The Mueller Investigation

[Zarathustra]

Well he aint good

I cant for a second believe a Special Prosecutor doesnt care for the law. He lives it and breathes it.

That's like saying you can't believe that a cop would never not care for the law, because they "live and breathe it." (That's not to insinuate anything bad about cops!) While I would *hope* that someone holding that much legal power would care for the law, you can't be so naive as to miss the fact that people who enforce the laws are often the ones who think they are above the laws.

The Mueller investigation began from an unverified dossier paid for by the Hillary campaign as opposition research . . . from the Russians! And the FBI lied to the the FISA court over and over about the origins of this "evidence," its veracity, and its funding. The guy who kept signing off on this--Rosenstein--knew that the dossier was Clinton campaign trash, but he authorized the Mueller probe nonetheless.

This entire charade has been a corrupt attempt by Trump haters to overthrow an elected President. It was never based on ANYTHING legal or substantial. That's why all the indictments are "process crimes," i.e. lying to the investigators. The Russia investigations were began by FBI agent Peter Strozk, who admitted to his lover that he hated Trump and this was to be their insurance policy to take him down if he ever got elected President. In their words, they would "stop him."

There is AMPLE evidence that this is a partisan witch hunt, and ZERO evidence that Trump did anything wrong, but--surprise surprise!--guess which version of reality you believe? The version brought to us by the same demonstrably biased news sources that created the AOC dance scandal out of thin air.

We can present the evidence over and over why this is a partisan coup, but if you won't open your eyes, you won't see it.

[Skyweir]

youd think youd want to be on the right side of history.

I am. I'm an adult who accepts the results of elections. I'm an adult who doesn't throw a tantrum when I don't get my way. I'm an adult who can disagree with someone without calling them evil or trying to destroy them.

I can say the very same.

This period is shameful. A vocal minority and the media has decided that the rules don't apply.

It is and it is ... It is a vocal minority. Key word being minority. And the media on both sides is shameful. Fox News, CNN .. they all run with sensationalism. No better than one another imho.

They're wrong, and they look ridiculous to reasonable people.

Gotta say you both do. No offence but your both spouting negative, toxic and harmful rhetoric.. and thinking you are each reasonable. None of it comes across as .... reasonable. And yes Im not American .. my perspective is one from the outside looking in. I have no steak in either group. It all looks toxic from my vantage point.

I will happily state, now or at any point in the future, that even though I didn't vote for Trump and never wanted him to be POTUS, I took a principled stand for what's right. And what's right is supporting the duly elected president even though he wasn't my choice.

Rather magnanimous of you Cail .. but tbh being true to what you believe is of significant value. Integrity I believe and truly kudos.

Yet as much as it is an admirable quality, blind adherence to a democratically elected leader isnt always justified, despite their legitimate mandate.

No true comparison but many held to Hitler with that same ethos. Surely you also see your responsibility as a constituent to hold the government accountable.

I'm definitely on the right side of history.

The jurys still out on that one. But its clear you believe you are.

[Skyweir]

From wiki

The ongoing Special Counsel investigation (also referred to as the Mueller Probe)[1] is a United States law enforcement and counterintelligence investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. This investigation includes any possible links or coordination between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government, "and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." In addition, the scope of the investigation reportedly includes potential obstruction of justice by Trump and others.[2] The investigation, since it began in May 17, 2017, has been conducted by the United States Department of Justice Special Counsel's Office, headed by Robert Mueller, a Republican and former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). As part of the investigation, Mueller also took over several other existing FBI investigations, including those of former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.[3]

The investigation has resulted in dozens of indictments for federal crimes, and at least eight guilty pleas, or convictions. In August 2018, Manafort was found guilty on eight felony counts of financial crimes in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia[4] and, a month later, he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruct justice, in a plea bargain for his full cooperation with prosecutors.[5][6] The investigation also led to Flynn pleading guilty to making false statements to the FBI and, as part of a December 2017 plea deal, he is required to be a cooperating witness in the investigations.[7] Mueller further secured guilty pleas from Manafort's business partner, Rick Gates, Dutch attorney Alex van der Zwaan,[8] former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, lobbyist W. Samuel Patten,[9] and Richard Pinedo;[10] all, except Van der Zwaan, have become cooperating witnesses for investigators. In February 2018, Mueller indicted 13 Russian citizens and three Russian entities, most notably the Internet Research Agency and, in June 2018, added an indictment of Konstantin Kilimnik, Manafort's business partner. In July 2018, 12 members of the Russian GRU cyber espionage group known as Fancy Bear, responsible for the 2016 DNC email hacking, were indicted. Investigations into Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, were referred to the US Attorney's office of the Southern District of New York.

While initially enjoying bipartisan support,[15] the special counsel investigation became subject to criticism by Trump and his supporters.[16] Some allegations of investigators' misconduct have been raised and were almost immediately debunked.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] Trump, and his supporters, criticized the cost of the investigation; by December 2018, the investigation had cost approximately $25 million, while gaining approximately $48 million through legal asset seizures.[26][27]

Ok Z .. so wiki aint the source of all truth.

But you claimed the charges that arise from the Mueller Investigation were mainly process charges. The facts themselves challenge that. Note boldest areas above.

You say that Mueller has an agenda at play .. but what would that be? Hes a Republican.

Sure corruption exists but Mueller has an established reputation that I personally find persuasive of his possessing integrity.

Corruption is an issue but one doesnt start from an expectation of corruption .. UNLESS there is evidence sufficiently compelling to suggest corruption.

As an outsider looking in .. Mueller has complied with statutory requirements governing his investigation.

Had he not .. had he even one example of corruption or even of a conflict of interest ... ANY defense lawyer worth his salt would have challenged the veracity of indictments laid.

Its not about CNN or refusing to see .. thats manipulative BS. Its about evidence, what is reasonable .. and you are giving air time to Trump talking points.

I watched the Peter what's his name hearing and it went a little differently to that you suggest. He was credible. He was stupid absolutely.. and even IF it is as you suggest .. it would be impossible to secure successful prosecutions if there were insufficient evidence to support them, let alone the fact that defense counsels involved would have challenged the veracity of charges had that been possible.

Its the facts that suggest you can not even remotely be correct.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

There are no statutory requirements or limitations on Mueller's Investigation--he has carte blanche to look into anything which violates any law committed by anyone even tangentially related to the Trump Campaign. Truthfully, I am surprised that he hasn't gone after large campaign contributors already--after all, the Campaign wouldn't have won if those people had not contributed to it, so they must be involved in collusion and/or conspiracy, as well.

[Skyweir]

Interesting thats contrary to Cail and Zs assertions. But Im more inclined to your interpretation tbh.

[Cail]

Interesting thats contrary to Cail and Zs assertions. But Im more inclined to your interpretation tbh.

Wow, that one went over your head too.

[Skyweir]

oh lol sarcasm was it?

[Hashi Lebwohl]

My views on the Mueller Investigation are precisely why it needed to be ended over a year ago--when everything is a crime then everyone is a criminal.

[Skyweir]

so you are ok with Manafort, Flynn, Cohen et al breaking the law? You ok with Manafortes 20mil dollars bank fraud, tax evasion, and transnational money laundering to the tune of 30mil? You ok with conspiracy against the US? Russians hacking into your electoral system?

Almost every element of each conviction has involved links with Russia, the pre deposed Ukraine. And youre ok with that,

Maybe Trump is an innocent as the day is long .. but those convicted are most certainly not.

At some point America has to wake up and smell the coffee. A refusal to see whats right in front of your faces is astounding to me.... but I suppose its just human nature at the end of the day.

[Cail]

There you go erecting that straw man again. Literally everyone involved in the conversation has answered that. So either you don't understand plain English, you aren't reading people's posts (we know this one's true), or you're just here to be a gadfly.

[Skyweir]

Well thats not how I see it. If you argue for the end of a legitimate investigation .. complain about its existence .. you by implication are saying you dont care about these examples of illegality.

You cant have it both ways ... you object to it simply because it was targeting Russian collusion. Russian involvement has been identified and Russian individuals have been indicted.. whether or not they will ever be trie.

[Cail]

Well thats not how I see it. If you argue for the end of a legitimate investigation .. complain about its existence .. you by implication are saying you dont care about these examples of illegality.

You can keep making up implications in your head, or you can read the actual, explicit, English words that I've typed....

Tax fraud charges, or any other similar non-related charge (non-related to the reason the special council was chartered) should have been handed over to either the IRS or the state's attorney general.

You cant have it both ways ... you object to it simply because it was targeting Russian collusion. Russian involvement has been identified and Russian individuals have been indicted.. whether or not they will ever be trie.

You made all that up. No one has taken that position. You are conflation Russian interference, which no one doubts (other than the impact), and Russian collusion, which has been disproved time and time again.

You are not paying attention - or not aware - of what's going on.

[Ur Dead]

A legitimate investigation ? It's sole purpose was to expose collusion by
Trump with the Russians to shift the 2016 elections. It gone way out of it
scope and gone after associates for lying, tax evasion and shady
business practices. Hoping that that if enough "shit hits the fan" that some
of it hits Trump. It said it had a report finished and refused to release it.
So will it deal with Hillary election deeds? There was a Russian involvement
within it. Nothing has been heard as well as Trumps involvement.
It has shifted from an investigation to an Eric Rohm's Thunder run.
Nobody is at the reigns to control the horses.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

so you are ok with Manafort, Flynn, Cohen et al breaking the law? You ok with Manafortes 20mil dollars bank fraud, tax evasion, and transnational money laundering to the tune of 30mil? You ok with conspiracy against the US? Russians hacking into your electoral system?

The vast majority of the convictions handed down from the Investigation so far are for charges of "lying to investigators", which wouldn't even be a crime if the investigation were not taking place--the investigation is inventing the crimes for which it is charging people! If that doesn't seem odd to you then you and I view "criminal justice" as two very different things.

The Mueller Investigation was never supposed to look into money laundering, fraud, or tax crimes--those are for the FBI, the SEC, and the IRS to investigate.

The actual definition of "conspiracy against the United States", cited at some point earlier in this thread, is so nebulous that "sending money to my relatives in Mexico" could be construed as "conspiracy against the United States" because you are giving financial aid to another country.

To date, there is zero factual evidence that Russia successfully hacked any vote-counting device or machine. They did hack the e-mail servers for the Democratic National Committee, though, but that has nothing to do with Trump or his campaign whatsoever.

[Zarathustra]

I think investigations should happen ONLY after there is evidence that a crime may have been committed, not merely on the hopes that we can find a crime. And just because we do happen to find a crime after the fact doesn't justify the existence of the investigation retroactively.

We could start an investigation of everyone person in the United States, and I'd guarantee with 100% certainty that we'd find at least one guilty person this way (and quite possibly millions more!). That doesn't justify doing so!

If a cop secretly followed you every where you went, Sky, do you think they'd catch you speeding? Does this justify a cop secretly tailing you everywhere?

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I think investigations should happen ONLY after there is evidence that a crime may have been committed, not merely on the hopes that we can find a crime. And just because we do happen to find a crime after the fact doesn't justify the existence of the investigation retroactively.

We could start an investigation of everyone person in the United States, and I'd guarantee with 100% certainty that we'd find at least one guilty person this way (and quite possibly millions more!). That doesn't justify doing so!

If a cop secretly followed you every where you went, Sky, do you think they'd catch you speeding? Does this justify a cop secretly tailing you everywhere?

Given that most police cruisers are outfitted with passive license plate readers these days you, personally, have been under investigation any time a police cruiser casually meandered through a parking lot where your car was parked. As they drove by, the system ran your plates to check for anything. We cover that in the "militarization of the police" thread, of course.

But yes, an investigation is supposed to occur only after evidence surfaces which would justify the investigation. Law enforcement professionals should not be engaged in the task of fishing for crimes.

[Cail]

You're both missing the big picture. This whole charade was nothing more than intelligence-gathering for grounds for impeachment. Even though that will be unsuccessful, it'll paralyze Trump and make it that much harder to get reelected.

There's no depth these sleazeballs won't stoop to.

[Skyweir]

Thats a ludicrous assessment of which there is absolutely no evidence.

Unless of course you have material evidence of that .. noting third party accusations ie hearsay does not constitute evidence.

[Cail]

Thats a ludicrous assessment of which there is absolutely no evidence of.

Well seeing as there's been no evidence of Russian collusion or obstruction, what are we left with? Especially since half the Democrats are explicitly talking about impeachment. But, I'm sure that as an outsider who lives 9,000 miles away and doesn't read any posts here that you have a much better grasp on what's happening than anyone else.

Tosser.

[Skyweir]

Really?

Manafort was convicted of financial crimes in his first criminal trial and then reached a plea deal in the second trial. However, Mr Mueller has since said Mr Manafort breached that plea agreement by lying to the FBI at least five times - including about his interaction with Konstantin Kilimnik, a business associate who Mr Mueller says is tied to Russian intelligence.

Papadopoulos is said to have attempted to set up meetings between Mr Trump and Russian representatives, and in November 2018 he went to prison after pleading guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russians. He was jailed for 12 days.

Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI over meetings he had with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak.

And in late November, the president's former lawyer Michael Cohen admitted lying to Congress about a Trump real estate project in Moscow.
Then, in December, a taste of what he had told Mr Mueller's investigation in return for a less jail time was revealed in a memo advising the court on sentencing.

It included details about Michael Cohen's own contacts with "Russian interests" during the 2016 campaign, including one who said they were "trusted" in the Russian Federation and went on to suggest a meeting between Mr Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Thirteen Russians connected to the Internet Research Agency (IRA), a Russian "troll factory", were charged with spreading fake news stories through US social media. Among them was Yevgeny Prigozhin, an associate of Mr Putin
And 12 Russian intelligence officers were charged with hacking the Democratic National Committee, using spear phishing emails and malicious software

No cause to suspect collusion at all? No connection with Russia and yet

At least 12 Trump associates had contacts with Russians during the campaign or transition, according to an analysis of public records by CNN, with at least 19 face-to-face interactions with Russians or Kremlin-linked figures and at least 51 individual communications.

Trump aides known to have had contact with Russians include the president's son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner, his son Donald Trump Jr, former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, and the Attorney General Jeff Sessions.