First charges filed in special counsel Mueller's Russia probe: report
A federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., has reportedly approved the first charges in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
CNN reported Friday that the charges are sealed under a federal judge’s order, with sources telling the network that those charged could be taken into custody as soon as Monday.
It is unclear what the charges are, according to the network. A spokesman for the special counsel's office declined to comment to The Hill.
Mueller is investigating alleged ties between Trump campaign associates and Russian officials, and several congressional committees are also probing the matter.
The U.S. intelligence community concluded in a report made public in January that the Kremlin sought to disrupt the 2016 election and sway the race in Trump's favor.
The White House did not immediately respond to The Hill's request for comment Friday night about reports of charges being filed in the special counsel probe.
But soon after CNN reported the charges, Trump posted a video on Twitter quoting an opinion piece in the New York Post suggesting that his former Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton may have colluded with Russia and sought to frame Trump as a "traitor."
The Trump administration has appeared eager in recent days to shift attention to congressional probes regarding Clinton , after months of news coverage focused on possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow.
After The Washington Post reported this week that the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee funded the research contained in a controversial dossier alleging ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, Trump and his allies have sought to cast Clinton as the one with connections to Moscow.
"It is now commonly agreed, after many months of COSTLY looking, that there was NO collusion between Russia and Trump. Was collusion with HC!" Trump asserted in a tweet Friday morning.
After reports emerged Friday night about charges in the special counsel's Russia probe, Fox News host Sean Hannity, one of Trump's most vocal supporters, called the development a "distraction" on Twitter and questioned when Clinton would face charges.
Mueller's investigative mandate includes any matters that may arise from the probe into Russian interference, and he has appeared in recent months to expand the scope of the probe to include possible financial crimes.
The special counsel has appeared to take increasingly aggressive steps in recent months as part of the investigation, most notably against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.
In July, the FBI conducted an early morning raid at Manafort's northern Virginia home, and later subpoenaed his spokesman and one of his former lawyers.
According to CNN, lawyers working on Mueller's probe were seen entering the courthouse where the grand jury is convened. But after some activity, no announcements were made.
Mueller was appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in May to oversee the investigation
Because Rosenstein oversees the special counsel conducting the probe, he would have been notified of any charges before they were filed, sources told CNN.
The Justice Department declined to comment to The Hill.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/357604-first-charges-filed-in-special-counsel-muellers-russia-probe-report
Tags
Who is online
120 visitors
After The Washington Post reported this week that the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee funded the research contained in a controversial dossier alleging ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, Trump and his allies have sought to cast Clinton as the one with connections to Moscow.
"It is now commonly agreed, after many months of COSTLY looking, that there was NO collusion between Russia and Trump. Was collusion with HC!" Trump asserted in a tweet Friday morning.
Oh, then that settles it.
We will soon find out, won't we?
Scott Dworkin Verified account @ funder 1h 1 hour ago
Multiple sources say Trump “completely lost his mind” after he found out Mueller’s filed charges & now he’s “having an epic meltdown” # AMJoy
Oh, those unnamed sources again
Well, John...there seems to be a lot of evidence that points to crook Hillary and all her co-conspirators at the DNC and WH. Time for a thorough investigation of all of them. That should carry on well into next year....an election year
Maybe they've got something on Manafort or Flynn, but nothing on Trump and family...since in the latter case it would have been leaked by now....liberals are lousy when it comes to keeping secrets.
I'm for investigating everyone in Washington!!!
You mean the President himself tweeted that Vicster? Wow, must be true then. Can we put Obama and Hillary in jail now?
He may be right - time will tell
Works for me!
Me too!!!
Hey Vic, I have an idea, let's see who was charged on Monday.
How much would you like to bet it's not Trump?
They wouldnt do the big fish first.
You mean Paul Manafort & Tony Podesta lead to a big fish?
I can promise you it's not trump, they start with the little guys first, then work their way up. Could be flynn or manafort.
Almost as many months of COSTLY looking (sic) as there were years of costly looking at Hillary.
Over a year and a half of this Trump collusion story. No evidence mind you, maybe just the Steele Dossier, paid for by the Clinton Campaign.
Actually it's a year and 3 months since this story broke. The Republicans have been investigating the Clintons since the early 90s.
Don't forget that the FBI was already investigating it months before the story broke.
That I know and that brings us back to what was the pretext for the investigation? Could it be the Steele Dossier? A politicized FBI?
If you would get out of the right wing echo chamber for a while you would know why the FBI began the investigation. The CIA requested the investigation because they'd intercepted communication between US citizens and Russian agents. CIA cannot investigate American citizens, so they contacted the FBI.
CIA director alerted FBI to pattern of contacts between Russian officials and Trump campaign associates
The FISA warrant the FBI obtained to monitor Trump associates was obtained based on what?
Did the FBI also try to pay for opposition research?
The fact is we need to know what the FBI did with the Steele dossier, which was opposition research (by definition biased research).
We also need to know what the CIA did with it?
OR maybe you don't want to go there.
Are you seriously that unwilling to look for yourself, or is that the answer to your question does not fit you biased narrative? Or is Russia blocking your access to non-biased news sources?
Did the FBI also try to pay for opposition research?
What are you talking about? The Steele report has nothing to do with it other than working like any other tip, just gives them something else to look into. The report is just a distraction for the GOP, it does not pertain to the FBI investigation.
The fact is we need to know what the FBI did with the Steele dossier, which was opposition research (by definition biased research).
See? Distraction.
We also need to know what the CIA did with it?
Why? To try another distraction away from their actual investigation?
OR maybe you don't want to go there.
The only thing "going there" does is distract from reality.
What's next, you going to throw some uranium fake news in here? How about rehashing Hillary's email or more Benghazi???
Distract, distract, distract.....you're a one trick pony.
The trick pony was spoon feeding the American people a story for over a year about TRUMP COLLUSION - under the umbrella of Russian interference.
Tomorrow is Monday. Let us see if there is an indictment based on one individuals actions, unrelated to Donald Trump. Mueller will feel he performed his duty & justified his end of the investigation. As Sen Diane Feinstein (another who dosen't want to look to deep) has told us over and over, from time to time - "I still haven't seen any evidence of collusion". The only question left will be what drove this story, with no evidence, for so long?
A corrupt FBI, NSA, CIA, DOJ, DOS and President.
So you are upset that the FBI hasn't disclosed to you, personally, all of the evidence they have for an on-going investigation? LOL
As we all know, a grand jury - even a federal grand jury - can indict a ham sandwich. An indictment is only a finding of probable cause. It's not proof of anything.
Nevertheless, when each new indictment is announced or people arrested, it will be reported in the media and discussed by pundits and politicians as proof positive of wrongdoing and criminal activity. If we make it to Tuesday without a new call for impeachment, it will be a miracle. Let the lynchings commence.
Except for one small difference, "probable cause", while it does not prove anything, "probable cause" says that there is a good probability of it.
Actually, in terms of law, probable cause usually means a possibility or suspicion not a full blown actual crime. It's very much like the OJ Simpson civil liability trial: There was a possibility that OJ killed Nicole; but not enough proof to say with certainty that he did so.
Semantics on what I wrote.
Doesn't matter, probable cause allowed the Federal Grand Jury to agree with and act upon, based on Mueller's evidence.
Probable Cause also allowed a judge to sign off on the search warrant for Manafort earlier this year.
Nope. Don't try to make more out of it than there is. It's just probable, not a good probability. "Good probability" implies "more likely than not," which is a "preponderance of the evidence." They are different standards. PC has never been intended to imply 50%+ probability.
So you are down to arguing semantics? Also you are arguing legal definitions based on personal beliefs???
probable cause
n. sufficient reason based upon known facts to believe a crime has been committed or that certain property is connected with a crime. Probable cause must exist for a law enforcement officer to make an arrest without a warrant, search without a warrant, or seize property in the belief the items were evidence of a crime. While some cases are easy (pistols and illicit drugs in plain sight, gunshots, a suspect running from a liquor store with a clerk screaming "help"), actions "typical" of drug dealers, burglars, prostitutes, thieves, or people with guilt "written across their faces," are more difficult to categorize. "Probable cause" is often subjective, but if the police officer's belief or even hunch was correct, finding stolen goods, the hidden weapon or drugs may be claimed as self-fulfilling proof of probable cause. Technically, probable cause has to exist prior to arrest, search or seizure.
Yes. If a prosecutor tried to claim in court that "probable cause" meant there was a "good possibility" that the defendant was guilty, any defense attorney in the country would object and the court would sustain that objection.
Comment removed for skirting the CoC [ph]
The defendant wouldn't be in court if there hadn't been "probable cause" to arrest him.
Riigghhtt. Cops and DAs never make mistakes, right?
Anyway, that has nothing to do with what I said.
And what you said had absolutely nothing to do with this conversation.
So far we haven't made it through a single day.
Q: How do you keep everyone in suspense for three days?
A: Put out a sealed indictment on Friday night.