US Politics The Mueller Investigation - report is out

[JGrimez]

twisted-up!

I do read the stuff you post btw. Can't say I agree with all of it.

 

[cduggles]

The court documents? The mandate for the Mueller investigation? Why FISA warrant approval is so high? The process of getting a FISA warrant?

No judge is signing off on the issuance or renewal of a warrant to surveil a former member of a presidential campaign without scouring it. Not happening.

Yeah.

Here's the one-page letter appointing Robert Mueller as Special Investigator. Note the language about "collusion". 8)

Official letter of Appointment of Robert Mueller as Special Counsel

And this investigation is about more than Trump. But...

If Donald Trump Is a Crook, What Kind Is He?

This piece is a feature by Lawfare in Foreign Policy. It's about the legal and colloquial definitions of "collusion", etc.

It's from July, 2017, so the news is outdated but the law is applicable.

In order to understand the answer, it?s necessary to break down the term ?collusion? a bit. First, we can dispense with collusion as a strict legal term. Jarrett is actually correct that, from a statutory standpoint, collusion is a legal term of art only in the realm of antitrust. No one is accusing Trump and Putin of price fixing.

In the general public conversation, however, the term collusion is being used in a broader colloquial sense to mean forms of secret cooperation between the Trump camp and Russia. Collusion has become the favored term, thus far, more because of this colloquial appropriateness than because it gives any guidance about what is and is not lawful conduct. Especially as more concrete allegations emerge, using the term collusion denotes some general form of secret, or otherwise improper, cooperation. When used in that sense, the term conveys a mood of impropriety and illegality but might cover both legal and illegal conduct.

It may seem absurd that it could be possible to collaborate with a foreign intelligence service in its efforts to interfere with a U.S. election by coaxing the release of stolen emails without violating any law. But it?s not that absurd. There are plenty of activities that might be highly inappropriate and politically consequential but do not violate any criminal law. After all, if the actor seeking the information were the New York Times, not a shadowy group of Republican political operatives, we?d call it journalism.

At the same time, it?s also easy to imagine activities that fall within the colloquial meaning of collusion that would actually be criminal. So it?s worth considering whether there?s a more precise legal taxonomy, other than ?collusion,? to discuss the situation at hand.

Former FBI Director James Comey, in his congressional testimony announcing the investigation, used a different word: ?coordination.? This word is more precise in some respects, but it also does not necessarily convey illegality. There is, after all, no crime of ?coordination? either. Coordination, of course, does not even need to be secret. And neither, most particularly, does ?cooperation.? Indeed, the public evidence of at least tacit cooperation between the Trump campaign and the Russians is overwhelming and requires no investigation to prove...

So if collusion is not, in and of itself, a crime, and cooperation and even secret coordination are not either ? at least not without more evidence ? what are the possible crimes here?

One possibility, of course, is that the Fox pundits are right and there were no crimes ? that the underlying investigation really is predominantly a counterintelligence matter and nothing more. The possibility that Americans cooperated with Russian intelligence in a covert action against their own country and ended up at the highest echelons of government is, to be sure, a matter of grave counterintelligence and national security concern even if their ?collusion? or ?coordination? or ?cooperation? actually violated no criminal law. So the investigation could primarily be noncriminal in character.

But there are also areas of criminal law that any responsible prosecutor would want to examine as evidence of collusion or coordination begins to emerge ? and examine with specific and granular reference to facts that are not yet known to the public or maybe even to the investigators themselves.

For example, the law of conspiracy covers agreements to engage in future crimes; an agreement to commit a crime, combined with some overt step toward committing it, is itself a crime. Then there is solicitation, which is the attempt to induce another to commit a crime. And there is clearly underlying criminal activity in the instances of Trump-Russia cooperation we already know about: Violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act certainly took place when the DNC computers were hacked, and laws were certainly broken when large volumes of emails were stolen, too. Helping thieves dispose of stolen property is generally criminal, as is ? generally speaking ? knowing receipt of stolen property, though journalism again offers something of an exception to this rule when the property in question is forms of information.

There are other areas of law, too. Normally, we evaluate efforts to coordinate with or assist foreign intelligence services under the rubric of espionage ? though that typically involves giving information to the foreign power, not helping the foreign power distribute it to others. While there?s no indication that happened here, investigators are always interested in both information flows and money flows when foreign intelligence services have relationships with Americans in positions of power. Moreover, many such relationships with foreign governments, to avoid criminal liability, require disclosures under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which the Trump campaign team seems not to have contemporaneously filed. And, of course, anyone who tries to hide collusion or coordination by lying about it to investigators commits a crime in doing so.

At the moment, there simply aren?t enough facts to make any kind of judgment regarding anyone?s criminal conduct. So for the time being, we suspect that special counsel Robert Mueller?s team is more interested in assembling facts than in reaching any conclusions regarding what sort of collusion or coordination would be actionable under what sort of law.

The key point, for present purposes, is that collusion, in and of itself and to the extent it took place, is a political problem, not a legal one. The president will not have to answer for collusion as such in any court. His legal problem, rather, will arise ? if it ever arises ? only once we know the manner of any collusion and how that activity maps onto the criminal code. Either way, Trump may have to answer to the country if the evidence shows he was willing to do business with an adversary foreign intelligence service to release dirt on a domestic political opponent. Disloyalty of that sort may well be a crime in the eyes of the president?s fellow citizens, if not under the letter of the law.

And an opinion piece:

Can we please stop talking about collusion?

I'm awaiting your thoughts.

 

[JGrimez]

OK so the story they're sticking with still is that Russians hacked the DNC's email on orders from Trump?

"Violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act certainly took place when the DNC computers were hacked, and laws were certainly broken when large volumes of emails were stolen, too."

Big problem here. The DNC never turned over their 'hacked' servers to the FBI when they requested to see them, multiple times.
No law enforcement or intelligence agency has analyzed their servers. No evidence has been shown proving Russians hacked the DNC.
Also suspicious that a DNC IT staffer was murdered between the time the emails were stolen, and when Wikileaks published them. Julian Assange basically stated that Seth Rich was the source of the DNC's emails, and Wikileaks put up a large reward for information to catch his killer(s).

That text was too vague. Is there a specific crime we can accuse Trump of? Or even his campaign staff, that includes conspiracy with the Russian government or altering votes?
So far they got Manafort for laundering money with the Democrat Podestas years that had nothing to do with Trump.

Keep in mind that the NSA collects literally every piece of communication. If they don't have the evidence then where is it?
If 3 investigators have stated that Trump is not a subject, then what are they going for?
If Seth Rich leaked the DNC's emails, does that change things?
Would it change things if the dossier is uncorroborated and misleading?

 

[JGrimez]

Kallstrom Calls FBI a Criminal "Fifth Column" Running Illegal "Conspiracy" to Topple President Trump
https://truepundit.com/bombshell-vi...illegal-conspiracy-to-topple-president-trump/

Former FBI Assistant Director James Kallstrom took the gloves off on Thursday, accusing the FBI of taking part in an organized conspiracy to topple President Trump's presidency.

Kallstrom is a respected FBI alumnus. When he speaks many other FBI officials and former officials listen. As do lawmakers. He shapes opinions.

Kallstrom called the leadership of the FBI a disgrace. He alluded Special Counsel Robert Mueller was a would-be thug fabricating concocted evidence. The FBI was part of a fifth column running a clear conspiracy to topple Trump, he said.

Kallstrom's comments should raise a number of eyebrows in Congress too.

Even FOX News host Tucker Carlson was taken aback by Kallstrom's hammering of his former employer.

[video]https://youtu.be/QdwZpisBgNE[/video]
JAMES KALLSTROM FULL ONE-ON-ONE INTERVIEW WITH TUCKER CARLSON (5/3/2018)

 

[Roger&Me]

Wrong. Collusion is not a crime.

"Collusion" is a political term, it doesn't have any legal significance. But it could potentially encompass many different crimes, depending on what Trump actually did and what he knew when he did it.

It seems to have run its course.

The Mueller investigation is still in its infancy and it will continue for years. Trump's finances alone will take years to dissect. And if you think there's a significant likelihood that Trump hasn't committed any crimes, then you're either letting your political views cloud your thinking or you don't actually know much about him. I say this without any doubt or hesitation whatsoever: I would be astounded if there's nothing there to find.

Some people really like Trump and don't want to see him get in trouble, and that's fine. But Trump's been doing shady shit for decades and a skilled prosecutor probably could nail him for lots of stuff. I'd bet the house on that. I think deep down most of Trump's supporters want the investigation to end because they're scared of what it will reveal.

 

[JGrimez]

"Collusion" is a political term, it doesn't have any legal significance. But it could potentially encompass many different crimes, depending on what Trump actually did and what he knew when he did it.

What are the crimes? Any proof?

The Mueller investigation is still in its infancy and it will continue for years.

Considering it has found nothing of substance and Trump isn't even considered a subject, I hope it does not.

And if you think there's a significant likelihood that Trump hasn't committed any crimes, then you're either letting your political views cloud your thinking or you don't actually know much about him. I say this without any doubt or hesitation whatsoever: I would be astounded if there's nothing there to find.

I never really liked Trump and I looked into him quite thoroughly during the campaign. The worst I could find was the debacle around Trump U.
Trump knows better than anyone whether he has done anything illegal. And he also for sure knew that his opponents would meticulously dig into his affairs and find out if that was the case. So then why would he run for president unless he was confident he was clean?
The NSA monitors and records all communication so if he had committed any serious offences they'd have evidence and would have removed him by now. The FBI even said that they found no wrongdoing with regards to General Flynn, and that was heralded as a win for this investigation.

If Trump is guilty of serious crimes, charge him. Just make it even across the board. Career politicians are not exempt from following the law either.

 

[JGrimez]

Majority of Americans Believe Mueller's Russia Investigation is Politically Motivated
http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...ity-thinks-russia-probe-motivated-by-politics

A majority of Americans say special counsel Robert Mueller?s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election is politically motivated, according to a new CBS News poll.

The poll, which comes nearly a year after Mueller?s investigation began, found that 53 percent of people think there are political motives to the investigation, while 44 percent think the investigation is justified.

and that's CBS..

'UNMASKING ROBERT MUELLER' GOP Lawmaker Releases 48 Page Report Exposing Mueller?s Dirty Past
http://thegatewaypundit.com/2018/05...-48-page-report-exposing-muellers-dirty-past/

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) recently published a 48-page report called ?Robert Mueller Unmasked? to expose the Special Counsel?s decades of corruption.

Rep. Gohmert lays out the case for Mueller?s firing by exposing his corrupt past of targeting innocent people.

 

[Roger&Me]

What are the crimes? Any proof?

That's why there's an investigation. You see, the point of conducting an investigation is to gather evidence in a legally permissible way, or to determine there's no evidence there to find.

Considering it has found nothing of substance and Trump isn't even considered a subject

Trump is a subject of the investigation, but he's not a target. Generally, there are three designations in a federal investigation: witness, subject, or target. A subject is somebody who appears to have engaged in criminal behavior but it can't yet be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, so the prosecutor has decided to investigate the person further. A target is somebody who the prosecutor could charge immediately because there is overwhelming evidence proving all the elements of the crime.

And he also for sure knew that his opponents would meticulously dig into his affairs and find out if that was the case. So then why would he run for president unless he was confident he was clean?

Think back to 2016. He didn't expect to win at the time, and nobody else really expected it either. Even most of his supporters basically assumed Hillary was the "anointed one," so to speak. The entire Trump campaign was intended to generate publicity that he could use to make money, and it almost worked for him.

The NSA monitors and records all communication so if he had committed any serious offences they'd have evidence and would have removed him by now.

That evidence wouldn't be admissible in court because the 4th Amendment requires evidence to be gathered pursuant to a warrant issued by a judge and supported by a particularized showing of probable cause with respect to the place being searched and the persons or things which are intended to be seized. Any evidence that NSA may possess could not be used in a criminal prosecution in an American court, and would be thrown out under the so-called "exclusionary rule." And contrary to popular belief, NSA generally is not allowed to gather intelligence pertaining to United States citizens, that activity falls far outside of the agency's charter. In the few instances where the agency is permitted by law to gather intelligence about Americans, it must anonymize their identities. But that intelligence still could never be presented as evidence in a criminal trial.

Those procedural safeguards are a good thing because they protect us from overzealous investigators and prosecutors, but they're also a huge reason this investigation will take a very long time. Mueller has a very limited palette to paint with here, and the law requires him basically to start from scratch. Again, that's a good thing. And so far, there's no indication that Mueller has acted outside of the law in any way.

As long as he continues to follow the law (which I suspect he will, he has a reputation as a scrupulous and ethical prosecutor), I'm totally fine with the investigation continuing.

 

[JessFR]

I remember when all the trump supporters were saying trump wasn't gonna win in the first place because it was all rigged. It's all a bunch of bullshit. They just retroactively change what they believe if it turns out wrong and the rest is unfalsifiable from the start.

 

[JGrimez]

That's why there's an investigation. You see, the point of conducting an investigation is to gather evidence in a legally permissible way, or to determine there's no evidence there to find.

Could you explain to me the different reasons why an investigation would begin in the first place?
Does there have to be a crime or an accusation of a crime? If so what crime is being accused here?

Think back to 2016. He didn't expect to win at the time, and nobody else really expected it either. Even most of his supporters basically assumed Hillary was the "anointed one," so to speak.

Yes he did. He doesn't play to lose. His supporters knew he could win if it was a level playing field, but many suspected the Clinton campaign would rig the general election as they were proven to have rigged the primaries. Trump no doubt has insiders helping him and he was able to win even in the face of legitimate claims of electoral fraud which DHS is currently investigating.

That evidence wouldn't be admissible in court because the 4th Amendment requires evidence to be gathered pursuant to a warrant issued by a judge and supported by a particularized showing of probable cause with respect to the place being searched and the persons or things which are intended to be seized.

My point is that they know everything already. And if they haven't been able to gather enough evidence by now then I doubt their competence.

Also, what would be the result of finding out the FBI obtained a FISA warrant with knowingly false evidence obtained through campaign payments to foreign spies, and then use that as justification to surveil a presidential candidate?

he has a reputation as a scrupulous and ethical prosecutor

The link I just posted disputes this claim.

 

[Xorkoth]

What are the crimes? Any proof?

...

If Trump is guilty of serious crimes, charge him. Just make it even across the board. Career politicians are not exempt from following the law either.

For the last time, investigations like this take a long time, you have to build a case that is ironclad before you press go. This is just how it works in complex cases. It frequently takes years to take down powerful people or an organization. Just because they haven't pressed the trigger yet does not mean they will not, or that they haven't found anything. I mean read about some other high-profile cases. This is about as high-profile as it gets, and about extremely powerful people and basically our main foreign power enemy for the last 6+ decades. You really expect to wrap up this quickly? Your expectations are unrealistic.

I remember when all the trump supporters were saying trump wasn't gonna win in the first place because it was all rigged. It's all a bunch of bullshit. They just retroactively change what they believe if it turns out wrong and the rest is unfalsifiable from the start.

I think it's because when people with the ability to self-reflect and who have good intentions like our friend Grimez find out they've been so thoroughly hoodwinked and manipulated, it's quite difficult to handle. And for some others, it's a sense of tribalism so deeply ingrained it's impossible to shake. The same as what happens when there is a very powerful sense of nationalism. You choose to see your country/group as right and good, no matter what, even when they're committing atrocities, because it's the only acceptable option to you, and to your family and friends, and it's the only way you've ever thought about it.

 

[JGrimez]

This is about as high-profile as it gets, and about extremely powerful people and basically our main foreign power enemy for the last 6+ decades. You really expect to wrap up this quickly? Your expectations are unrealistic.

I've shown a few times why everything you said is nonsense.
We've got other people selling uranium to our supposed main foreign power enemy, and even paying foreign spies to pay Russian government officials for fabricated political attacks.
Not to mention Hillary's email server undoubtedly hacked by Russians who obtained classified information.

But all that stuff doesn't matter even though they are serious crimes, and you're focusing on the Mueller investigation where you cannot even tell me what the fucking crime Trump is being accused of.
It's blatant and hypocritical and if you're banking on Mueller removing Trump then you will be very disappointed.

I think it's because when people with the ability to self-reflect and who have good intentions like our friend Grimez find out they've been so thoroughly hoodwinked and manipulated, it's quite difficult to handle. And for some others, it's a sense of tribalism so deeply ingrained it's impossible to shake. The same as what happens when there is a very powerful sense of nationalism. You choose to see your country/group as right and good, no matter what, even when they're committing atrocities, because it's the only acceptable option to you, and to your family and friends, and it's the only way you've ever thought about it.

You're projecting and you make a lot of assumptions. JessFR I explained what many people think happened during the election. It's very strange that you would treat the topic of electoral fraud like some crazy conspiracy theory, when we have evidence that the Clinton campaign rigged the primaries. That was an outlandish conspiracy theory believed by dummies too, until Wikileaks proved that it actually happened.

 

[Xorkoth]

What the investigation is about is not Trump, Trump is just part of it. It's about whether or not there was an attempt by Russia to tamper with the election (which they clearly did at this point), and whether there was cooperation or coordination with them from the campaign. Shouldn't that be investigated? What if when it's done, he surprises everyone and arrests Hillary for Russian interference/etc? Wouldn't you be glad they did the investigation then?

Donald Trump getting arrested is not my endgame in watching this whole situation go down... finding out the truth and punishing those responsible is my endgame. Like I said to you another time, if Trump ends up being the good guy you believe he is, and he actually drains the swamp, I'll be overjoyed because there are people in power now who are trying to fuck it all up for everyone but themselves. It's just awfully uncertain which people are doing that, when the only information you have access to is secondhand (or thirdhand, or fourthhand...), and we live in an age of deliberate information confusion. However, some people have access to a lot more information than we do, such as the head of the FBI, which is why we should let them investigate this situation.

 

[pharmakos]

i, personally, am going to reserve judgment until after the investigation is over. just like everyone is supposed to do before a person is charged, tried, and sentenced. it's not my job to figure out what Trump is up to, all i have is media sources to tell me what's going on -- how the hell am i going to figure it out from my couch here in michigan? not a single one of us has enough information to make a confident judgment.

 

[JGrimez]

What the investigation is about is not Trump, Trump is just part of it. It's about whether or not there was an attempt by Russia to tamper with the election (which they clearly did at this point), and whether there was cooperation or coordination with them from the campaign. Shouldn't that be investigated? What if when it's done, he surprises everyone and arrests Hillary for Russian interference/etc? Wouldn't you be glad they did the investigation then?

Russians tampering was an excuse so that they didn't have to admit Trump is the legitimate president.
Why did Russian interference only become a big issue after the Dems lost? We know that Obama knew about this beforehand, but they obviously thought Russian interference was not a significant issue, which it isn't. The irony here is that the Americans are by far the worst for interfering in other country's elections. But let's look at what Mueller has found so far - there was a Russian troll farm that posted some memes which included pro/anti Hillary/Trump/Bernie. They even organized an anti-Trump rally which Michael Moore attended. They also had a kitty appreciation group. Facebook ads..... I believe there was also some Pokemon characters which were political in some way?

If looking at a meme changes your vote last-minute then you are exceptionally stupid. It is actually laughable to think that Russians significantly altered the results of the US general election. Even suggesting it is embarrassing for the US but it's the only narrative the losers could use. So where did the Trump campaign collude with Russians? There's still no proof the DNC hack was Russians. Assange says it wasn't the Russian govt that gave him the emails.

Before the election Obama and Hillary laughed at Trump when he hinted at issues with electoral integrity. Obama said the electoral process was watertight. They also both said that anyone who doesn't accept the results of the election is a danger to democracy. I'd say a coup concocted by the Obama admin, Clinton camp, FBI & DOJ to remove a president is a pretty big danger to democracy.

It's just awfully uncertain which people are doing that, when the only information you have access to is secondhand (or thirdhand, or fourthhand...), and we live in an age of deliberate information confusion. However, some people have access to a lot more information than we do, such as the head of the FBI, which is why we should let them investigate this situation.

Let the FBI investigate? How good of a job did they do with the Clinton classified server investigation? Found so much evidence and held no-one accountable = obviously corrupt.
Have you even seen the leadership of the FBI recently?

Jim Rybicki, chief of staff and senior counselor - FIRED.
James Baker, general counsel - FIRED (reported resigned)
Andrew McCabe, deputy director - FIRED.
James Comey, director - FIRED.
Bill Priestap, Head of Counterintelligence and Strzok?s boss - Cooperating witness
Peter Strzok, Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence - cooperating witness
Lisa Page - FIRED (reported resigned)
Mike Kortan, FBI Assistant Director for Public Affairs - FIRED (reported resigned)
Josh Campbell, Special Assistant to James Comey - FIRED

 

[cduggles]

^ this is the "shall not be infringed" of this thread. :D

 

[alasdairm]

FIRED by president trump

for political reasons.

* 6

ftfy

alasdair

 

[Xorkoth]

I had a big reply but it got lost. Fuck it, maybe it's a sign.

 

[JessFR]

You probably already know this but sometimes you can recover lost posts in progress with the autosave button that if available shows at the bottom left of the reply composer. Most likely won't work this time but I've made good use of it a few times. Was probably a member of bluelight a couple years before I discovered that feature.

 

[Xorkoth]

I do know it but my power flickered out for a bit and my Internet went totally out and everything was gone. I usually build long posts in a separate text editor but I got lazy. In any case I guess the gist of it was the same thing I already posted. Pretty sure none of us have met these people or been present for the stuff that went down, so when we cite sources from somewhere else, the people that don't already believe what you're saying don't believe your sources. Makes debate pretty difficult, which sucks.