Mueller investigation

[southernhybrid]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/justice-official-authorized-mueller-to-investigate-whether-trump-campaign-chair-colluded-with-russia/2018/04/03/ffa78ac4-3738-11e8-acd5-35eac230e514_story.html?utm_term=.bbca0bb2895e

Have any of you posted about this yet?

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III was authorized by a top Justice Department official to investigate whether Paul Manafort, the onetime chairman of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, illegally coordinated with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election, new court filings show.

Manafort, who was indicted last year on felony charges related to his work in Ukraine before joining Trump’s campaign, has not been charged with any crimes connected to the presidential race. But a partly redacted memo included in court filings late Monday night revealed that Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein authorized Mueller to pursue allegations that Manafort colluded with Russia in 2016.

The new filings show that Rosenstein specifically approved lines of investigation for the special counsel in an August 2017 memo. A version of the memo filed in court showed that Rosenstein signed off on an investigation of whether Manafort “committed a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials” and of Manafort’s work as an international political consultant in Ukraine before joining Trump’s campaign.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I believe that was in the documents to keep Manafort from getting charges dropped because they were outside the investigation limits. What is interesting is that Mueller came in August 2017 well after the investigation started. Mueller is doing everything​ by the book.

 

[Artemus]

I believe that was in the documents to keep Manafort from getting charges dropped because they were outside the investigation limits. What is interesting is that Mueller came in August 2017 well after the investigation started. Mueller is doing everything​ by the book.

The right-wing talking point now seems to be that Manafort's house was raided in July and the memo was dated August so the raid was illegal. That ignores the fact that the original special counsel appointment also allowed him "to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted." But ignoring facts is the norm.

 

[Underseer]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/justice-official-authorized-mueller-to-investigate-whether-trump-campaign-chair-colluded-with-russia/2018/04/03/ffa78ac4-3738-11e8-acd5-35eac230e514_story.html?utm_term=.bbca0bb2895e

Have any of you posted about this yet?

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III was authorized by a top Justice Department official to investigate whether Paul Manafort, the onetime chairman of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, illegally coordinated with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election, new court filings show.

Manafort, who was indicted last year on felony charges related to his work in Ukraine before joining Trump’s campaign, has not been charged with any crimes connected to the presidential race. But a partly redacted memo included in court filings late Monday night revealed that Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein authorized Mueller to pursue allegations that Manafort colluded with Russia in 2016.

The new filings show that Rosenstein specifically approved lines of investigation for the special counsel in an August 2017 memo. A version of the memo filed in court showed that Rosenstein signed off on an investigation of whether Manafort “committed a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials” and of Manafort’s work as an international political consultant in Ukraine before joining Trump’s campaign.

Nothingburger!

This is obviously a conspiracy by the FBI to enforce the law! Fake news! What about Benghazi? Why isn't Mueller investigating Benghazi? Hillary is obviously they real traitor here! [/Conservolibertarian]

 

[Angry Floof]

Amy Siskind recently published a book called "The List". It is a weekly chronicle of everything Trump did on every day of 2017.

Writeup here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-amy-siskinds-list-grows-into-book/468375002/

She was on the 1A podcast this morning: https://the1a.org/audio/#/shows/201...l-again-but-whats-normal-anyway/113990/@00:00

 

[poster]

Update:

WASHINGTON — Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team of prosecutors has informed President Trump’s attorneys that the president is not currently considered a criminal target in the Russia investigation, according to a person familiar with the conversation.

The person, who was not authorized to speak publicly about private conversations and spoke on condition of anonymity, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that the president is considered a subject of Mueller’s probe — not a target. A subject is typically someone whose conduct is of interest to investigators but prosecutors are not certain they’ve gathered enough evidence to bring charges.

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/mueller-says-trump-not-criminal-target-currently/

I guess Mueller doesn't have that many i's to dot and t's to cross afterall.

Lots of taxpayer money being wasted.

 

[Artemus]

Update:

WASHINGTON — Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team of prosecutors has informed President Trump’s attorneys that the president is not currently considered a criminal target in the Russia investigation, according to a person familiar with the conversation.

The person, who was not authorized to speak publicly about private conversations and spoke on condition of anonymity, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that the president is considered a subject of Mueller’s probe — not a target. A subject is typically someone whose conduct is of interest to investigators but prosecutors are not certain they’ve gathered enough evidence to bring charges.

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/mueller-says-trump-not-criminal-target-currently/

I guess Mueller doesn't have that many i's to dot and t's to cross afterall.


Lots of taxpayer money being wasted.

From The Atlantic

“It's not comforting to be a ‘subject’ of an investigation. Most white-collar criminal defendants started out as subjects of a grand jury investigation,” said Bruce Green, a former federal prosecutor and a law professor at Fordham. “Calling President Trump a ‘subject’ rather than a mere ‘witness’ generally means that his conduct is still being investigated, he is still suspected of having acted criminally, but no conclusion has yet been reached that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Trump is a subject of the investigation specifically because there are "i's to dot and t's to cross." No prosecutor is going to recommend charges of obstruction of justice against a sitting president without interviewing the president in the first place. All this announcement means is that Trump has NOT been exonerated. Let's wait until the investigation complete before deciding if taxpayer's money is being wasted.

 

[poster]

Funny, I always thought investigations like this were fact-finding, not exercises in dotting and crossing. What you post seems like entrapment more than investigatory.

It also appears you're satisfied that there is no collusion and the focus is primarily obstruction of justice?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Funny, I always thought investigations like this were fact-finding, not exercises in dotting and crossing.

Well, investigations by LEOs are fact-finding for the purpose of prosecution.
And the defense in such a prosecution will try to exploit any mistake made by the prosecution to get his client off, guilty or innocent.
So, yeah, it's fact finding AND crossing I's and dotting T's. Line up the facts, and evidence that they are the facts, and as much as possible make the presentation of the facts iron-clad not just because this trial (or trials) will make the OJ circus look like The People's Court, 4th season.

What you post seems like entrapment more than investigatory.

How? Trump and his attorneys are well aware of Mueller's identity and agenda. It's not like he's going to pose as a Russian oligarch and ask Trumpie 'What goes on, this Collusion investigation, now? Is please to speak clearly and facing to my bulky tie clip.'

It also appears you're satisfied that there is no collusion and the focus is primarily obstruction of justice?

Probably better to say that there was clearly collusion during the campaign, but Mueller may be unable to prove Trump was directly involved with it, to a level of certainty to satisfy a jury (one of those t's that need dotting). However, the obstruction may be more easily laid at FF's feet.

 

[poster]

Like the entrapment people such as Flynn fell prey to. Indicted (which really doesn't mean much - ham sandwiches can be indicted, as the saying goes) because he couldn't recall precisly the unfolding of events and exact words used during a couple of phone calls. Technically classiified as "lying to the FBI". That sort of entrapment. Perhaps there's a more appropiate term?

 

[Malintent]

Funny, I always thought investigations like this were fact-finding, not exercises in dotting and crossing. What you post seems like entrapment more than investigatory.

It also appears you're satisfied that there is no collusion and the focus is primarily obstruction of justice?

You're complaining about your own characterization of calling investigative activities as "dotting i's and crossing t's. My advise would be to NOT say things that you find stupid after the fact.

.. but it seems that you think being asked a question is "entrapment".. like when a cop pulls you over and asks you how fast you think you were going... "entrapment" <rolleyes>.

Entrapment, in the investigation on activities with the Russians, would be if a fake spy, created by the FBI, lured someone into a conversation where he offered him a billion dollars to do something illegal, and then busted him for having the conversation without reporting it immediately.

 

[poster]

Funny, I always thought investigations like this were fact-finding, not exercises in dotting and crossing. What you post seems like entrapment more than investigatory.

It also appears you're satisfied that there is no collusion and the focus is primarily obstruction of justice?

You're complaining about your own characterization of calling investigative activities as "dotting i's and crossing t's. My advise would be to NOT say things that you find stupid after the fact.

No, I was using language that others on this forum used in their apologies for Mueller not bringing a case which, according to some here, is pretty much a slam dunk.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Like the entrapment people such as Flynn fell prey to. Indicted (which really doesn't mean much - ham sandwiches can be indicted, as the saying goes) because he couldn't recall precisly the unfolding of events and exact words used during a couple of phone calls. Technically classiified as "lying to the FBI". That sort of entrapment. Perhaps there's a more appropiate term?

I think actual 'entrapment' requires tricking someone into commission of a crime.
If you ask a straightforward question ("Where were you on the dark and stormy night?") and they answer it in a way that's not consistent with reality, it's not a trick.
It would be different if Mueller had muttered into the mike, "A colluder says what..."

But I don't think 'giving them rope to hang themselves with' quite counts as 'entrapment.'

 

[Artemus]

Funny, I always thought investigations like this were fact-finding, not exercises in dotting and crossing. What you post seems like entrapment more than investigatory.

There is evidence that a crime occurred and your argument is that full investigation to determine beyond a reasonable doubt if a crime did occur is entrapment? Seriously?

It also appears you're satisfied that there is no collusion and the focus is primarily obstruction of justice?

Pulling out all of the tired right-wing talking points, aren't we? Covering up and obstructing the prosecution of a criminal conspiracy by a presidential campaign is a "high crime (or) misdemeanor" that warrants impeachment and conviction of a president. Just ask Richard Nixon. Trump doesn't need to have been directly involved in the criminal conspiracy just as Nixon need not have been involved in the burglary itself. Has Trump committed criminal obstruction of justice? I don't know, but Mueller suspects that he did and he has convinced Rosenstein as well that the suspicion warrants completion of the investigation. That is what I'm satisfied with.

 

[poster]

Like the entrapment people such as Flynn fell prey to. Indicted (which really doesn't mean much - ham sandwiches can be indicted, as the saying goes) because he couldn't recall precisly the unfolding of events and exact words used during a couple of phone calls. Technically classiified as "lying to the FBI". That sort of entrapment. Perhaps there's a more appropiate term?

I think actual 'entrapment' requires tricking someone into commission of a crime.
If you ask a straightforward question ("Where were you on the dark and stormy night?") and they answer it in a way that's not consistent with reality, it's not a trick.
It would be different if Mueller had muttered into the mike, "A colluder says what..."

But I don't think 'giving them rope to hang themselves with' quite counts as 'entrapment.'

They knew the answers to their questions before they asked them because they were monitoring his phone, so why ask if you're not looking for a slip up or, as they put it, a lie. That's trickery, or as they say in legal terms, entrapment.

 

[poster]

Funny, I always thought investigations like this were fact-finding, not exercises in dotting and crossing. What you post seems like entrapment more than investigatory.

There is evidence that a crime occurred and your argument is that full investigation to determine beyond a reasonable doubt if a crime did occur is entrapment? Seriously?

It also appears you're satisfied that there is no collusion and the focus is primarily obstruction of justice?

Pulling out all of the tired right-wing talking points, aren't we? Covering up and obstructing the prosecution of a criminal conspiracy by a presidential campaign is a "high crime (or) misdemeanor" that warrants impeachment and conviction of a president. Just ask Richard Nixon. Trump doesn't need to have been directly involved in the criminal conspiracy just as Nixon need not have been involved in the burglary itself. Has Trump committed criminal obstruction of justice? I don't know, but Mueller suspects that he did and he has convinced Rosenstein as well that the suspicion warrants completion of the investigation. That is what I'm satisfied with.

I see!

 

[Sarpedon]

Contrary to what you see on TV, there's no rule against tricking someone who you already have some evidence against to incriminate himself. This is simply gathering more evidence.

Entrapment would be putting a bag of money on the street, pointing a camera at it, and arresting anyone who picked it up. That is, an otherwise law abiding person chosen at random and put in an unusual situation which they might respond to incorrectly and thus bring incrimination on themselves.

 

[Keith&Co.]

They knew the answers to their questions before they asked them because they were monitoring his phone, so why ask if you're not looking for a slip up or, as they put it, a lie.

Any time you're testifying to investigators, they are going to know the answers to some of the questions. They ask questions they already know the answers to so that you don't know exactly what they do know. Limits the witness' opportunity to lie convincingly.
I used to do it with my sailors from time to time. I know two facts, I ask six questions. If they don't know which two facts I am aware of, they can't shape the other four answers to hide their mistakes while not contradicting the facts as I know them.

But investigators and juries do know that people don't have photographic memories. If they're charging him with lying, they must have something more than a slip-up or two. They would need to be confident they can show that he intentionally told mistruth.

That's trickery, or as they say in legal terms, entrapment.

still not entrapment.

 

[Underseer]

Like the entrapment people such as Flynn fell prey to. Indicted (which really doesn't mean much - ham sandwiches can be indicted, as the saying goes) because he couldn't recall precisly the unfolding of events and exact words used during a couple of phone calls. Technically classiified as "lying to the FBI". That sort of entrapment. Perhaps there's a more appropiate term?

I think actual 'entrapment' requires tricking someone into commission of a crime.
If you ask a straightforward question ("Where were you on the dark and stormy night?") and they answer it in a way that's not consistent with reality, it's not a trick.
It would be different if Mueller had muttered into the mike, "A colluder says what..."

But I don't think 'giving them rope to hang themselves with' quite counts as 'entrapment.'

It's a trick because Republicans can't possibly be guilty of anything. Therefore, the only way Trump can be guilty of perjury is through trickery.

You forget that we have to start with the conclusion, then shape the evidence to fit the conclusion. You have a nasty habit of doing it backwards because you are an elitist.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Like the entrapment people such as Flynn fell prey to. Indicted (which really doesn't mean much - ham sandwiches can be indicted, as the saying goes) because he couldn't recall precisly the unfolding of events and exact words used during a couple of phone calls. Technically classiified as "lying to the FBI". That sort of entrapment. Perhaps there's a more appropiate term?

Hey, wait a minute.

Didn't Flynn admit to lying as part of a plea deal? I mean, he's cooperating with counsel, part of which is his admission that he lied. So that means the investigation has something on him a lot worse than a mistake in his testimony.

So it's the opposite of entrapment. Allowing him to plead guilty to lying in his testimony works to Flynn's BENEFIT. else he would be facing something with much harsher penalties...