Grading the Mueller Investigation thus far

Grading the Mueller Investigation thus far
By:   vic-eldred
Created:   4 months ago
Comments:   80

Tags

page1-220px-Appointment_of_Special_Couns
The call for a special prosecutor came on the heels of the firing of the discredited FBI Director James Comey with the proper recusal of AG Jeff Sessions and as the recently installed Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein was under "deep state" pressure to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate "Russian interference" in the election of 2016. Thus, Rosenstein, in May of 2017, selected former FBI Director Robert Mueller to be Special Counsel. Mueller inherited an already ongoing FBI investigation and a mandate which allowed for the investigation of the aforementioned issue AND "anything that arose from it".

Mueller's Mandate
Let me pause to grade Rosentein on that mandate. He gets an F for being way to broad.

Mueller's Powers

On August 3, 2017, Mueller empanelled a Grand Jury in Washington DC as part of his investigation. The grand jury has the power to subpoena documents, require witnesses to testify under oath, and issue indictments for targets of criminal charges if any actual probable cause is found.

The Washington grand jury is separate from an earlier Virginia grand jury investigating Michael Flynn; the Flynn case has been absorbed into Mueller's overall investigation.

I give Mueller an A for being well armed

The Investigative team
Zainab Ahmed:- Specialist on terrorism
Greg Andres: former deputy assistant attorney general, managed foreign bribery division
Rush Atkinson: trial attorney in the DOJ fraud section
Peter Carr
Ryan K. Dickey: a veteran cyber prosecutor from the Justice Department’s computer crime and intellectual-property section
Brock W. Domin: FBI Special Agent
Michael Dreeben:  oversees the Justice Department's criminal appellate docket; an expert in criminal law
Kyle Freeny: attorney for the money laundering unit at the Department of Justice
Andrew Goldstein: former leader of the public corruption unit, US Attorney
Adam Jed: Attorney in the DOJ Civil Division, appellate section
Lisa C. Page: DOJ trial attorney in the FBI's Criminal Division Organized Crime Section; formerly an attorney in the office of the FBI general counsel - had to be removed September 2017
Elizabeth Barchas Prelogar
James L Quarles III
Jeannie S. Rhee: Partner at WilmerHale, specializing in white-collar crime  -  she defended Hillary Clinton’s foundation in a civil racketeering case and donated $5,400 to Clinton’s campaign. 
Brian M. Richardson
Brandon Van Grack: DOJ National Security Division Prosecutor
Andrew Weissmann: Chief of the DOJ's Criminal Division's Fraud Section  -  a notorious lawyer known for unscrupulous methods. He has a reputation for weaponizing the law in a ruthless and often unprincipled quest to convict. He has been accused of hiding evidence and threatening witnesses. Innocent people have been victimized by him. His biggest cases were reversed by higher courts. - He has contributed to both the DNC and the Obama campaign.
Aaron Zebley: former chief of staff to Mueller at the FBI  -   He represented Justin Cooper, who worked for Hillary Clinton and set up her private email server, registering the domain in his own name. Cooper did not have security clearance for any of the classified documents on Clinton’s server.
Aaron S. J. Zelinsky

Mueller's team selection gets an F - the team includes 8 lawyers who are Democratic donors with 5 who donated to the Clinton campaign and 2 who had to be removed for blatant bias.

Charges thus far
Charges have been brought against 19 individuals (14 Russian, safely home in Russia) and 3 organizations.

Mueller gets a B - he did manage to identify the Russian agents involved in trying to interfere in a US election, however he snared American individuals for crimes unrelated to Russian interference and he completely failed to investigate already proven collusion by the Clinton campaign, FISA abuse by the FBI & DOJ and the illegal leaks coming from both of those agencies.

Overall the ongoing investigation gets a D - for loss of credibility and the impression many legal experts have that Mueller is pressuring witnesses for information that he obviously doesn't have. There has never been any evidence of collusion by the Trump campaign, the Russians who meddled have been identified & charged therefore, it would be unfair and a miscarriage of justice to drag out this investigation until the fall elections.

One final note; Robert Mueller was passed over for the job of FBI Director by President Trump. It is debatable whether he should have taken the job of Special Counsel in the first place.

This discussion is locked

smarty_function_ntUser_profile_id: user_id parameter required
Vic Eldred
1  Vic Eldred    4 months ago

"After being dismissed by President Trump, Comey leaked government memos to influence the investigation. Comey may have violated the law, but he accomplished his goal of getting his mentor Mueller appointed special counsel by Rosenstein.

 
 
lib50
2  lib50    4 months ago

Lol,  is somebody butthurt?

Mueller is making sure even if Trump tries to pardon somebody the states will be right behind Mueller with charges he can't pardon.  I don't know how much you gain by denying what is going on with the investigation.  I mean, remember how Ken Starr brought it all to a stained dress?  You can't stop this once it gets going, and you can thank yourselves. 

 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  lib50 @2    4 months ago
Mueller is making sure even if Trump tries to pardon somebody the states will be right behind Mueller with charges he can't pardon.

Give us an example of an offense which a President cannot pardon?

Your other statement seems to confirm that even you don't think there was collusion, but you want something to remove this President. Don't worry, we learned one thing from the dems via Bill Clinton- it takes two thirds of the Senate to convict on impeachment and you'll never get it!

 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.1.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    4 months ago
an offense which a President cannot pardon?

is a defense of what

again ?

 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.1.1    4 months ago

You need to read post #2

 
 
lib50
2.1.3  lib50  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    4 months ago
Give us an example of an offense which a President cannot pardon?

He can only pardon FEDERAL crimes.  The states are providing the backup crimes he can't pardon.

 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.1.4  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    4 months ago

So you admit Trump needs to pardon, yet consistently defend the whole GOP green gang of gang green...

why ?

 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  lib50 @2.1.3    4 months ago

Thus far the four individuals who had some contact with the Trump campaign, however brief, have been charged exclusively with federal crimes:

George Papadopolous - Making false statements to the FBI

Mike Flynn - Making false statements to the FBI

Rick Gates - Making false statements to the FBI, conspiracy against the US, filing false tax returns, failure to report foreign bank accounts, bank fraud conspiracy & bank fraud

Paul Manafort - Conspiracy against the US, money laundering, unregistered agent of a foreign principal, false & misleading statements, assisting in the preparation of false tax returns, suscribing to false tax returns, filing a false amended tax return, failure to report foreign bank accounts, bank fraud conspiracy & bank fraud.

None of the above relate to Trump campaign collusion and all of the above pertain to federal offenses. Correct?

 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.1.4    4 months ago
So you admit Trump needs to pardon,

Where did I say he has the need to pardon?

I only said he has that right

If I was Trump, however, as I've said before, I would pardon Manafort and Flynn the day after the Mueller investigation ends. Of course he cant do it if he is under impeachment, which some still dream of. I would also remove Rod Rosenstein on that day and replace him with Sarah Isgur Flores.   

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.1.7  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    4 months ago
Give us an example of an offense which a President cannot pardon?

He has no pardon power for state convictions.  So he cannot pardon anyone convicted in state courts.

 
 
sixpick
2.1.8  sixpick  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @2.1.7    4 months ago

Although that is what they say, we can see how many feet have trampled on the Constitution since its inception.  How did Bill Clinton either pardon or give commutation to  Roger Clinton?

 
 
Greg Jones
2.2  Greg Jones  replied to  lib50 @2    4 months ago
You can't stop this once it gets going, and you can thank yourselves

It's had over a year to get going and all they have done is some indictments that have nothing to do with collusion or obstructing justice. Oh, and then there are those dozen or so Russians who will never get prosecuted. Because of the actions of some of his investigators, these proceedings have the odor of taint all over them. The best I can give for all this wasted time and money is a D-.

 
 
pat wilson
2.2.1  pat wilson  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2    4 months ago

Mueller's investigation began mid May 2017, not quit a year yet. Don't forget the Watergate investigation took two years. 

Talking about grading this investigation is a bit premature (and immature).

 
 
Sean Treacy
2.2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  pat wilson @2.2.1    4 months ago

Don't forget the Watergate investigation took two years.

The main conspirators (Erhlichman Haldeman) were indicted within a year (ten months)  of the special counsel's appointment. The indictments were for the actual crimes related to Watergate.

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.2.3  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.2    4 months ago
The main conspirators (Erhlichman Haldeman) were indicted within a year (ten months)

The first Mueller indictments came in five months and he had Flynn's guilty plea and cooperation in less than 7 months.  Keep on trying, though.

 
 
Sean Treacy
2.2.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @2.2.3    4 months ago

You seem to be missing the obvious point that Mueller's convictions have nothing to do with collusion. 

 
 
Landshark
2.2.5  Landshark  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.4    4 months ago

 It’s all part of the magic trick they are attempting since there is no collusion other than that which occurred by way of the Clinton campaign.

 
 
sixpick
2.2.6  sixpick  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.4    4 months ago

Paul Manafort - Conspiracy against the US, money laundering, unregistered agent of a foreign principal, false & misleading statements, assisting in the preparation of false tax returns, suscribing to false tax returns, filing a false amended tax return, failure to report foreign bank accounts, bank fraud conspiracy & bank fraud.

The only reason Manafort is charged is because he was with the Trump campaign for a short period of time.  It was simply a way to spy on Trump  If all you read was the fake NYT, you would think the FBI starting investigating Manafort in the the spring of 2016, when in reality they have been investigating him for at least since 2014 and I think even before that.  They already had the goods on Manafort before Trump even decided to run for President.

Why, you might ask, why didn't the FBI warn Trump about Manafort or his campaign manager?  Those who have their eyes closed will probably say they couldn't divulge that information.  Well, I say Comey wasn't suppose to write Hillary's exoneration months before the investigation got off its feet and Bill Clinton wasn't authorized to give a pardon or commutation to Roger Clinton either.  There is collusion, but it isn't Trump, but our top officials in our intelligence agencies and many who are in the Democrat Party.

This is a witch hunt using Soviet Style tactics.  Mueller would have made a very good Soviet Union Prosecutor.  Of course has the support of those who don't want their dominance over the American people to be disturbed.

Robert Mueller Dirty Cop Roland Freisier 001 edited 001.jpg

 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  pat wilson @2.2.1    4 months ago
Talking about grading this investigation is a bit premature (and immature).

It can be graded on how it's been conducted and where it's gone thus far and Iv'e done it. You are free to critique it.

 
 
Old School Marine
2.3  Old School Marine  replied to  lib50 @2    4 months ago
Mueller is making sure even if Trump tries to pardon somebody the states will be right behind Mueller with charges he can't pardon.

I would like to know what offense a state can charge someone with which for which the President does not have the authority to pardon.

 
 
sixpick
2.3.1  sixpick  replied to  Old School Marine @2.3    4 months ago

As far as I know all the charges are Federal and Trump can pardon any of these.

He can't pardon anything other than Federal crimes.

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו    4 months ago

Okay, let's take this apart sentence by sentence:

It's had over a year to get going and all they have done is some indictments that have nothing to do with collusion or obstructing justice.

Trumpbots seem to need regular reminding that it took the Watergate investigation two years to get to the point where Mueller is now.  And they don't just have "indictments."   They've got at least 4 confessed felons and cooperating witnesses.  Finally, the idea that they don't have anything on conspiracy and obstruction is simply wishful thinking.  They have no idea what Mueller's sitting on and how much more is out there to get. 

Oh, and then there are those dozen or so Russians who will never get prosecuted.

If any of those Russians are caught outside of Russia in countries that have extradition treaties with us, they will be arrested, moved here, prosecuted and likely convicted. 

Because of the actions of some of his investigators, these proceedings have the odor of taint all over them.

That's just silly wishful thinking.  There's no foul odor in this investigation other than Mar-a-LagoShitbag's obvious efforts to obstruct or defame it. 

The best I can give for all this wasted time and money is a D-.

What you give it is the very definition of "meaningless."

 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @3    4 months ago
Trumpbots seem to need regular reminding that it took the Watergate investigation two years to get to the point where Mueller is now.

And you need to be reminded that the Watergate Investigation began with an actual crime - the Watergate Burglary. All the indictments pertained to that and the funny part was the investigation and the media was being spoon fed info from an FBI agent. The way the burglars were caught at the very beginning almost had a foul odor to it. In this case we had an investigation without a crime.

If any of those Russians are caught outside of Russia in countries that have extradition treaties with us, they will be arrested, moved here, prosecuted and likely convicted. 

Yup, I would hope so.

That's just silly wishful thinking.  There's no foul odor in this investigation other than Mar-a-LagoShitbag's obvious efforts to obstruct or defame it. 

Ya, I know the haters would like to get him on obstruction but that's almost as doubtful as the "collusion" fantasy. Let me give you an example - you need strong evidence of that - like you had in the Bill Clinton case, where a witness (Monica Lewinsky) made & signed a false statement and then was given a federal government job. That's what "obstruction" looks like!  Please note, despite the charge Senate democrats refused to convict Clinton. I don't think Mueller is going that route without solid evidence.

Greg's D- is close to my D. I think we have a consensus here.

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3.1.1  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    4 months ago
And you need to be reminded that the Watergate Investigation began with an actual crime -

It's so cute that you still believe there've been no crimes involving with the Shitbag-de-Mar-a-Lago's campaign and administration when four people have confessed to them and multiple indictments on several others.  Just the hackings alone of DNC, Clinton, and Podesta emails were all crimes.  As to whom and how many of the Shitbag pack of scumbags will be found to having been involved--stay tuned.

 
 
cjcold
3.1.2  cjcold  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @3.1.1    4 months ago

Already bought a case of Boy Scout popcorn.

 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @3.1.1    4 months ago
Just the hackings alone of DNC, Clinton, and Podesta emails were all crimes.

Which have nothing to do with Trump. Liberals made this an investigation of Trump, not Russia

 
 
Greg Jones
3.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @3    4 months ago

Your comment is illogical. And meaningless.

 
 
Old School Marine
3.2.1  Old School Marine  replied to  Greg Jones @3.2    4 months ago
Your comment is illogical. And meaningless.

This should come as no surprise to you

 
 
cjcold
3.2.2  cjcold  replied to  Old School Marine @3.2.1    4 months ago

Actually the comments of far right wing fascists are meaningless. They're just Heartland Industry lies.

 
 
sixpick
3.2.3  sixpick  replied to  cjcold @3.2.2    4 months ago

There are no far right wing fascist on this site, only Liberals, Conservatives and all those in between.

 
 
sixpick
3.3  sixpick  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @3    4 months ago
Finally, the idea that they don't have anything on conspiracy and obstruction is simply wishful thinking.

Now that's the part I like, but to negate the above comment it needs to read, 'Finally, the idea that they have anything on conspiracy and obstruction is simply wishful thinking.'  Now that's better or at least as true as the original sentence.

I can say Mueller is motivating many people to vote in 2018 and we'll see if he's campaigning for Republicans or Democrats at the end of the day.  From where I sit, I'd say people are getting tired of an endless witch hunt that is not going to lead anywhere in my opinion which is as good as yours.

Well, I take that 'not going to lead anywhere' back because we have learned so much during the last couple of years and during the last year Mueller has charged people with crimes that had nothing to do with Trump that we would have never learned if this Special Prosecutor witch hunt had never got off its feet.  Now we have gathered enough information that there was indeed collusion, but it wasn't Trump, but on the other side and we're getting closer to the top of the pile. 

Power is shifting and soon we'll have another investigation like this going on and with all the evidence we already have it shouldn't take long to do the job.

 
 
cjcold
3.3.1  cjcold  replied to  sixpick @3.3    4 months ago

So how many bullshit far right wing witch hunt investigations have found nothing?  The word treason comes to mind when I think of the far right wing.

 
 
Vic Eldred
3.3.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  cjcold @3.3.1    4 months ago
So how many bullshit far right wing witch hunt investigations have found nothing?

All of the ones investigated by the Obama Justice Department. That is about to change very soon.

 
 
sixpick
3.4  sixpick  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @3    4 months ago

If any of those Russians are caught outside of Russia in countries that have extradition treaties with us, they will be arrested, moved here, prosecuted and likely convicted.

Sure thing.  I won't hold my breath for that one. LOL

 
 
Split Personality
3.4.1  Split Personality  replied to  sixpick @3.4    4 months ago
I won't hold my breath for that one. LOL

They will all get free vacations at some swanky government owned dacha on the Black Sea where they'll all be served nerve agent vodka.......

 
 
Sean Treacy
4  Sean Treacy    4 months ago

Still zero evidence that Trump or anyone in his obit colluded with the Russians, which was the whole point of this exercise. 

But its interesting to watch Mueller charge people with lying to the FBI, after the Obama DOJ gave immunity to for lying to the FBI about destroying evidence. 

It's as if Mueller's investigation and the Obama DOJ investigation into Clinton's email server had different goals. 

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.1  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    4 months ago
Still zero evidence that Trump or anyone in his obit colluded with the Russians, which was the whole point of this exercise.

Yeah, just pretend Flynn doesn't exist.  Then you can pretend gravity doesn't exist when the earth collapses under your feet.

 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @4.1    4 months ago
Yeah, just pretend Flynn doesn't exist.  Then you can pretend gravity doesn't exist when the earth collapses under your feet.

Flynn?  Flynn lied to the FBI about something that was 100% legal. You think your'e going somewhere with Flynn? 
I'll bet 3 months self suspension with you there was NO COLLUSION VIA FLYNN!

What do you say?

 
 
lib50
4.1.2  lib50  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.1    4 months ago
COLLUSION

Why would you think this is the only thing being investigated?   Nobody will know if there is collusion for sure until he's done.  Which he isn't.  It's all on the table.  Collusion, obstruction, money laundering, lying under oath.  Sit back and breathe, it's going to be a very bumpy ride for you.

 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  lib50 @4.1.2    4 months ago
Why would you think this is the only thing being investigated?

Because that's what liberals in and out of the media were screaming about for about 7 months. What happened to that?

I have no problem with the ride. It's been rather smooth thus far. How do you feel about another Special Counsel Investigation?

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.1.4  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.1    4 months ago
Flynn lied to the FBI about something that was 100% legal.

Then why'd he lie?  When you think up an answer to that, vickie. 

You think your'e going somewhere with Flynn? 

It's not me who thinks he's going somewhere with Flynn.  It's Mueller.  And Mueller wouldn't let Flynn cop to just lying to the FBI if Flynn hadn't proffered  much more valuable information about much more serious wrongdoing in the Shitbag campaign.  And the severity of the sentence Flynn evenutually gets depends on how good his continued cooperation is.  IOW, Mueller's got Flynn's balls and Flynn won't get them back unless and until he's been good boy.

 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  lib50 @4.1.2    4 months ago

Why would you think this is the only thing being investigated

Because Mueller's specific charge is to investigate coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of Donald Trump.

If you can't show any evidence of collusion, it becomes an investigation in search of a crime.

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.1.6  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.5    4 months ago
If you can't show any evidence of collusion, it becomes an investigation in search of a crime.

Are you too young to remember Ken Starr?  That IC investigation that he headed was  only "charged" initially with looking into the Clinton Whitewater real estate dealings and when that became a dry hole he then fixed on the Lewinski affair.  These IC investigations are permitted to go anywhere once they're established.  I'll bet you're not outraged that what started out as a financial investigation became a sexual one when it happened to a Dem.  You people just don't like to play by the rules, do you.

 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @4.1.6    4 months ago

Starr was an independent counsel who had to get each avenue of investigation approved a committee of Federal appellate  judges. Even with that amount of oversight, the problems were palpable and the Independent counsel statute was not renewed. Mueller has no such independent oversight. The problem is  even worse.

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.1.8  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.7    4 months ago
The problem is even worse.

Mueller's investigation is so far pursuing exactly what he was commissioned to do.  He hasn't veered off into some kind of wild rabbit hunt.  But, if he encounters evidence of criminal activity along the way not directly related to the Trump campaign there he is not restricted from pursuing that as well. 

 
 
Colour Me Free
4.1.9  Colour Me Free  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.5    4 months ago
Because Mueller's specific charge is to investigate coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of Donald Trump.

Yes and no... that was what 'we' were led to believe - however, Mueller has the reins and can drive the buggy in whatever direction he so desires.  

This is an interesting read that provided me clarification on the Special Counsel and counterintelligence investigations

Ever since Acting Attorney General Rod Rosensteinformer FBI Director Robert Mueller as a Special Counsel to investigate allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election, commentators have raised questions about the investigation’s scope.  Some have claimed that the Special Counsel’s mandate is too; others, too; and still others, simply too.  OnLawfare, the issue has been addressed byand.  All appear to have assumed, however, that the scope of the investigation will be governed by, the 1999 regulation authorizing the appointment of a “Special Counsel” that was enacted in the wake of the lapse of the.

But does this regulatory apparatus govern the Mueller investigation?  I am not so sure.  The order appointing Mueller (what I’ll call the “”) invokes—and commentators have naturally focused on—the regulations contained in 28 C.F.R. Part600(what I’ll call the “”), because they expressly authorize the appointment of a Special Counsel.  But as I explain below, these regulations do not contemplate the delegation of a counterintelligence investigation to a Special Counsel; they focus on criminal investigations.  The two kinds of investigations are significantly different in scope and function and rely on different investigative tools.  The Rosenstein Order, however, appears to delegate a counterintelligence investigation to the Special Counsel under the criminal-prosecution-focused Part 600 regulations, thereby creating some confusion on the appropriate scope and type of investigation.  By seemingly directing Mueller to conduct a counterintelligence investigation while at the same time limiting his authority to the criminal investigations authorized by the Part 600 regulations, the Rosenstein Order points in different directions on the scope of the Special Counsel’s mandate.

In this post, I will explain why the counterintelligence investigation that Rosenstein appears to have intended to delegate to the Special Counsel is inconsistent with the criminal focus of the Part 600 regulations.  The delegated investigation, in short, does not comply with the limits on the Special Counsel’s authority imposed by the regulations.  In a subsequent post, I will explain that Rosenstein may delegate a counterintelligence investigation to the Special Counsel under his general statutory authority,.  But if he intends to do so, he should clarify that the Part 600 regulations are inapplicable.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/counterintelligence-investigations-and-special-counsels-mandate-part-i

 
 
sixpick
4.1.10  sixpick  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.3    4 months ago
How do you feel about another Special Counsel Investigation?

Now that is going to be a fun ride and get ready, because it will be taking off before they realize it.

 
 
sixpick
4.1.11  sixpick  replied to  Colour Me Free @4.1.9    4 months ago

If Jeff Sessions knew he wasn't going to be able to be involved in the Russian Trump investigation, he should have just resigned in my opinion.  He left the prisoners to run the prison.  Trump should have never appointed Rosenstein.  Rosenstein just rubber stamps anything Mueller wants to investigate.  I bet there isn't a person on this site that could come out innocent in an investigation like this one.

 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.12  Vic Eldred  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @4.1.4    4 months ago
Then why'd he lie?

Probably for the same reason Clinton lied about Lewinsky - he must have thought that talking to a Russian Ambassador about sanctions was wrong since liberals were saying just that! Trouble is he was the incoming National Security advisor with every right to do just that. What is troubling is that Obama imposing sanctions on his way out the door.

It's not me who thinks he's going somewhere with Flynn.  It's Mueller.  And Mueller wouldn't let Flynn cop to just lying to the FBI if Flynn hadn't proffered  much more valuable information about much more serious wrongdoing in the Shitbag campaign.

I hate to bust your balloon but a federal judge has already ruled that the prosecution withheld evidence that would have benefited Flynn in his case. I notice your'e not taking my bet.

 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.13  Vic Eldred  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @4.1.6    4 months ago
That IC investigation that he headed was  only "charged" initially with looking into the Clinton Whitewater real estate dealings and when that became a dry hole he then fixed on the Lewinski affair.

It didn't exactly hit a dry hole. The evidence which disappeared - the invoices from the legal payments to Hillary Clinton - turned up strangely after the statute of limitations had run out.

These IC investigations are permitted to go anywhere once they're established.  I'll bet you're not outraged that what started out as a financial investigation became a sexual one when it happened to a Dem.

Yup, that is what happens with these and with this one more than others since Rosenstein added the line "and anything that arises in the course of the investigation" - thus the charges against Manafort, Gates and Flynn. Yup, we can play by those rules, can you? The Senate democrats were able to prevent a Clinton conviction. Senate Republicans will be able to do the same thing should Mueller find something on Trump.

 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    4 months ago
But its interesting to watch Mueller charge people with lying to the FBI, after the Obama DOJ gave immunity to for lying to the FBI about destroying evidence.

The Obama DOJ gave immunity to witnesses BEFORE they were even interviewed. Fear not, it looks like we may be investigating the e-mail investigation. What a pleasant thought! To finally have an investigation of something that happened during the Obama years that Obama won't control!

It's as if Mueller's investigation and the Obama DOJ investigation into Clinton's email server had different goals. 

I'd say that's a fair assessment

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.2.1  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2    4 months ago
The Obama DOJ gave immunity to witnesses BEFORE they were even interviewed

Where is this fresh bullshit coming from?  Or is old, recycled bullshit? 

 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @4.2.1    4 months ago

Here it is - pay attention:

"Hillary Clinton’s former chief of staff Cheryl Mills and two other staffers were granted immunity as part of the now-closed FBI probe into the former secretary of state’s email practices, according to a top House Republican who questioned whether the numerous deals hindered the bureau’s ability to build a case.

"This is beyond explanation,” House oversight committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said in a statement Friday. “The FBI was handing out immunity agreements like candy. I've lost confidence in this investigation and I question the genuine effort in which it was carried out.”

The arrangements detailed by Chaffetz bring the total number of publicly known immunity deals in the Clinton case to five.

Chaffetz first revealed the additional deals in an interview with The Associated Press, saying “no wonder they couldn't prosecute a case.” He said Mills gave federal investigators access to her laptop on the condition that findings couldn't be used against her."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/23/fbi-gave-top-clinton-aide-cheryl-mills-immunity-in-email-probe-rep-says.html

They also gave immunity to the man who destroyed e-mails after they were subpoened

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.2.3  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.2    4 months ago
Here it is - pay attention:

Again, vickie, I want to thank-you and your fellow rightwingers for never reading the entire articles you link to (or thinking we won't) because even FarzNooz could entirely lie about this. From YOUR link:

Democrats on the oversight committee pushed back at Chaffetz’ claims Friday, saying the immunity agreements were very limited and did not extend to statements to the FBI or assertions to other investigators, or testimony before Congress.

“It’s beyond disappointing—but not surprising in light of the election—that Republicans are rushing to leak inaccurate information about this very limited agreement between Ms. Mills and the Justice Department,” Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., top Democrat on the oversight committee, said in a statement. “Ms. Mills was not immunized for any statements she made to the FBI, Congress, or other investigators. Of course, Republicans are trying to make political hay out of this, but the facts are that Ms. Mills cooperated fully with the Justice Department and Congress.”

Furthermore, this very limited immunity was not given to someone who'd already committed a crime but was the FBI's attempt to get HRC.  If you're trying to make this equivalent to Flynn, you're not even in the same universe of comparative situations.  So, the answer to my question is:  Old, recycled bullshit.  Thankyouverymuch. 

 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @4.2.3    4 months ago

You see, I discounted anything  Elijah Cummings has to say, because that always turns out to be BS, as it is in this case where he proclaims that an immunity agreement does not equal immunity. Six people got it in the Clinton case AND FOR WHAT REASON?  Also they were allowed to have the same lawyer and Ms Mills who was a witness under investigation was allowed to be present during the HRC interview, which meant nothing since Comey had already decided not to recommend charges!

So again, you have no valid response

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.2.5  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.4    4 months ago
I discounted anything Elijah Cummings has to say, because that always turns out to be BS

 So, you also must have discounted the final paragraph of the article:

Chaffetz said he is looking forward to asking Comey questions about the immunity deals when Comey testifies Wednesday before the House Judiciary Committee.

Because when Chaffetz got his shot at Comey, it blew up spectacularly in his face.  Again, vickie, let me tell you how much I appreciate you being such an eager and willing dupe for me. 

 
 
sixpick
4.2.6  sixpick  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @4.2.3    4 months ago

Democrats on the oversight committee pushed back at Chaffetz’ claims Friday, saying the immunity agreements were very limited and did not extend to statements to the FBI or assertions to other investigators, or testimony before Congress.

“It’s beyond disappointing—but not surprising in light of the election—that Republicans are rushing to leak inaccurate information about this very limited agreement between Ms. Mills and the Justice Department,” Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., top Democrat on the oversight committee, said in a statement. “Ms. Mills was not immunized for any statements she made to the FBI, Congress, or other investigators.

Who questioned these people?  Oh yes, it was Strzok.  What's he doing these days since he was fired from Mueller's investigation, shacking up with his girlfriend?  I think she dished him.  I bet his wife did too.  He knew the plan as Comey had already exonerated Hillary before he questioned the first person. 

He did all the questioning and you think he would charge Mills or Abedin for anything.  Did the FBI destroy their computers or not?  Better to leave no evidence behind like when Hillary was championing how she wanted the public to see her emails and destroying her hard drives at the same time.

It is you who needs to pay attention, don't you think?

 
 
sixpick
4.2.7  sixpick  replied to  sixpick @4.2.6    4 months ago

Of course all this was conducted under the most corrupt administration in American history.

Top Clinton Aides Face No Charges After Making False Statements To FBI


http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/04/clinton-aides-went-unpunished-after-making-false-statements-to-anti-trump-fbi-supervisor/

 
 
MrFrost
4.2.8  MrFrost  replied to  sixpick @4.2.7    4 months ago

Daily caller, fox news.. Both fake news outlets. 

 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2.9  Vic Eldred  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @4.2.5    4 months ago
Because when Chaffetz got his shot at Comey, it blew up spectacularly in his face.

Not as I recall...Comey told 2 lies to Congress. Normally that's a felony, but Congress can't prosecute, it can only question.

Sorry but you lose that game again

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.2.10  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.9    4 months ago
Comey told 2 lies

Only in your inside-out world.  And if lying to Congress was a felony, Jeff Sessions would be in jail right now. 

 
 
sixpick
4.3  sixpick  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    4 months ago
Still zero evidence that Trump or anyone in his obit colluded with the Russians, which was the whole point of this exercise.

Sean, we know that wasn't the point of the exercise.  The point of the exercise was to get Trump out of office or impede him for his entire Presidency, even if it took lying to save one's ass to do it.

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
5  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו    4 months ago

Vickie, the idea that you personally or rightwingers in general are in any position or have any authority (other than your own fantasies) to "grade" the Mueller investigation is both hilarious and weird as it gets.  Hilarious because of the suggestion that your opinion matters in the least and weird because you'd even imagine that it does. 

 
 
sixpick
5.1  sixpick  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @5    4 months ago

I've noticed Vic hasn't acknowledged your sarcasm or calling him Vickie.

Don't Acknowledge It: One option is to refuse to acknowledge the sarcastic comments and instead treat them as genuine. This way you can quickly move the subject on, show the person that you are unhappy with their comments, and at the same time often turn it around so that they end up being the ones who look stupid.

http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/15845/1/Psychology-of-Sarcasm--Dealing-With-Sarcastic-People.html

 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  sixpick @5.1    4 months ago

That's one way of dealing with it & good advice.  Soon I'll have another way.

 
 
Vic Eldred
5.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @5    4 months ago

As Jim Morrison once said "I just did!"

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
5.2.1  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.2    4 months ago
As Jim Morrison once said "I just did!"

Make us laughing dude.  Oh, yes.  Yes, you did.

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6  Dismayed Patriot    4 months ago

"Mueller's team selection gets an F - the team includes 8 lawyers who are Democratic donors with 5 who donated to the Clinton campaign and 2 who had to be removed for blatant bias."

So if you ever donated to Democrats you're now "tainted" and can't work for the FBI or do unbiased work? What kind of bullshit is that? If they donated to Republican campaigns does that also make them biased in the other direction so you can't ever trust them to be impartial? Total nonsense. Every member is allowed to have their own political opinion and belong to whatever party they want, they are Americans just like the rest of us. To claim they can't be fair simply based on that is ridiculous. It's as ridiculous as claiming a judge born in Indiana can't be impartial because he was of Mexican heritage. And the two who got removed were immediately dismissed when the emails were discovered and the emails showed they were bi-partisan with their derision slamming Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and several other Obama appointees along with slamming team Trump.

The grade you give is far more biased than those on the Mueller team and purely based on partisan opinion. 

 
 
Landshark
6.1  Landshark  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6    4 months ago

 You continue to ignore the fact they acted in the most unscrupulous, corrupt and unethical matter possible to create a blight of epic proportions on the American political landscape tainting the institutions of government beyond the pale. Stuff they might’ve put one in front of a firing squad in the early years of country’s existence. 

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6    4 months ago
So if you ever donated to Democrats you're now "tainted" and can't work for the FBI or do unbiased work?

In the nightmare of a fascist one-party, strong-man dictatorship that they hope to inflict on this nation--oh, yeah. 

 
 
Vic Eldred
6.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6    4 months ago
So if you ever donated to Democrats you're now "tainted" and can't work for the FBI or do unbiased work?

Not if there is some balance on the team. Most of the team is fiercely loyal to Clinton or Obama. Two had to be removed!

If they donated to Republican campaigns does that also make them biased in the other direction so you can't ever trust them to be impartial? 

There is a bit more to it than donations, but if it was simply donations it would simply require some balance of which there is none here.

 And the two who got removed were immediately dismissed when the emails were discovered

Which is an admission that the bias prevented them from doing the job. Thank you!

 
 
MrFrost
7  MrFrost    4 months ago

Mueller is a republican, he was appointed by a republican who was appointed by a republican POTUS. Yes, I can certainly see why the right wing thinks that the whole thing is biased. /sarc

 
 
Vic Eldred
7.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @7    4 months ago
Mueller is a republican, he was appointed by a republican who was appointed by a republican POTUS

And many Republicans are Trump-haters.  I refer you to Sen John McCain and the damage he did to the Trump legislative agenda. He was the decisive vote against healthcare reform and he was unavailable for the tax reform bill, fortunately, he wasn't needed on that one.

 
 
lennylynx
8  lennylynx    4 months ago

By all appearances, Mueller is running a very thorough investigation with many huge successes so far in the form of major players co-operating with him.  He runs a tight ship with no leaks so no one knows what he has.  Just based on what we have observed first-hand, Trump appears to be pretty much nailed to the wall for obstruction of justice.  This is the simple and clear reality of the situation.  It's pointless talking to anyone who can't at least admit this much.

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
8.1  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  lennylynx @8    4 months ago
Mueller is running a very thorough investigation with many huge successes so far in the form of major players co-operating with him.

In fact, that's what's driving these morons and their Chief-Moron-and-Shitbag-Extraordinaire in the WH even more bat-shit crazy than usual. He's getting steadily close to lowering the boom on the whole stinking lot of them and they can feel it. 

 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @8.1    4 months ago
He's getting steadily close to lowering the boom on the whole stinking lot of them and they can feel it.

You wish! No, liberals are the only ones saying he's gonna fire Mueller. Mueller has yet to lay a glove on him.

 
 
Vic Eldred
8.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  lennylynx @8    4 months ago
By all appearances, Mueller is running a very thorough investigation with many huge successes so far in the form of major players co-operating with him.  He runs a tight ship with no leaks so no one knows what he has.

Agreed to that part, though I think he was way over the top on Manafort (I assume that was Weissmann's handiwork). You are also right on the leaks - all of which now come from Schiff & his staff.

Just based on what we have observed first-hand, Trump appears to be pretty much nailed to the wall for obstruction of justice.

That is where I disagree. He still has no evidence of that. Maybe democrats will try and use it to impeach should they win control of the house, but legally it's just not there.

 
 
PJ
9  PJ    4 months ago

I'm not able to post any articles on this site.  Apparently there is a secret to selecting pictures that are now required for articles.  

I've never experienced a site that inadvertently dissuaded members to participate because they're not able to pass a tech course.  This is very frustrating.  It really shouldn't be this hard.  

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
9.1  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  PJ @9    4 months ago

You've clicked on the "topics" tab at the top of the page and seen "discussions" at the top of the new page?

 
 
Vic Eldred
10  Vic Eldred    4 months ago

Thank you all for a lively discussion.

D thus far

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Hal A. Lujah
BeastOfTheEast
sixpick
Raven Wing
Ed-NavDoc
epistte
Vic Eldred
1ofmany
GaJenn78
Old School Marine

Sunshine
Gordy327
Kavika
bugsy
Dulay


73 visitors