.

FWIW, Rep. Gilman's remarks in the paragraph you've misattributed are as follows:
Although it's possible to understand that matters of national security may be grounds for limiting congressional access to Federal criminal investigation documents, I cannot understand Justice blocking congressional oversight entirely. It's particularly troubling that the Justice Department is restricting this committee's access to documents that would be germane to the case of the FBI's handling of confidential informants in the Boston organized crime investigation.
Click to expand...

Pink:
By whose reckoning? The obvious and most probable person recommending that a POTUS (any POTUS) would be the WH Counsel, not the FBI Director.


Additional Reference:
 
Awww, look, a Trump cultist desperately clinging to conspiracy theories in an attempt to discredit Mueller and his investigation of dear leader.
 
Xelor said:
OP-er, did you yourself bother even to carefully read the document you've referenced so as to be sure that you've correctly identified the contextual nature of the passages you quoted from it? I suspect you didn't, and yet you appear to have inferred meaning from the content in the document. I suspect you didn't read the document because the passage you've attributed to Rep. Burton was, in fact, not by him uttered or entered into the record as a prepared statement that wasn't read aloud during the hearing. Rep. Gilman made the remark you've attributed to Burton.
Click to expand...

You are right. I should have attributed the quote to Mr. Gilman instead of Mr. Burton. So? A simple mistake. Does that glitch on my part somehow change the whole Congressional testimony in your opinion?

The document clearly indicates as much; moreover the remak very shortly follows the following:

The style with which the hearing testimony has been transcribed, and thus indicates transitions from one speaker to the next, is obvious and unmistakable to anyone's who actually read the damn thing.

FWIW, Rep. Gilman's remarks in the paragraph you've misattributed are as follows:
Pink:
By whose reckoning? The obvious and most probable person recommending that a POTUS (any POTUS) would be the WH Counsel, not the FBI Director.
Additional Reference:
Click to expand...

The Justice Department changed its policy on releasing information to Congress in 2001, shortly after Mueller was appointed by Bush to be FBI Director. Congressional investigators questioned why the change came just days after Congress requested FBI documents relative to the Boston investigation. I suggest Rep. Burton was probably right when he said,

I don't know if George W. Bush knows the gravity of this or not. He's probably taking the advice of his legal counsel and the Attorney General and the people over at the Justice Department...
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Awww, look, a Trump cultist desperately clinging to conspiracy theories in an attempt to discredit Mueller and his investigation of dear leader.
Click to expand...

What part of the Congressional record do you think is nothing but a conspiracy theory?
 
Xelor said:
OP-er, did you yourself bother even to carefully read the document you've referenced so as to be sure that you've correctly identified the contextual nature of the passages you quoted from it? I suspect you didn't, and yet you appear to have inferred meaning from the content in the document. I suspect you didn't read the document because the passage you've attributed to Rep. Burton was, in fact, not by him uttered or entered into the record as a prepared statement that wasn't read aloud during the hearing. Rep. Gilman made the remark you've attributed to Burton. The document clearly indicates as much; moreover the remak very shortly follows the following:

The style with which the hearing testimony has been transcribed, and thus indicates transitions from one speaker to the next, is obvious and unmistakable to anyone's who actually read the damn thing.

FWIW, Rep. Gilman's remarks in the paragraph you've misattributed are as follows:


Pink:
By whose reckoning? The obvious and most probable person recommending that a POTUS (any POTUS) would be the WH Counsel, not the FBI Director.


Additional Reference:
Click to expand...

This is from your source:View attachment 67237945
 
marke said:
This is from your source:View attachment 67237945
Click to expand...

Let me quote:

President George W. Bush staked out an array of positions in protection of government secrecy, including his first use of executive privilege in a congressional investigation. He invoked privilege in a House committee inquiry in December 2001, with respect to Justice Department deliberative documents bearing on serious abuses by the Boston Federal Bureau of Investigation. The ensuing dispute came to a climax in a March 2002 hearing, at which the committee invited this author to analyze previously parallel oversight situations. Soon after, the Bush administration effectively surrendered its attempted executive privilege claim and provided the key documents that had been withheld.

How convenient. The congressional hearing on the Boston case ended February 6, 2002 and Bush surrendered its attempt to obstruct justice after another hearing about executive privilege justification in March 2002.

In like manner, I believe the Mueller investigation will finally be ended after Democrats score sought after victories in their efforts to shut down investigations into government collusion in the FBI and DOJ under Obama.
 
marke said:
You are right. I should have attributed the quote to Mr. Gilman instead of Mr. Burton. So? A simple mistake. Does that glitch on my part somehow change the whole Congressional testimony in your opinion?
Click to expand...
Red:
Fair enough.

Blue:
Of course not. How could it? The misattribution may imply something about the rigor/comprehensivity attendant to your analysis and/or depiction of the testimony, but the misattribution has nothing to do with the Congressional testimony itself which is exposed for all to read.
 
marke said:
The Justice Department changed its policy on releasing information to Congress in 2001, shortly after Mueller was appointed by Bush to be FBI Director. Congressional investigators questioned why the change came just days after Congress requested FBI documents relative to the Boston investigation. I suggest Rep. Burton was probably right when he said,
I don't know if George W. Bush knows the gravity of this or not. He's probably taking the advice of his legal counsel and the Attorney General and the people over at the Justice Department...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Well, you will recall that I specifically took objection to your proposition that Bush II invoked executive privilege re: the "Salvati-Boston" hearings "probably," as you put it, on Mueller's advice.
Bush Invokes Executive Privilege on Hill, December 14, 2001. Why did Bush do that? Was it on the advice of his newly appointed FBI Director, Robert Mueller, who had spent several years in Boston during the period in question as U.S. Attorney? Probably.
Click to expand...
I'm still waiting for something that validates the "probably" aspect of your proposition. Surely you understand the difference between "possible" and "probable?"

You will recall too that I said the obvious person whose advice would "probably" have so moved Bush was the WH counsel. I'm also willing to accept that the Atty. General too was an obvious person who "probably" advised Bush to invoke executive privilege. Apparently, Rep. Burton was of a similar mind:
Where I disagree with the President, and I believe most of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would disagree with the President, is his use of executive privilege that we just received notification of today. Now, I've met with the White House chief counsel, Mr. Gonzales, I talked to him this morning. And I've met with the Attorney General.
Click to expand...
In reading Burton's testimony, I noticed that he makes the positive claim about Congress' extant oversight role, and he normatively asserts that the WH/POTUS had overstepped its discretionary limit. Too, he acknowledged that it is at times fitting for the Executive branch to defer delivery of, but not forever withhold, information to Congress. Despite so acknowledging, other than asserting the existence of Congress' oversight role, Burton doesn't in his opening remarks offer a reason why the requested information re: the Salvati-Boston matter should not have been subject to Executive privilege.
The President has the right in certain cases to claim executive privilege. But it's a real stretch for him to claim executive privilege on the issues that are before us today. I think it's wrong and I believe the Congress will think it's wrong.
Click to expand...
The closest he comes to doing so is implicitly by noting that the events being examined by his committee happened some 30+ years prior to the hearing.
Admittedly, however, it's remotely possible Rep. Burton construed the Salvati-Boston hearings as the means by which the aptness of Bush's executive privilege claim was to be determined given the following remark:
I talked to the President's counsel this morning about this, and I am prepared to hold a whole series of hearings based upon the use of executive privilege in the past and whether or not the President is rightfully using executive privilege now.

...

Because the American people need to know that while we appreciate what the President of the United States is doing in the war and as far as the economy is concerned, we believe that the Congress of the United States has a justifiable position and right to oversee the executive branch of this Government. And if this President and if his legal staff continues to try to block us from getting access to records at the White House or at the Justice Department to which we are entitled, then they're going to have to deal with this committee day in and day out for the next year as long as I'm chairman.
Click to expand...
To the extent he so construed the Dec 13th hearing session, he wouldn't be obliged to offer a case for the validity of his proposition as that assertion would then be the central question of the inquiry. The thing is that Burton's claims about oversight ring empty insofar as what his committee was ostensibly "overseeing" was behavior that occurred some 30+ years before during the Nixon Administration. Burton's committee wasn't overseeing anything. What Burton's committee was doing was rightly tasked to historians, not Congress.


As goes the actual nature and extent of Mueller's involvement in the underlying Salvati-Boston matter's handling by the Boston unit of the FBI, well, that's been addressed and shown, by the analysis to which Moot in post 2 linked, not to have happened.
 
Xelor said:
Well, you will recall that I specifically took objection to your proposition that Bush II invoked executive privilege re: the "Salvati-Boston" hearings "probably," as you put it, on Mueller's advice.
​
I'm still waiting for something that validates the "probably" aspect of your proposition. Surely you understand the difference between "possible" and "probable?"

You will recall too that I said the obvious person whose advice would "probably" have so moved Bush was the WH counsel. I'm also willing to accept that the Atty. General too was an obvious person who "probably" advised Bush to invoke executive privilege. Apparently, Rep. Burton was of a similar mind:

​
In reading Burton's testimony, I noticed that he makes the positive claim about Congress' extant oversight role, and he normatively asserts that the WH/POTUS had overstepped its discretionary limit. Too, he acknowledged that it is at times fitting for the Executive branch to defer delivery of, but not forever withhold, information to Congress. Despite so acknowledging, other than asserting the existence of Congress' oversight role, Burton doesn't in his opening remarks offer a reason why the requested information re: the Salvati-Boston matter should not have been subject to Executive privilege.
​
The closest he comes to doing so is implicitly by noting that the events being examined by his committee happened some 30+ years prior to the hearing.
Admittedly, however, it's remotely possible Rep. Burton construed the Salvati-Boston hearings as the means by which the aptness of Bush's executive privilege claim was to be determined given the following remark:
​
To the extent he so construed the Dec 13th hearing session, he wouldn't be obliged to offer a case for the validity of his proposition as that assertion would then be the central question of the inquiry. The thing is that Burton's claims about oversight ring empty insofar as what his committee was ostensibly "overseeing" was behavior that occurred some 30+ years before during the Nixon Administration. Burton's committee wasn't overseeing anything. What Burton's committee was doing was rightly tasked to historians, not Congress.

As goes the actual nature and extent of Mueller's involvement in the underlying Salvati-Boston matter's handling by the Boston unit of the FBI, well, that's been addressed and shown, by the analysis to which Moot in post 2 linked, not to have happened.
Click to expand...


We don't know why the Justice Department suddenly changed its policy just days after Congress requested documents from the FBI that covered those years of then recently exposed criminal activity by the FBI in Boston. This change came just weeks after Mueller was appointed new head of the FBI. Mueller, more than anyone else in the new Bush administration, had direct connections to Boston law enforcement during that time, and he had been directly involved in prolonging the imprisonment of those falsely accused by the FBI for a murder the FBI knew they did not commit. I suspect Mueller may have been in on any WH discussions with the Bush team pertaining to the congressional request for very old FBI documents.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
So you are saying that you just copied and pasted and provided nothing else?
Click to expand...

I'm saying I posted what I posted and welcome any and all reasonable discussions about the post or the content.
 
marke said:
We don't know why the Justice Department suddenly changed its policy just days after Congress requested documents from the FBI that covered those years of then recently exposed criminal activity by the FBI in Boston. This change came just weeks after Mueller was appointed new head of the FBI.
Click to expand...
  1. As goes your remark with which I took exception -- who probably advised Bush II to assert executive privilege -- what we "don't know" about the impetus for a DoJ policy change or policy non-change is irrelevant for lacunae in our knowledge informs no one of who in fact did so advise Bush.
  2. The DoJ has clearly defined policies for responding to requests for information from Congress, and while you have asserted that there was a policy change, you've not actually demonstrated that such an existential policy change in the time period you've noted. I mean really, dude. How hard is it to simply look up the policy and show that at "such and such" a point in time "ABC" was the policy and on "XYZ" date the relevant provisions of the policy changed from "yata yata" to "blah-dee-blah."
  3. I pointed you to a document that details the legal foundations, theory and practice pertaining to executive privilege (EP) claims. Did you even bother to read it? There are other similarly accessible ones too, though I doubt you read any of them, yet here you are on-about whether Mueller may have advised Bush to claim EP and tacitly arguing that his claim, thus the advice he received, was unjust/unlawful/baseless.
I'd hoped you'd at least come with portfolio to your own thread topic, yet you appear not to have. All you've brought to this discussion is innuendo.


marke said:
Mueller, more than anyone else in the new Bush administration, had direct connections to Boston law enforcement during that time, and he had been directly involved in prolonging the imprisonment of those falsely accused by the FBI for a murder the FBI knew they did not commit. I suspect Mueller may have been in on any WH discussions with the Bush team pertaining to the congressional request for very old FBI documents.
Click to expand...
Red:
Irrelevant.
  • If "anyone else in the new Bush administration" had no involvement and Mueller had next to no involvement, your "red" qualifier would be true, but it'd also be of no matter.
  • Mueller's involvement, if any, would be relevant were you (or someone) to show credibly that his involvement was material to the Salvati-Boston matter.

Blue:
  • During what time?


Pink:
  • By all means, do present (or link to) the documentation that shows the nature and extent of Mueller's role in "prolonging the imprisonment of those falsely accused by the FBI" in connection with the Salvati-Boston matter, which is the matter considered in the House hearing for which you linked to transcript. Documents that show the nature and extent of Mueller's participation in the prosecutions and prolonged imprisonment would be the case filings, memoranda, and parole hearings wherein Mueller's role is shown to be active rather than purely administrative.

    In presenting documents, bother to keep in mind the following about Mueller's legal career.
    • 1973 -- Earned law degree
    • 1973 - 1976 -- Associate at Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro
    • 1976 - 1982 -- Assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Northern California
    • 1982 - 1987 -- Assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Massachusetts (Acting Attorney for the district from 1986 - 1987
    • 1988 -- Hill and Barlow
    • 1989 -- DoJ prosecutor of Manuel Noriega
    • 1990 - 1993 -- Assistant AG for the Criminal Division (oversaw Lockerbie bombing case and formed DoJ's first cyber unit)
    • 1993 - 1995 -- Hale and Dorr
    • 1995 - 1998 -- U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia
    • 1998 - 2001 -- U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California

Additional germane temporal details related to the J. Salvati matter/hearings:
​

  • [*=1]1965 -- Convicted
    [*=1]1997 -- Sentence commuted.
 
Xelor said:
  1. As goes your remark with which I took exception -- who probably advised Bush II to assert executive privilege -- what we "don't know" about the impetus for a DoJ policy change or policy non-change is irrelevant for lacunae in our knowledge informs no one of who in fact did so advise Bush.
  2. The DoJ has clearly defined policies for responding to requests for information from Congress, and while you have asserted that there was a policy change, you've not actually demonstrated that such an existential policy change in the time period you've noted. I mean really, dude. How hard is it to simply look up the policy and show that at "such and such" a point in time "ABC" was the policy and on "XYZ" date the relevant provisions of the policy changed from "yata yata" to "blah-dee-blah."
Click to expand...


  1. We should read the transcript of the December 13, 2001 House committe in view:

    ... we just received notification today. ...

    This White House has issued an Executive order that pretty much blocks us from getting any information ... We are chagrined by that, because in the past, we've been able to get those documents...

    They're not going to give us the documents on Mr. Salvati which might help us get compensation for him for the 30 come years he spent in prison for something he didn't do. ...

    And if this president and if his legal staff continues to try to block us from getting access to records...

    The Justice Department's new policy not to turn over any deliberate documents to Congress that relate in any way to criminal cases, even closed criminal cases, goes too far. ...

    The Justice Department has recently indicated it will no longer comply with congressional requests for deliberative documents pertaining to criminal investigations, whether open or closed. ...

    It's particularly troubling that the Justice Department is restricting this committee's access to documents that would be germane to the case of the FBI's handling of confidential informants in the Boston organized crime investigation. ...

    The Justice Department's proposed new policy that Congress would never be able to review deliberative documents is a radical change in policy.

    Bottom line: Barely 1 month after Mueller becomes head of the FBI the Justice Department shuts down congressional access to documents pertaining to criminal law enforcement activities in Boston which took place at a time when he was a law enforcement official in Boston.

    I see a pattern here in Mueller's life that continues to this day.
 
marke said:
We should read the transcript of the December 13, 2001 House committe in view:

... we just received notification today. ...

This White House has issued an Executive order that pretty much blocks us from getting any information ... We are chagrined by that, because in the past, we've been able to get those documents...

They're not going to give us the documents on Mr. Salvati which might help us get compensation for him for the 30 come years he spent in prison for something he didn't do. ...

And if this president and if his legal staff continues to try to block us from getting access to records...

The Justice Department's new policy not to turn over any deliberate documents to Congress that relate in any way to criminal cases, even closed criminal cases, goes too far. ...

The Justice Department has recently indicated it will no longer comply with congressional requests for deliberative documents pertaining to criminal investigations, whether open or closed. ...

It's particularly troubling that the Justice Department is restricting this committee's access to documents that would be germane to the case of the FBI's handling of confidential informants in the Boston organized crime investigation. ...

The Justice Department's proposed new policy that Congress would never be able to review deliberative documents is a radical change in policy.

Bottom line: Barely 1 month after Mueller becomes head of the FBI the Justice Department shuts down congressional access to documents pertaining to criminal law enforcement activities in Boston which took place at a time when he was a law enforcement official in Boston.

I see a pattern here in Mueller's life that continues to this day.
Click to expand...

Nobody's denying the temporally existential sequence you've observed. I can see it every bit as well as you; however, that I can and you can doesn't mean there's a sound/cogent conclusion to draw from the pattern's existence. What I've consistently though tacitly implored you to do is show sound/cogent causality among the components of the pattern, and I am still waiting for you to do so, or forsake the claim absent being able to do so.

-- Post hoc, ergo propter hoc

All sorts of suppositions about sequences of events may be accurate, but if one cannot soundly or cogently show them so, there's no good reason for anyone else to concur that they are so.
 
Xelor said:
Nobody's denying the temporally existential sequence you've observed. I can see it every bit as well as you; however, that I can and you can doesn't mean there's a sound/cogent conclusion to draw from the pattern's existence. What I've consistently though tacitly implored you to do is show sound/cogent causality among the components of the pattern, and I am still waiting for you to do so, or forsake the claim absent being able to do so.

-- Post hoc, ergo propter hoc

All sorts of suppositions about sequences of events may be accurate, but if one cannot soundly or cogently show them so, there's no good reason for anyone else to concur that they are so.
Click to expand...

The crooks in the FBI are attempting to deny to Congress those documents which implicate themselves in the criminal activities of the FBI and DOJ under Obama. I don't blame them for desperately seeking to hide the truth. In 2001 Mueller did his part to keep 4 innocent men locked up for a crime they did not commit and that that the FBI knew from the beginning they did not commit. The fact that J.Edgar Hoover and so many other Boston FBI agents knew they were sending 4 innocent men to the electric chair is chilling, and sufficient motivation for anyone and everyone involved to seek to cover up the sordid truth years later.

Former FBI agent Rico had never been indicted for his part in the multiple murders committed in collusion between the FBI and the Boston mob. He was finally indicted after these hearings but died before going to trial. The cover-up finally came to an end 30 years later and the families of the 4 men were awarded more than $100 million for the injustice they suffered under agents from the Boston office of the FBI.

For what logical reason did the DOJ suddenly change its policy just after Mueller became head of the FBI if not for someone's desire to hide the facts of a case most people had considered long dead? If there's smoke there is quite likely a fire.
 
Last edited:
marke said:
The crooks in the FBI are attempting to deny to Congress those documents which implicate themselves in the criminal activities of the FBI and DOJ under Obama. I don't blame them for desperately seeking to hide the truth. In 2001 Mueller did his part to and that that the FBI knew from the beginning they did not commit. The fact that J.Edgar Hoover and so many other Boston FBI agents knew they were sending 4 innocent men to the electric chair is chilling, and sufficient motivation for anyone and everyone involved to seek to cover up the sordid truth years later.

Former FBI agent Rico had never been indicted for his part in the multiple murders committed in collusion between the FBI and the Boston mob. He was finally indicted after these hearings but died before going to trial. The cover-up finally came to an end 30 years later and the families of the 4 men were awarded more than $100 million for the injustice they suffered under agents from the Boston office of the FBI.

For what logical reason did the DOJ suddenly change its policy just after Mueller became head of the FBI if not for someone's desire to hide the facts of a case most people had considered long dead? If there's smoke there is quite likely a fire.
Click to expand...

Red:
By the end of 1997, the four men -- Joseph Salvati, Peter Limone, Louis Greco and Henry Tameleo -- had already (1) had their sentences commuted, (2) received exonerations, and (3) were no longer incarcerated! Those points of fact are evident from the information on page 202 of the document I referenced and linked to in post 3. The image you posted in post 8 is from page 201 of that document.[SUP]1[/SUP] That document isn't the only one notes that the four men were no longer in prison by 2001.

As noted in explicitly stated and linked-to content in post 17 (my post) and in the content linked-to in post 2 (another member's post), Mueller, who obtained his JD in 1973:
  1. was in the Marines in 1968 (He completed his B.A. in 1966 and then pursued his M.A. in 1966 & 1967.) when the four men were tried, convicted and sentenced;
  2. was the Assistant U.S. Atty. for the District of MA, not the FBI, for five years of his life (1982 - 1987): and
  3. served in the U.S. Attorney's office in D.C. in 1997.
Also, what actions exactly did Mueller take to "keep 4 innocent men locked up for a crime they did not commit?" This is now the second time (the first was in post 17) I've bid you to tell us. Will you again refrain from providing probative information showing that Mueller kept "4 innocent men locked up for a crime they did not commit?"


Note:
  1. The document is, as one can see from the screenshot below, among the ones readable at no cost to individuals who bother to register for a JSTOR free account. Attempting to register and completing the registration reveals such.


Blue + Red:
You will note that:​


  • [*=1]In post 3, I asked if you'd even read the transcript to which you linked in your OP. I asked because it was clear to me you'd misattributed the remarks clearly labeled in the document you referenced in your OP. You tacitly classified the mistake as being tantamount to a typo, and I accepted your claim to that effect, mainly because I knew at the time I had no basis for standing on the notion that it was anything otherwise.
    [*=1]In post 17, I wrote, "I'd hoped you'd at least come with portfolio to your own thread topic, yet you appear not to have." I wrote that because it was by then clear to me that you'd bothered to become well informed with neither the facts of the Salvati matter, nor the DoJ policies that you assert (without support) were changed due to Mueller, nor the 2001 Congressional hearing, nor the advising roles of Bush II Admin. officials as goes Bush's assertion of EP. It's now clear, as shown by "red section" remarks above, that you're not even reading/comprehending the information I'm posting.
    [*=1]You have yet to identify the specific disclosure policy(s) altered, yet you claim that Mueller materially influenced altering that policy....that despite your having been pointed to the DoJ's Congressional disclosure/response policy webpage and to a document that discusses the policies that changed in the wake of the hearings to which you referred in your OP.

In your above quoted post, you have asserted that Mueller was "sufficiently motivated" to "cover up the truth" of matters in which, given the points of fact about what Bob has done in his career and the temporal qualities of the events involved, it's doubtful that he even had a role
​



​
 

Attachments

  • JSTOR Free.jpg
    JSTOR Free.jpg
    47.8 KB · Views: 16
Xelor said:
Red:
By the end of 1997, the four men -- Joseph Salvati, Peter Limone, Louis Greco and Henry Tameleo -- had already (1) had their sentences commuted, (2) received exonerations, and (3) were no longer incarcerated!
Click to expand...

That is not accurate. Charges against Peter Limone were dismissed on January 31, 2001. Charges against Louis Greco were posthumously dismissed in 2004 and charges against Henry Tameleo were posthumously dismissed in 2007. Those 3 men were convicted and sentenced to die on July 31, 1968. Talmeleo died in prison in 1985 and Greco died in prison in 1995. Peter Limone was released from prison on January 5, 2001. Joseph Salvati's sentence was commuted and he was released on parole in 1997.

As noted in explicitly stated ..., Mueller, ...
[*]was the Assistant U.S. Atty. for the District of MA, not the FBI, for five years of his life (1982 - 1987): and
[*]served in the U.S. Attorney's office in D.C. in 1997.
[/LIST]
Also, what actions exactly did Mueller take to "keep 4 innocent men locked up for a crime they did not commit?" This is now the second time (the first was in post 17) I've bid you to tell us. Will you again refrain from providing probative information showing that Mueller kept "4 innocent men locked up for a crime they did not commit?"
Click to expand...

You can find this material at https://howiecarrshow.com/2018/03/22/2322/ You will find support for this claim listed in this report: "According to multiple sources, Mueller himself wrote letters to the parole Board demanding that the innocent men not be released, despite overwhelming evidence of their innocence." Not only that but you can actually read the FBI-302 documents from 1965 that Mueller and the FBI withheld from Congress in 2001. The documents were later released under presswure from Congress, but only after the initial hearing was over and after the documents were HEAVILY REDACTED.

Once a defender against investigations into government corruption, always a defender against investigations into government corruption. These documents were in the possession of the FBI for 2 years before the 4 innocent men were convicted and sentenced to death for a murder they did not commit. In awarding damages to the wrongly convicted men in 2006, Judge Nancy Gertner called the government's defense that the FBI had no duty to get involved because it was a state case "absurd."

ABSURD is a good term to describe the attempts of crooks in the Obama DOJ to justify their criminal activities as well.
I wrote that because it was by then clear to me that you'd bothered to become well informed with neither the facts of the Salvati matter, nor the DoJ policies that you assert (without support) were changed due to Mueller, nor the 2001 Congressional hearing, nor the advising roles of Bush II Admin. officials as goes Bush's assertion of EP. It's now clear, as shown by "red section" remarks above, that you're not even reading/comprehending the information I'm posting.

In your above quoted post, you have asserted that Mueller was "sufficiently motivated" to "cover up the truth" of matters in which, given the points of fact about what Bob has done in his career and the temporal qualities of the events involved, it's doubtful that he even had a role
​
Click to expand...

You can read the FBI-302 documents yourself and ask why Bush would want to keep those records from a closed old case sealed after more than 30 years. You can see they are still heavily redacted with the names of government officials involved completely blotted out.
 
Last edited:
marke said:
That is not accurate. Charges against Peter Limone were dismissed on January 31, 2001. Charges against Louis Greco were posthumously dismissed in 2004 and charges against Henry Tameleo were posthumously dismissed in 2007. Those 3 men were convicted and sentenced to die on July 31, 1968. Talmeleo died in prison in 1985 and Greco died in prison in 1995. Peter Limone was released from prison on January 5, 2001. Joseph Salvati's sentence was commuted and he was released on parole in 1997.



You can find this material at https://howiecarrshow.com/2018/03/22/2322/ You will find support for this claim listed in this report: "According to multiple sources, Mueller himself wrote letters to the parole Board demanding that the innocent men not be released, despite overwhelming evidence of their innocence." Not only that but you can actually read the FBI-302 documents from 1965 that Mueller and the FBI withheld from Congress in 2001. The documents were later released under presswure from Congress, but only after the initial hearing was over and after the documents were HEAVILY REDACTED.

Once a defender against investigations into government corruption, always a defender against investigations into government corruption. These documents were in the possession of the FBI for 2 years before the 4 innocent men were convicted and sentenced to death for a murder they did not commit. In awarding damages to the wrongly convicted men in 2006, Judge Nancy Gertner called the government's defense that the FBI had no duty to get involved because it was a state case "absurd."

ABSURD is a good term to describe the attempts of crooks in the Obama DOJ to justify their criminal activities as well.


You can read the FBI-302 documents yourself and ask why Bush would want to keep those records from a closed old case sealed after more than 30 years. You can see they are still heavily redacted with the names of government officials involved completely blotted out.
Click to expand...

Be all that as it may, not one bit of it shows probatively that Mueller was involved in any of the proceedings pertaining to the four men. Showing that is what you need to do to obtain my concord with your argument. When you have something to present and that does probatively so show, let me know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom