The Mueller Investigation

[Hashi Lebwohl]

That still doesn't prove collusion. An alternative explanation is that people associated with the Trump Campaign were seeking ways to line their own pockets, much like what people associated with the Clinton Foundation did for years.

[Skyweir]

I didnt say it did .. its however sufficient as cause.

It is grounds for investigation. And with Stones recent foray with the investigation.. it is not unreasonable to suspect there is more to come.

[Cail]

That still doesn't prove collusion. An alternative explanation is that people associated with the Trump Campaign were seeking ways to line their own pockets, much like what people associated with the Clinton Foundation did for years.

Correct. Despite the narrative, nothing - nothing - so far has indicated that there was any untoward contact between the Trump campaign and anyone else.

[Zarathustra]

I didnt say it did .. its however sufficient as cause.

It is grounds for investigation. And with Stones recent foray with the investigation.. it is not unreasonable to suspect there is more to come.

Things found out after the investigation aren't grounds for the investigation. If the cops perform an illegal search on your home, without a warrant or any evidence, it doesn't matter if they find something illegal inside your home, you can't be charged because they bungled the arrest. They can't break into your house (illegally) to try to find evidence of a crime.

Maybe they do things differently in Australia?

[Cail]

I didnt say it did .. its however sufficient as cause.

It is grounds for investigation. And with Stones recent foray with the investigation.. it is not unreasonable to suspect there is more to come.

Things found out after the investigation aren't grounds for the investigation. If the cops perform an illegal search on your home, without a warrant or any evidence, it doesn't matter if they find something illegal inside your home, you can't be charged because they bungled the arrest. They can't break into your house (illegally) to try to find evidence of a crime.

Maybe they do things differently in Australia?

Right, that's contrary to the Fourth Amendment, and the bedrock of our legal principles. It's the, "you have nothing to fear if you've done nothing wrong" mentality.

[Skyweir]

LOLS

You know how the investigation was initiated right? You Cantwe mandate a Soecial Counsel Investigation without grounds . Hence the investigation

[Zarathustra]

LOLS

You know how the investigation was initiated right? You can mandate a Soecial Counsel Investigation without grounds . Hence the investigation

From Wikipedia:

Initiating a special counsel investigation

The decision to appoint a special counsel rests with the attorney general (or acting attorney general). The current special counsel regulations specify that:[6]

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted . . .

It doesn't say, "without grounds." It specifically says when an investigation is warranted. My point is that it wasn't warranted. Rosenstein knew that the source of the FBI investigations into Trump were based on an unverified and mostly discredited dossier that originated from the Russians themselves as campaign opposition research paid for by the Hillary campaign. He also knew that the FBI withheld this info from the FISA court in order to get warrants to spy on Trump.

[Cail]

LOLS

You know how the investigation was initiated right? You can mandate a Soecial Counsel Investigation without grounds . Hence the investigation

From Wikipedia:

Initiating a special counsel investigation

The decision to appoint a special counsel rests with the attorney general (or acting attorney general). The current special counsel regulations specify that:[6]

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted . . .

It doesn't say, "without grounds." It specifically says when an investigation is warranted. My point is that it wasn't warranted. Rosenstein knew that the source of the FBI investigations into Trump were based on an unverified and mostly discredited dossier that originated from the Russians themselves as campaign opposition research paid for by the Hillary campaign. He also knew that the FBI withheld this info from the FISA court in order to get warrants to spy on Trump.

Exactly. And the collusion between Hillary's campaign and the Russians has been ignored. That's the story there.

[lucimay]

[Skyweir]

Hahahaha .. how do you think a criminal investigation is warranted???

There must be grounds

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

LOLS

You know how the investigation was initiated right? You can mandate a Soecial Counsel Investigation without grounds . Hence the investigation

From Wikipedia:

Initiating a special counsel investigation

The decision to appoint a special counsel rests with the attorney general (or acting attorney general). The current special counsel regulations specify that:[6]

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted . . .

It doesn't say, "without grounds." It specifically says when an investigation is warranted. My point is that it wasn't warranted. ...

Shouldn't there be stress placed on the personalistic element? On the "he/she determining", just as much as on the "warranting"?

IOW, shouldn't the conclusion be: "When Rosenstein determined, it was so warranted. Full stop. No redux."?

Wouldn't that be a philosophically Realistic approach?

[Zarathustra]

Shouldn't there be stress placed on the personalistic element? On the "he/she determining", just as much as on the "warranting"?

IOW, shouldn't the conclusion be: "When Rosenstein determined, it was so warranted. Full stop. No redux."?

Wouldn't that be a philosophically Realistic approach?

If you think I'm answering a single question you have after that unresponsive bullshit you pulled on me, think again.

Hahahaha .. how do you think a criminal investigation is warranted???

There must be grounds

Ok, so what were those grounds?

Your naivete is stunning. That's like saying, "Cops pulled over a black man for no apparent reason, but since they pulled him over, there *must* have been grounds!" The existence of the investigation itself doesn't prove that there were grounds, because the sole power of initiating the investigation lies in the hands of a guy who refuses to explain his grounds, even when subpoenaed by Congress.

Why Rosenstein Is Being Charged with High Crimes and Misdemeanors

For more than nine months, House Republicans have been battling the Department of Justice and FBI for a cache of documents they say are necessary to conduct oversight investigations into the FBI's handling of alleged collusion between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russia. The backroom battles between lawmakers and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein culminated in impeachment articles filed Wednesday against the deputy attorney general.

The lawmakers did so despite objections by Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) who said to reporters Thursday, "Do I support impeachment of Rod Rosenstein? No, I do not."

"I don't think we should be cavalier with this process or with this term," he said.

Mr. Rosenstein oversaw the potentially improper authorization of FISA searches and electronic surveillance of members of the Trump campaign

Nonetheless, Freedom Caucus Chairman Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) went forward with the articles of impeachment. The lawmakers charged Rosenstein with "high crimes and misdemeanors" and noted that Rosenstein signed off on a search warrant that deliberately withheld vital information from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). The DOJ under Rosensten was "withholding embarrassing documents and information, knowingly hiding investigative information from Congress," committing various abuses of the FISA process and refusing to comply with subpoenas, according to the lawmakers. The articles were filed just before the House goes on its five-week August recess and are not expected to come up for a vote until the members return to Washington, congressional officials said.

"Mr. Rosenstein oversaw the potentially improper authorization of FISA searches and electronic surveillance of members of the Trump campaign," states Article 5 of the impeachment document. "As evidenced by the July 21, 2018 release of the Carter Page FISA application, under Mr. Rosenstein's supervision, the 'dossier' compiled by Christopher Steele on behalf of the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed a material part of the FISA application. Under Mr. Rosenstein's supervision, the Department of Justice and FBI intentionally obfuscated the fact the dossier was originally a political opposition research document before the FISC."

Meadows made the decision to file the impeachment articles late Wednesday after a meeting with DOJ and FBI officials. According to Meadows the DOJ was not willing to comply with months of requests, instead, the officials argued they were in "compliance" with Congress.

While the FISA court was left in the dark, Rosenstein was not. He knew the shaky ground for this warrant request, but approved it anyway.

From the New York Times:

WASHINGTON - A secret, highly contentious Republican memo reveals that Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein approved an application to extend surveillance of a former Trump campaign associate shortly after taking office last spring, according to three people familiar with it.

The renewal shows that the Justice Department under President Trump saw reason to believe that the associate, Carter Page, was acting as a Russian agent. But the reference to Mr. Rosenstein's actions in the memo - a much-disputed document that paints the investigation into Russian election meddling as tainted from the start - indicates that Republicans may be moving to seize on his role as they seek to undermine the inquiry.

The memo's primary contention is that F.B.I. and Justice Department officials failed to adequately explain to an intelligence court judge in initially seeking a warrant for surveillance of Mr. Page that they were relying in part on research by an investigator, Christopher Steele, that had been financed by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

Also, don't forget that Rosenstein offered to wear a wire in order to spy on Trump personally, as part of a conspiracy to overthrow Trump via Article 25:

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte on last Thursday and requested that Rod Rosenstein testify before his committee. Rosenstein had originally agreed to the hearing over reports that he had offered to wear a wire to record President Trump and to recruit cabinet members to trigger Article 25 proceedings. Rosenstein said the entire thing was a joke. Then, James Baker testified that he had a meeting with Andrew McCabe and Lisa Page, who were at the meeting with Rosenstein and that they both swore he was serious. Now, Rosenstein refuses to release the memos and has cancelled his testimony. But, isn't that obstruction of justice?

. . .

The day after the meeting, where Rosenstein offered to wear a wire, he appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel. Tell me those two events are unrelated.

But if after all this (of which you were apparently unaware), if you're still not convinced by my argument, let's use yours! If you think that an action is justified merely because the person who takes it has to the power to do so (might makes right?), then Trump was justified in firing Comey (the FBI Director) because he had the power to do so. But the firing of Comey is what triggered the Mueller investigation. So where's your justification, again . . . ??? If Trump was justified in firing Comey because he had the power to do so, then this event shouldn't have triggered a Special Counsel investigation.

[Cail]

The ouroboros legal theory?

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

From Wikipedia:
It doesn't say, "without grounds." It specifically says when an investigation is warranted. My point is that it wasn't warranted. ...

Shouldn't there be stress placed on the personalistic element? On the "he/she determining", just as much as on the "warranting"?

IOW, shouldn't the conclusion be: "When Rosenstein determined, it was so warranted. Full stop. No redux."?

Wouldn't that be a philosophically Realistic approach?

If you think I'm answering a single question you have after that unresponsive bullshit you pulled on me, think again.

Thing is, it doesn't simply say, "when an investigation is warranted".

Rather, it further says, "when he or she determines an investigation is warranted".

So, unless it's gonna be the "No true Attorney General ..." approach for you, then an investigation would certainly seem to have been warranted.

[Ur Dead]

This is getting weird.

https://news.yahoo.com/roger-stone-apos ... 53756.html

The process crimes Stone is charged with, such as lying and witness
tampering, are potentially serious. But he was not charged with facilitating
Trump campaign collusion with Russian hackers, and the indictment itself
gives little reason to believe there ever were any.

He gave interviews before the arrangement stating he told the truth and
had nothing to do with witness tampering. Usually a person keeps a low profile before appearing.

Stone was hauled in to federal court Friday morning after a theatrical,
televised arrest that should be the subject of a Justice Department
investigation or congressional inquiry. Why the excessive threat of force?
Though CNN denies it, many still wonder whether the network was tipped off.

Full blown swat teams, armored car and the CNN camera crew filming the whole thing. No other networks were there. A granny with a badge could been
more effective than what they used.

https://youtu.be/dWTzCNY7_YY?t=290

A DOJ investigation on whom issued the orders may be in order.

https://youtu.be/Eh-yKLurR10?t=173
https://youtu.be/LnyuB7VrGGk?t=78

Interesting..... videos

[aliantha]

You guys are hilarious. You all still think this is a nothingburger, don't you? Even after the federal district judge in DC nullified Manafort's plea bargain this week, saying he'd lied multiple times to the FBI. The Special Counsel has drawn big, fat lines in Sharpie between Manafort and Individual-1. But if you guys want to live in LaLa Land and ignore this stuff, I guess that's your business.

Then there's Andrew McCabe's new book. The Atlantic has published an excerpt that y'all might want to read. At one point, McCabe says, he was in a meeting in the Oval Office with Trump and Don McGahn, and he got the distinct impression they were operating the way a Mafia family operates.

Here's McCabe's assessment of how Trump operates:

People do not appreciate how far we have fallen from normal standards of presidential accountability. Today we have a president who is willing not only to comment prejudicially on criminal prosecutions but to comment on ones that potentially affect him. He does both of these things almost daily. He is not just sounding a dog whistle. He is lobbying for a result. The president has stepped over bright ethical and moral lines wherever he has encountered them. Every day brings a new low, with the president exposing himself as a deliberate liar who will say whatever he pleases to get whatever he wants. If he were "on the box" at Quantico, he would break the machine.

link

[sgt.null]

The Senate intelligence committee
Just said there was no collusion.
A bipartisan committee.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

You all still think this is a nothingburger, don't you?

It is much more of a nothingburger than a somethingburger, that's for certain.

McCabe is just a disgruntled ex-employee who is willing to say anything that will sell his book.

[Vraith]

With 90% confidence, this will be Iran-Contra all over again [except perhaps worse] and this will happen:
Almost all the accurate and useful information will be covered up, just enough will be leaked [and out of context] so both sides can bitch and whine about it for a while.
No one who matters will be punished...the more they matter, the less they'll pay.
Decades down the road, [or maybe less, considering the speed-up in most things nowadays] everyone will know they were guilty, up to and including the President, and by that time no one will give a shit. [[He CUT TAXES after all]].
A few people will say [in secret] "Yea, remember when the Movie dude and the TV dude were guilty as sin? And the people who KNEW they were guilty flat out lied, and all the public and political same-party folk screamed "POLITICAL HACKJOB!!" and winked? And they got away with it? WE can do that, anyone can."

[SoulBiter]

I can say with 100% confidence that even if there was nothing there to find, 50% of the voting public will not believe it, the other 50% will say, I knew it all along.