Below is my column on The Hill newspaper on the significance (and coverage) of the Washington Post story that President Donald Trump is not a target of the Mueller investigation but only a subject of the investigation. None of this means that the risks for Trump in a sit down interview do not remain high. Even as a subject, he could be accused of false statements — a concern with a President known to go “off script” in meetings.
In terminal medical cases, doctors often deal with patients who move through “stages” that begin with denial. These so-called Kübler-Ross stages can be a long road toward acceptance. A weird form of Kübler-Ross seems to have taken hold of the media. Rather than refusing to accept indicators of impending death, many journalists and analysts seem incapable of accepting signs that the Trump presidency could survive.
That painful process was more evident Tuesday night when the Washington Post reported that special counsel Robert Mueller told the White House last month that Trump was not considered a “target” but only a “subject” of the investigation. After a year of being assured that “bombshell” developments and “smoking gun” evidence was sealing the criminal case against Trump, the dissonance was too great for many who refuse to accept the obvious meaning of this disclosure.
The U.S. Attorney’s manual defines a “subject” as a “person whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury’s investigation.” It is a designation that can change but it is also a meaningful description of the current status of an individual. Mueller at this time apparently does not believe Trump meets the definition of a target or a “person as to whom the prosecutor or the grand jury has substantial evidence linking him or her to the commission of a crime and who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is a putative defendant.” That would have been less notable when Mueller was appointed in 2017 than it is now, after more than a year, dozens of criminal counts, hundreds of thousands of documents, and a bevy of cooperating witnesses.
That Mueller does not believe there is “substantial evidence linking [Trump] to the commission of a crime” would seem to merit some, albeit grudging, recognition. However, there has been a disturbing lack of objectivity in the coverage of this investigation from the start. Throughout it, some of us have cautioned that the criminal case against Trump was far weaker than media suggested. Fired FBI Director James Comey himself told Congress that Trump was not a target of his investigation. Indeed, Trump was reportedly upset with Comey largely because Comey would not say that publicly.
When Trump fired Comey, I supported the call for a special counsel, and I still support Mueller in completing his investigation. However, the case of criminal conduct by Trump has not materially improved over the last year. Last October, Mueller brought the first indictments against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his deputy, Richard Gates. Notably, none of the indictments were linked to the campaign, let alone Trump. When that obvious point was raised, we were told that it meant nothing and Mueller was likely holding back the really damaging indictments while pressuring Trump aides. Commentators continue to announce “bombshell” disclosures against Trump on a daily basis, with experts alleging clear cases for treason to obstruction to witness tampering and other crimes.
Then, in November, came the disclosure of plea agreements with former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn and former campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos. However, these pleas were for making individual false statements to federal investigators. Neither the charges nor the narratives in the filings tied Trump or his campaign to any criminal act. Later indictments involving lawyer Alex van der Zwaan and internet operator Richard Pinedo involved a false statement and a single count of identity fraud, again unrelated to Trump or his campaign. Nevertheless, commentators insisted Mueller was just laying the groundwork for his major filing.
In February, Mueller handed down indictments of 13 Russian nationals and three Russian organizations for election-related crimes, from hacking to identity fraud. Not only did these charges not implicate Trump or his campaign, but the filing expressly stated that no one in the Trump campaign knowingly engaged Russians in these efforts. Now, Mueller reportedly has said he does not consider Trump a “target” of the criminal investigation. Looking at each of the prior filings, the disclosure would seem consistent with a lack of compelling evidence of a crime by Trump. Indeed, it would indicate Trump’s status has not changed from when Comey told Congress that Trump was not a target.
Still, some analysts immediately denied that Mueller’s disclosure was anything but bad news for Trump. On CNN, legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin insisted that “being a ‘subject’ is a very serious thing” and a “very significant designation” because it is clear “the FBI is investigating the president.” Of course, the only lower designation in a criminal investigation would be “witness.” Moreover, it was confirmed last year that Trump was being investigated.
The obvious point is that, after months of investigating Trump, Mueller still does not have sufficient evidence to make him a “target.” True, a “subject” can become a “target” and a “target” can then become a “defendant,” but so can a “witness.” Clearly, Trump is a subject since he was the subject of the election itself and directly involved in the underlying matters under investigation. What is new is that Mueller confirmed Trump’s status has not changed.
Later, CNN analyst John Dean declared that an assurance Trump is not a target “does not mean a whole lot.” Dean’s rationale was that a president “cannot be indicted,” so Mueller would never have listed him as a target, regardless of the evidence. First and foremost, some of us believe a president can be indicted in office. While there is disagreement, including within the Justice Department and past independent counsels, the Supreme Court has never accepted such immunity from indictment.
More important, even if true, such immunity would not mean Mueller would declare that Trump is not a target. Rather, Trump would remain a target as an unindicted co-conspirator or simply an unindicted person pending impeachment. Once impeached, he still could be indicted. Thus, it would be both illogical and unethical for Mueller to say Trump is not a target when he was pursuing possible charges, either as an unindicted co-conspirator or a post-impeachment defendant.
CNN analyst Philip Mudd was not satisfied with the “soft” depictions of the Mueller disclosure and declared that it was devastating news that Mueller was now investigating Trump and that, if he were declared a subject, “I would wet my pants.” CNN analyst Ryan Lizza went even further, suggesting that this was all a sham and Mueller is playing “chess to get the president into an interview.” Of course, such a bait-and-switch would be unethical in making false representations to the president’s counsel if Trump is already considered a target.
This continued refusal to acknowledge positive developments for Trump is a disturbing pathology. Just because Trump is a subject of investigation does not mean he cannot become a target. Moreover, Mueller as expected has indicated he will prepare a report on his investigation. This still is a positive development for Trump. It shows that Trump’s status has not materially changed but neither has the status of much of the coverage. Many media commentators clearly are stuck on denial and are a long way from acceptance in dealing with the legal status of Donald Trump.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
This is the kind of evidence the anti-trumpets should focus on:
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/04/exclusive-robert-mercer-backed-a-secretive-group-that-worked-with-facebook-google-to-target-anti-muslim-ads-at-swing-voters/
AND, pro-Trump people.
Since JT likes to keep his and the right-wing base in the alternative reality bubble of nothing to see here, I have a twilight zone question? Submit for your approval….If a Democrat President had done what this President is accused of, what would the right-wing think-tanks and “FOXNEWS” be doing from January 20, 2017 12:01 PM be doing? While JT likes to nitpick nat crap out of pepper to find any wording or excuse to protect Trump, I’m not so sure he would feel the same way for a Democrat President. The hypocrisy from the law and order types on this site alone would be deafening. And I know some of you will write back and say….BUT…BUT…what about HRC….BUT…BUT..what about the liberal media? Trump has brought this all on himself thru his own incompetence before the presidency and after. Sorry I didn’t write a longer letter, but I didn’t have the time to write a short one.
Other people in the dayroom want to use the computer. Time for Art Therapy!
A significant number of those that FW’s comment, accurately calls out, have honorary U.S. citizenship- granted by conservatives to Russians.
OT – why isn’t anyone aside from Luke Rosiak and Justice Watch covering the Awan scandal? House Dims who used their services should be investigated. Why did they employ and continue to use these thieves who had NO security clearance or background checks? This is a national security issue. No one could make this convoluted story up – or bury it like the lyin MSM Why isn’t Mueller focused on this? No accountability as usual in our banana republic.
Are you asking for Rosenstein to broaden Mueller’s scope or are you clueless? Sessions is investigating this.
Impeach DWS.
“Progressives” (not Autumn) are focused on the balanced budget legislation that will gut Social Security, eliminate environmental protection and allow growth of the swamp of crony capitalism.
But, Autumn isn’t concerned about the Koch’s $400,000,000 spent in the midterms. Autumn distracts with the Awans.
America rejected over 200 years of constitutional legal precedent in 2001 and fully embraced foreign-style “authoritarianism”.
If Congress and the Roberts’ Court would simply restore the nation back to a “constitutional rule of law” model – it would RESTRAIN an out of control “authoritarian” leader of either party. Americans would have less to fear from foreign-style leaders.
America rejected over 200 years of constitutional legal precedent in 2001 and fully embraced foreign-style “authoritarianism”.
We get it. You don’t know anything.
Don’t think you get it at all. In a “constitutional rule of law” model of government, the U.S. Department of Justice would indict officials that commit the felony crime of torture, the felony crime of warrantless wiretapping or John Ashcroft’s felony violations of Title 18 US Code 242 when he exploited the federal “Material Witness Statute”.
Those officials would have been indicted and convicted in the American system of justice designed by the Founding Fathers. You don’t get it at all,
No, because the use of the term ‘torture’ is an inflammatory rhetorical game, not a reference to any interrogation method perfomred which actually contravened a criminal statute. And, no, because “John Ashcroft’s felony violations of Title 18 US Code 242 when he exploited the federal “Material Witness Statute”. ” is a talking point you cadged off an obnoxious website and you haven’t a clue what it means, and no, because the NSA collecting metadata isn’t ‘wiretapping’.
IMHO, Trump is a first class Ass, Bully, Jerk, All round not nice guy. But much of what he says has kibbles of truth. The media is biased, everyone is biased. The media got so full of themselves over the past 50 years that they believed they know more than the population at large, because, well because they just do. So your opinion only counts as far as they want to direct it. IMHO, the Clintons are a crime family no different than the Mafia. The difference, they worked in the sphere of governments where the mafia works in illegal and legal business practices. The class of people that shows the greatest increase in wealth with a change in job is a politician. How does a person go from making a pretty good salary in the $100-200 range with plenty of perks like free travel and housing expenses, end up a multi millionaire in a few short years? This is why Trump got the votes he did. There is no difference between a Repo and a Demo, they both have been fleecing the voters for a very long time. Along comes rich guy trump promising to “drain the swamp”. Why not give him a chance?
The media need to take a good hard look at themselves and start reporting more truthfully or our country will continue to go down the feces hole.
In saying that Trump is a “subject not target” of his errant investigation is it possible that Mueller is trying to lull President Trump into a false sense of security knowing that in a sit down with him there’s a high probability of bagging him on a process crime?
Trump ran, in part, on vows to ‘drain the swamp’. One could take that to mean to find and get rid of those in government and associated with government who are not only ineffective but corrupt and unlawful. Although the orange mouthpiece ranted and raved-and continues to do so, he did not focus on any specific ‘targets’.
Mueller was tasked with doing so, focusing at first with the election and wrongdoings connected. However he stated and it was established that he would investigate not only those immediately connected but all and everything that was connected, that was unearthed. In other words no specific targets until after some investigating was done, and anything discovered or given up during the exercise will be investigated further.
Mueller has unearthed targets and laid down some charges. They began as subjects, then after further investigation became targets.
Mueller has not yet interviewed the tweeting twit. The twit remains a subject, not a target.
Mueller has not finished interviewing and/or investigating all the ‘subjects’ or interacting with all the ‘targets’.
Amazing how a little ‘lawyer speak’ will shake things up. It’s in the category of Slick Willie arguing over what constitutes ‘sexual relations’; or is a hummer a sexual relation or not. Sometimes a hummer is a hummer is a hummer.
issac – I read the transcripts of Monica’s testimony and it was a straight bj. He did not get a hummer.
PCS
Perhaps you can elaborate for us. You seem closer to the subject than I.
-Are you referring to a Bobby Joe or a Billy Jean when you reference bj?
-What is the difference between a bj and a hummer?
-How does the cigar figure in either one, if there is a difference?
issac – I am going to assume that even in Canada they know what a bj is. My understanding (I do not know from personal experience) is that one hums while giving a hummer. Sometimes a specific tune?
Paul,
Is it:
“Whistle While You Work”?
mespo – damned if I know, but that tune seems counter-productive. 😉
Paul
You are deprived in more ways than one. In Canada, as in the US, a bj can be a Bobby Joe or a Billy Jean, depending on one’s bent. A hummer is when the giver enjoys the activity. That you have never experienced a happy hummer is your loss. The tune is mostly the same, but it’s not ‘Whistle While You Work’.
Mespo
A hummer to be a hummer must be sincere and enjoyed by both parties. Therefore it is not work. Even Walt would not confuse ‘Whistle While Your Work’ with a hummer.
One side’s hummer can be another side’s muff diving.
American puritanism produces interesting euphemisms.
Best recent article by JT by a nautical mile. Bravo and let’s keep up the pressure on the media … er the propagandists. Calling them the liars saps their power over us. No wonder they stand idly by while the First Amendment is attacked. What crook wants to be outed?
You start first with Fox and Hannity.
OK. So what? This isn’t a Fox News site. That organization has been beaten soundly years before you’ve ever posted. Once in a while they are relevant. Actually a little better than in the W years, but not by enough to really matter. Where were MSN, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, et al when war with Iraq was imminent? I’ll tell you, pushing fake yellowcake (no pun intended…).
“This isn’t a Fox News site”. Hannity tells the truth. Cosmic jokes.
Linda:
Actually Fox and Hannity have been right all along on this story (as has Tucker Carlson) and CNN and the rest of the propagandists have been dead wrong though, of course, they knew better. Sort of like their election coverage designed to convince conservative voters to stay home.
Agree mespo.
No specific crime/probable cause to start with. If there were a crime attributable to Trump there is no way the investigation would go close to one year without a leak in this regard. There needs to be an investigation of the investigation: How did this all get started/funded without specific crime/probable cause to investigate other than Clinton-funded Russian dossier? JT’s use of the word “pathology” as it relates to CNN (and MSNBC) analists is interesting. The hate of Trump has led grown-ass adults to suspend logic and perhaps rationalize this in their heads as some sort of civic duty to save the country.
bias, not logic- “without a leak”… proof of innocence.
As William Bayer has so kindly stated, Mueller does not have legal standing to be SC. And if I were on Trump’s team at this point I would allow written questions but no interviews.
Yes, because The Donald has no conception of truth and will just blurt out whatever is in his skull at the moment.
So what ?
The purpose of the investigation is to find if there was criminal conduct during the election,
Not to conspire with the left to manufacture a reason to remove a duly elected president.
Not to lure people into mis-statements and then jail them for them.
We have a name for that – “entrapment” – it is unethical.
If the purpose of a Trump interview is to try to catch him in a lie so that you can indict or impeach him – then that purpose is improper and unethical.
If Mueller wishes to interview Trump, the burden is on Mueller to demonstrate that Trump can provide evidence that Mueller does not already have about the matters Mueller was tasked to investigate.
I beleive Mueller has provided a list of 4 areas he wishes to question Trump about.
None of those meet those requirements.
David Benson – if, and I say if, The Donald had ADD, he has no social filter for his speech. It is part of the ADD. Would you kick the disabled? He is also a risk-taker.
The Donald has no conception of truth…
That from the guy who’s go to line is now you’re just making stuff up. Brilliant!
Exactly — and if I were Trump I’d submit written questions back at Mueller, asking him to specify, by statute, each and every crime he was appointed to investigate and where that information is contained in Rosenstein’s appointment of him. It doesn’t exist.
It would be a LOT easier for Trump to answer Mueller’s written questions than it would be for Mueller to answer Trump’s written questions.
Trump would easily win both the legal and political battle if he did that.
Exactly what?
Exactly, that Mueller doesn’t have legal standing, and exactly, that Trump should, at most, answer written questions.
One legal precedent for answering written questions instead of consenting to be interviewed is that that’s what Judge Sullivan ruled was appropriate when Judicial Watch wanted to take Hillary’s deposition. He said no, but ordered that Hillary answer written questions (interrogatories).
It’s a more-than-reasonable course of action. If Mueller doesn’t like the written answers he gets, he can always move to interview Trump, on the basis of some deficiency in his written answers.
And not, exactly, that The Donald is incapable of truthfully answering oral questions?
With written ones he can obtain assistance, badly required in this instance.
More interestingly he could refuse to answer on the grounds of lack of standing…
Yes, it’s VERY difficult to get straight answers to interrogatories. Do a search and read the sort of written answers that Hillary gave to Judicial Watch. It’s total garbage that didn’t answer any of their questions.
And Judicial Watch could have used those written answers to enter a motion that the answers were deficient. Whether they did or not, I don’t know, as things quickly moved on to other matters.
But that’s how things work.
The point of Mueller having to submit written questions is to establish that there’s actually information that he needs from Trump — that the purpose of interviewing him isn’t merely to try to trap him based upon a contradiction to information Mueller already has.
If Mueller already has the information he’s pretending to request from Trump, then he has no legitimate basis to interview him. The criminal clowns (including Peter Strzok) who interviewed Flynn had NO legitimate basis to ask him about his phone call with the Russian Ambassador, because they already had a transcript of the phone call. Trying to trap someone into saying something contradicting something they already know is NOT a legitimate reason to interview someone.
That’s a legal FACT.
No need to shout.
No need to be a FLAMING JACKASS
Clean up your act, Bayer.
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Bayer would have made similar defenses for Richard Nixon so that his crimes could be hidden.
Good post William. Speaking LOUDLY; cognitive dissonance is deafening.
Your prior opinion of Trump’s ability to answer oral questions truthfully is irrelevant.
Mueller may not ethically push someone into committing a crime.
His numerous charges for petty misstatements creates the appearance that is exactly what he is doing.
Do you think the role of prosecutor’s is the pursuit of truth, or the pursuit of convictions ?
“petty misstatements” -colossal assumption by JS. When the public learns more about what Flynn provided…
Did you ever think that questions by a Mueller or anyone else in that position are accumulated and formulated over months with many people reviewing the questions before they are asked?
Can Mueller answer questions orally about his investigation, his history, his personal and professional dealings with Comey? I think Mueller would have more trouble answering honestly than Trump would and I think we would find Trump innocent of all accusations having to deal with the Russians. I think Mueller might be found guilty of all sorts of things from the time his career in government service started.
Well any mafia don would prefer to answer a deposition in writing! That’s a no-brainer. If one can have their lawyers craft finely-worded responses, that would be the preferred method for defendants of any stripe.
The U.S. & Israel will be convicted of War Crimes
Another investigation with which Trump & U.S. are complicit;
“Former ICC official says Israel will be convicted of war crimes”
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20170531-former-icc-official-says-israel-will-be-convicted-of-war-crimes
Luis Moreno-Ocampo, former prosecutor of the International Criminal Court [Ralph Alswang/FlickR]
http://buenavistamall.com/iccisrael.jpg
WHO WILL TRY TO ARREST AMERICANS & ISRAELIS FIRST, ICC OR INTERPOL?
Trump, Obama, Bush, Netanyahu, other U.S. / Israeli War Criminals are near to arrest warrants for war crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya & Palestine
“Unlike the ICC, Interpol can issue an arrest warrant without a preliminary or full criminal investigation.”
“Israel just lost American Jews”
“It has finally happened. In the last day or so, major mainstream voices have condemned Israel’s shootings of unarmed Palestinian protesters on March 30, in which 17 were killed.”
http://mondoweiss.net/2018/04/israel-just-american/
“This continued refusal to acknowledge positive developments for Trump…..”
WTF?! Turley has gone off his rocker. The plea bargains of officials who worked in Trump’s campaign are not “positive developments” for Trump.
The indictment of Trump’s former campaign manager Manafort is not a “positive development” for Trump.
The fact that Mueller’s office has not shared all of the evidence it has gathered with the public is not a “positive development “ for Trump.
The fact that Trump has been told that he is a “subject” of Mueller’s investigation is not a “positive development “ for Trump.
The lack of an indictment of Trump at this stage is not a “positive development “ for Trump.
The recent stories about Cambridge Analytica are not a “positive development for Trump.
Trump’s bizarre pattern of tweeting is not a “positive development” for Trump, as any (competent) criminal defense attorney will agree.
One could go on and on.
The fact that some Legal smarty pants on TV has uttered gibberish while spouting his or her opinion on TV is not good news for Trump. It is just opinion and gibberish.
Speaking of gibberish, parts of Turley’s post appear qualified for that category.
Some of the most consistently cogent commentary on Mueller’s investigation can be found over at emptywheel.
Turley is high on T rumpism. He must think puttin pregnant ladies in detention centers and trade wars are coolio.
He may be high on despicable Donny, but I don’t imagine he would take him as a client….
We don’t know who are his clients. A T rump associate either here or in Russia could be his client.
Just another way for JT to keep his base in the bubble of alternative reality.
The facts – as Turley states quite well is that we have no more – and in fact arguably much less basis to beleive that the Trump campaign had any “links” to russia – the words of Mueller’s charge than we did a year ago.
If Mueller had the evidence you claim he has not made public he would be ethically required to identify Trump as a target not a subject.
Mueller has found no criminal conduct related to his charge, and nothing that an SC running through the DNC would not encounter in spades.
18 USC Ch. 73 Obstruction of Justice
1510.Obstruction of criminal investigations.
1512.Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant.
1513.Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant.
William Bayer said, “To link Trump to the commission of a crime, someone would have to first identify a crime that Mueller’s supposed to be investigating.”
The reply above was supposed to go to Bayer’s comment downstream from here.
And yet you didn’t post it as a reply to my comment. Anyway, too bad Rosenstein didn’t identify any of those crimes when he appointed Mueller. And probably one of the reasons he didn’t identify any of that stuff you wrote is because it’s nonsense.
Per federal regulation — 28 CFR § 600.4(a) — Rosenstein was required to identify the crime(s) that needed to be investigated, and he didn’t identify ANY crimes. NONE. It’s called establishing original jurisdiction, and Rosenstein didn’t do it. He didn’t even try to do it. Therefore whatever Mueller thinks he’s doing is NOT authorized by law.
And I’m not defending Manafort or the others here — I’m just pointing out that Mueller has neither jurisdiction or legitimate authority to do any of what he’s doing. It wouldn’t be the first time that a prosecution was messed up by prosecutorial misconduct, and it wouldn’t be the first time that Mueller has engaged in prosecutorial misconduct.
AND Comey testified under oath that the investigation which Mueller took over was a “counterintelligence investigation.” To obstruct justice or to obstruct a criminal investigation, there has to be a criminal investigation to obstruct or a judicial process to obstruct. Counterintelligence is not a procedure aimed at justice. It is aim at preventative and/or retaliatory measures, such as when Obama imposed sanctions and booted out Russian diplomats. Those occurrences had nothing to do with “justice.” There was no judicial procedure whatever associated with those actions.
As usual, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
William Bayer said, “AND Comey testified under oath that the investigation which Mueller took over was a ‘counterintelligence investigation.'”
Perhaps you’ve forgotten that Comey was investigating Michael Flynn for suspected crimes at the time that Trump asked Comey to let Flynn go. Counter-intelligence investigations can, and occasionally do, produce substantial evidence of suspected crimes. Trump’s decision to fire Comey interrupted the process by which a counter-intelligence investigation could have produced substantial evidence of a suspected crime committed by Flynn. And that’s both how and why the FBI’s counter-intelligence investigation became the Special Counsel’s investigation into Trump’s suspected obstruction of justice. your argument to the contrary entails that there is no law against obstructing a counter-intelligence investigation in such a way as to prevent the discovery of substantial evidence of a suspected crime. IOW, your argument is FUBAR.
The point you’re pretending doesn’t exist is that Rosenstein didn’t identify obstruction of justice or obstruction of a criminal investigation when he appointed Mueller — not in relation to Flynn or anyone else.
See, what you don’t understand is that establishing jurisdiction is the FIRST requisite. When a prosecutor presents his case at trial — take for example a bank robbery — the very first thing he needs show the court is when and where the crime occurred, in order to establish that it happened within that jurisdiction and during a period of time concerning which an applicable statute of limitation has not yet expired.
It’s just a matter of simple judicial procedure/process. If a prosecutor fails to do that — in his opening statement, the defendants attorney can immediately jump up and move to dismiss the charges, and the court WILL grant that motion.
You HAVE to establish jurisdiction before you can do anything else, and Rosenstein/Mueller didn’t establish jurisdiction.
Not going to respond to any more of your nonsense. Troll on.
From the WaPo article to which Mark M. linked William Bayer on a previous thread a few days ago:
When he was appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in May (after Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s recusal from any investigations involving the 2016 presidential campaign), Rosenstein issued a public outline of the scope of Mueller’s authority. We’ve walked through this before; it includes three main things:
•“Any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.”
•“Any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.”
•“Any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).”
That section of the Code of Federal Regulations — 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a) — allows Mueller to investigate “federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel’s investigation,” including lying to authorities.
Flynn, Gates and Papadopoulos have each pled guilty to lying to authorities. Manafort is still holding out on a plea deal. It’s probable that Comey knew that Flynn had lied to the FBI at the time that Trump asked Comey to let Flynn go. It’s possible that Trump knew that Flynn had lied to the FBI before Trump asked Comey to let Flynn go. This has all been covered extensively for many months by now. Stuck in denial???
Diane – Manafort does not appear to be holding out for a plea deal, he has the money to fight the government. He is attacking Mueller’s authority as SC. Doesn’t sound like he is rolling over and playing dead to me.
“To fight”… which government, domestic or foreign?
Linda – which one is charging him with crimes?
Last time, troll.
“That section of the Code of Federal Regulations — 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a) — allows Mueller to investigate ‘federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel’s investigation,’ including lying to authorities.”
(1) There was no special counsel investigation at the time that Trump ALLEGEDLY said to Comey, “I hope you can” let Flynn go.
(2) Trump saying that he hoped Comey could let Flynn go is not an order, and is not obstruction. And Trump did nothing to prevent Comey from indicting Flynn.
(3) And Comey wasn’t in charge of the Flynn investigation or any other investigation. He was the Director of the Bureau, not the Director of any investigations. Bill Priestap was in charge of the investigation, not Comey. And Bill Priestap — who’s STILL at the same job he was doing then, head of the FBI Counterintelligence Division — NOT THE CRIMINAL DIVISION — was in no way impeded in conducting his investigation.
(4) 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a) states:
“Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel’s investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.”
That was restated by Rosenstein when he appointed Mueller, and it refers to things occurring while Mueller was investigating — not things that might have happened before Mueller began investigating — and it’s STILL predicated on having FIRST established “original jurisdiction” by providing a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated.
Without providing “a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated” jurisdiction has NOT been established, and any alleged “perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses” cannot happen, because those crimes can ONLY occur after original jurisdiction has been established.
The bottom line is (a) Comey’s testimony — AFTER Flynn allegedly lied and AFTER Trump ALLEGEDLY said that he hoped Comey could let Flynn go — that it was a “counterintelligence investigation,” therefore it was not a matter for a special counsel, and (b) Rosenstein/Mueller never established “original jurisdiction,” possibly because that would have indicated that Comey had LIED UNDER OATH. When Comey testified that it was a “counterintelligence investigation,” Rosenstein would have been accusing Comey of perjury if he’d crafted Mueller’s appointment as being a criminal investigation.
You’re getting more ridiculous by the minute. If I listen carefully, I can almost hear your brain rotting.
William Bayer said, “There was no special counsel investigation at the time that Trump ALLEGEDLY said to Comey, “I hope you can” let Flynn go.”
William Bayer also said, “any alleged “perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses” cannot happen, because those crimes can ONLY occur after original jurisdiction has been established.”
William Bayer is now saying that the Special Counsel has to be appointed before any alleged obstruction of justice can happen and the Special Counsel cannot be appointed before any alleged obstruction of justice has happened. That is an antinomy. And, as previously mentioned, Bayer’s antinomy, like any other antinomy, is FUBAR.
Not what I said. Now you’re deep into LYING and I’m done with you.
Lie on, FRAUD.
Proud Bayer is hopelessly stuck in denial.
While posted as a reply to you, this is actually directed to Darin: Why is this clown not booted off of this site for this garbage — including and especially repeated nonsense such as “Proud Bayer”?
This person is human garbage, and his purpose here has nothing to do with engaging in civil discourse.
Above: In which Sirrah jawbones the referees into calling a foul on “human garbage” for using the term “Proud Bayer.”
Childish name calling, Bayer’s stock in trade when his arguments fail.
Sad.
wildbill99 said, “Childish name calling, Bayer’s stock in trade when his arguments fail. Sad.”
That makes Bayer irresistible to me. Although, technically speaking, what I said he said is not what he said. But don’t tell him I said that.
Diane – ANTINONY is Diane’s word of the day. We are all glad you are increasing your vocabulary, however, we wish you would use the terms correctly.
It’s antinomy. And it means a self-nullifying law. At least as it was used by Herr Professor Manny.
Diane – a different new word for the day. ANTINOMY Good for you, a new word. 🙂
In a comment in a different post’s thread, Bayer claimed to Dennis that he was being baited. Bayer sees inconvenient truths as baiting. His way of approaching discussion is consistent with the psychological profile of conservative/Trump supporters-Narcissistic tendencies, greater resistance to the facts that don’t conform to his existing bias,…
“Last time, troll.”
Clean up your act, Bayer.
“Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong.”
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
“Troll” fits neither L4D nor Bayer. The “trolls” at this site are likely limited to Russian payroll.
Bayer generalizes all who disagree with him into a category that isn’t a one size fits all. It’s another profile trait of conservatives.
wildbill99, It is an unforgivable imposition upon Bayer’s forbearance as a superior legal mind to be compelled to defend his inestimable understanding of the law at the behest of juvenile human garbage. One imagines that his choler might be especially intolerable to Bayer, himself. Unless he actually enjoys it, instead. I doubt he’d ever cop a plea to that, though.
William Bayer – Manafort is attacking the standing of the SC right now and if he can rock the boat enough, Sullivan will kick the charges against Flynn. With one guy doing 30 days it would be hard to give the rest more. 😉
Agreed about the Mueller’s motive regarding the 30-day sentence for the one guy lying to the FBI. I’ve posted comments elsewhere that I think the actual reason that Mueller went after the guy that just got 30 days in jail was actually an attempt to set the standard for people such as McCabe when it comes time for his sentencing. One guy got 30 days for lying to the FBI, so by simple arithmetic, McCabe should only get 4 months for his four lies.
Mueller is — or should be — aware that a number of people at the FBI and DOJ have lied, and his institutional loyalty motivated him to prosecute someone for the ulterior purpose of influencing — minimizing —the sentencing of FBI/DOJ personnel.
Of course that would be highly unethical — and that’s just one more reason to suspect that that’s what Mueller is/was really doing.
On April 3rd, 2018, on an original post entitled “Filing: Rosenstein expanded Mueller’s mandate, Turley wrote:
“The memo by Rosenstein allowed Mueller to investigate allegations that Manafort ‘‘committed a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials’’ to interfere with the presidential election. It also specifically authorized Mueller to investigate any crimes linked to payments Manafort received from the Ukrainian government during the tenure of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.”
Therefore, Paul C. Schulte gets the same question Turley poses today to media legal analysts: Stuck in denial???
Diane – the big question is why would a friend of the Podestas go to work for Trump for free. And Isikoff was saying Manafort and Trump had a Ukraine problem before Manafort worked for Trump.
The CEO of the Podesto Group, during Hillary’s campaign, had been the deputy campaign manager for Gov. Jeb Bush and was a self-described former GOP operative.
Voters wanted the swamp drained. Instead they got Trump’s swamp monsters.
If you have evidence that John Podesta was anything but a Clinton loyalist, you should present it.
I don’t know the client list of the Podesta Group, Tony Podesta’s firm.
Even if I did, that list would not change the known history of John Podesta and both Clintons.
The whole “innocent” narrative would work better if Russian bots and trolls weren’t paid to add to conservative claims that Mueller’s investigation is a nothing burger.
Putin said he didn’t take action to get Trump elected. Assange said his selective DNC leaks were not part of the Russian agenda. Let their records speak for themselves. (Anything added, like using the ruse of commenters posing as American conservatives, when they are in Kosovo, makes the “innocent” story less credible.)
If those who are questioned in the investigation answer truthfully to the special counsel (a Republican). And, the report, which includes Trump’s tax records, Deutsche and Alfa bank records etc. shows nothing beyond regular business opportunities unrelated to political support, then there is neither collusion nor reason for obstruction.
Instead, the current situation seems like two kids who conspired to steal a cookie. When they both say the cookie isn’t missing and the trail of crumbs leads to one of them, credulity about either’s innocence is stretched.
Maybe her knowledge that people here are posting comments from Kosovo should be relayed to the Mueller team.
She may be aware of a plot that’s impacted this comments section that Mueller has yet to uncover.
Media Matters already published about Kosovo. And also, a couple of tech sites are following the activity.
The ratcheting up of the shenanigans and the venom against me in the more recent comments – smoke, where there’s fire? It isolates the perpetrator when other cultures don’t engage in that kind of behavior.
Linda, Linda, burning bright,
Through the thickets on the right;
What mere mortal Gnash reply,
Could tame thy fearless gallantry?
P. S. Go get ’em, Tyger, Tyger!
Unlike Media Matters, “Linda” knows the individuals posting from Kosovo, and that they are posting on the JT comments site.
I might suspect that “”Linda” is posting from an asylum, but I won’t state it as fact until I have evidence, beyond the indications of lunacy that she exhibits here.
Please read those statutes. Each crime has specific elements that must be met to charge them.
The law is not whatever you want it to be.
1510(a) requires bribery.
1510(b) applies to officers in a financial institution.
1510(c) is a definition
1510(d) applies to insurance agents.
1510(e) relates improperly disclosing credit information.
…..
Wishful thinking does not transform a ridiculously broad interpretation of the title of a statute into an actual crime.
John Say said, “Each crime has specific elements that must be met to charge them.”
Must charges be brought before an investigation is authorized? Must the specific elements for charges to be brought be met before an investigation is authorized? Must proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt be ascertained before probable cause to authorize an investigation is satisfied?
P. S. Is irrelevance a principle of metalogic, dhlii?
Turley wrote, “That Mueller does not believe there is ‘substantial evidence linking [Trump] to the commission of a crime’ would seem to merit some, albeit grudging, recognition.
Last October, Mueller brought the first indictments against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his deputy, Richard Gates. Notably, none of the indictments were linked to the campaign, let alone Trump. When that obvious point was raised, we were told that it meant nothing and Mueller was likely holding back the really damaging indictments while pressuring Trump aides.”
We now have good reason to believe that Paul Manafort’s motion to dismiss the charges against him will not be granted. If, or when, that dismissal motion is denied, the pressure on Manafort to make a plea-deal for reduced charges and become a cooperating witness for the OSC will be significantly increased. Mueller might not yet know what testimony Manafort may have to offer. Consequently, the distinction Turley draws between a subject versus a target of an investigation might not warrant the conclusion that Turley reaches: “That Mueller does not [currently] believe there is ‘substantial evidence linking [Trump] to the commission of a crime.'”
Moreover, there are other potential subjects or targets of the Special Counsel’s investigation besides The POTUS, Trump. Consider Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner, for instance. Mueller’s interview offer to Trump included areas of inquiry that involve Manafort, Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner. Any testimony that Manafort might offer against Trump Jr. and Kushner could lead to far greater investigative scrutiny of Trump’s business transactions with Russians. There is already circumstantial evidence on the elements of motive, means and opportunity for Trump’s suspected money laundering, bank fraud and tax fraud. That the circumstantial evidence for financial crimes has not yet been substantiated in no way entails that there will be no ‘substantial evidence linking [Trump] to the commission of a crime,’ such as money laundering, or bank fraud, or tax fraud. Remember as well that Presidential pardons are useless against State offenses.
Rumors of Mueller’s demise are still premature.
If Trump is ultimately cleared if any criminal wrongdoing, that will be viewed as “Mueller’s demise” by those with a strong desire for a different outcome.
As upsetting as that potential outcome may be, it is not accurate to describe it as “Mueller’s demise.”
It will simply be terrible letdown for those who really, really need to see a different outcome.
Actually, I still prefer to see Trump defeated at the polls on election day. And preferably during the Republican primaries. The only exception would be if Mueller uncovers evidence of criminal wrongdoing by Trump. Because we don’t decide matters of criminal law by plebiscite–yet.
“Rumors of Mueller’s demise are premature”.
This is your concluding statement after hopeful speculation about all of the possible ways that Mueller could still pin something directly on Trump.
Those are revealing statements, and they don’t sound merely like a preference that Trump is defeated in a 2020 election.
Actually, those statements sound more like the wishes of a “vendettist”. 😏😕
As I’m sure you know, Gnash, I’m not the one fomenting rumors of Mueller’s demise. Trump is, as well as a great many MAGA cultists posting theories of Mueller’s supposed prosecutorial misconduct right here on Res Ipsa Loquitur.
As for your vendettist retread, I can concieve of no antidote safer and more effective for the poisonous political environment that had Turley fretting the other day that he has never seen our country more deeply divided than that the cause of those deep divisions and poisonous politics, The POTUS, Trump, should be defeated at the polls either during the Republican primaries or on the general election day in 2020.
Let’ da electorate stand up and clean da T rump swamp out. And that means Scott Pruitt, Jared and every crook that works there.
I’m with you on dat one, Ken. Unless Mueller uncovers substantial evidence of a crime that Trump may actually have committed. But even then, we’ll still have to beat someone else at the polls on election day in 2020.
Original Ken – that would wipe out the Democratic Congress. 😉 I am with you on Jared, though.
Tom:
Lol. I thought our resident JT hater left out of principle. Alas his/her weak principles match the commentary.
The principle is to oppose the vendetta cult at every turn.
L4D:
Your “opposition is the same as the blade of grass to the tank track. Hypocrisy warrants indifference. Now you’re one less lamebrain commenter to read.
Thine tank treads must needs rust from the morning dew on our leaves of grass. We shalt bend but ne’er break under your lumbering tons. Then spring back up, head off and reseed even the mud in which thee also must needs be mired. Such is the true indifference of sod.
Mespo,..
I don’t routinely read L4D’s frequent reviews and respinning of the JT columns….I read his columns…. her reviews are something that I may read occasionally.
When a comment like “Mueller’s demise” is tied in with all of the speculation about how Mueller might nail Trump, that does not sound like advocacy of change at the polls.
It’s more in line with the calls for impeachment that began before Trump was even inaugerated.
Gnash can’t hold two seemingly inconsistent ideas in his head at the same time. Perhaps Gnash does not recognize the proper distinction drawn between politics versus crime. We settle political issues at the polls on election day and criminal issues whenever Mueller is good and ready settle Trump’s hash.
P. S. Ken picked up on it straight away–no problema. Once again, Ken outperforms Gnash.
L4D,..
I’ll take your word for it that, in principle, you oppose the vendetta cult.
When are you gonna put that principle into practice?
I’m glad to see that L4D has the solid intellectual backing of people like “Ken”, and that she is so impressed with his posts.
Mespo,
– She really, really prefers to see change via an election, but considers a failure to bring criminal charges against Trump to be “Mueller’s demise”.
Her hopeful post today ( April 19) about Trump being removed by the Senate kind of gets us right back to the L4D vendetta.
Peekaboo. ICU Ptom.
P. S. There are two plans.
Plan A & Plan 2.
Plan 1 is to defeat Trump at the polls in 2020.
Plan B is to remove Trump from office pending discovery of evidence of a crime sufficient to the task.
L4D is flexible.
For one with a vendetta agenda, you show great flexibilty.😄😀
Plan 2 hinges upon evidence of a crime. That’s what the guessing game is all about.
Diane, you clearly demonstrate the vendetta of the left. You lost a legal election so rather than let it stand you are looking for ways to overturn the will of the American people. Dhlii posted a video that you should watch. Your attitude of win at any cost could end up putting your own son in jail should he so happen to have involvement in an industry being targeted by hateful people like you. Take a look at what Supreme Court Justice Jackson said in 1940. If one looks hard enough at an individual one is likely to find a crime. In the case of your friends like Hillary and Bill the crimes are obvious and need not be looking for.
So you’re sure that that the results of the Mueller investigation will be “the kiss of death” for Trump?
Not at all. It’s still the greatest guessing game of a generation or two or three.
Today’s post from you sounded like a prediction
…maybe it’s just a fervent hope that the Senate will remove Trump?
Your protégé, Bill Martin, wants me to stop partying and go home. He doesn’t own the place. Ergo, it was strictly necessary to get Bill Martin’s goat. Meanwhile, you’re over-analyzing, again, Gnash.
Late4Dinner/Early for vendetta,..
It doesn’t take “overanalysing” to see your intermingled hopes and predictions all rolled up into one.
Allan,
.
– I think she objects to the word “vendetta”….let’s just call it an “intense grudge”.😊😀
Call it what it is, venal behavior.
Let a struggling T rump stay in if he is not guilty. Most of us don’t like Pence so there is that. Da worry is with da crazed on in is getting blown up
In a trade war or a nuke war.
Mueller will follow where the evidence leads and act accordingly. That’s what ethical, responsible prosecutors do, and he will be judged accordingly. Just because he is investigating a ethical and moral superfund site like Trump doesn’t mean he will necessarily tarnish his own reputation.
It remains to be seen what Mueller’s reputation will be at the end of the day.
I don’t think he was a good choice because of his close relationship with James Comey.
Stacking his team mostly with Democrats seemed to invite more questions about Mueller’s objectivity, and the polling supports widespread public skepticism on that score.
Your argument is that the pressure of a criminal prosecution for something unrelated will compel Manafort to provide evidence of a crime that no other evidence of exists. that is to this point mythical.
Your beleif that some unknown crime occurred is not even a basis for an investigation.
What is increasingly evident is not only that Mueller does not have anything – but that there never was a basis for any investigation.
The entirety of this past 18 months of public angst continues to rest on a tabloid dossier.
Not only was there no basis to appoint Mueller, but no basis for Comey to open an investigation at all.
And you know this how?
Unlike the Trump Dumpster Fire the Mueller investigation doesn’t leak like the proverbial sieve. We will find out what the investigation has uncovered when Mueller decides. I recommend suspending judgement until then.
wildbill99, As I’m sure you know, Mueller’s detractors want Mueller to prove Trump guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt before they will even concede that there ever was probable cause to investigate anything that Putin is alleged to have done, let alone anything with which Trump has not yet even been charged.
dhlii said, “Your belief that some unknown crime occurred is not even a basis for an investigation.”
Manafort participated in the Russian information warfare operation in The Ukraine. The Ukraine has had an evidence sharing agreement with the FBI ever since. Of all of the members of the Trump campaign that the Russians attempted to cultivate, Manafort is the one who had already been successfully cultivated by the Russians before there even was a Trump campaign. Likewise, of all of the members of the Trump campaign, the ones who knew the most about Russian information warfare operations were Manafort, Gates and Manafort’s old business partner Roger Stone. And then there’s Oleg Deripaska. Yes. You read that right.
At what point did Oleg Deripaska become a member of the Trump campaign???
Did someone mention an evidence sharing agreement between The Ukraine and the FBI???
The Ukranian government was colluding in favor of Hillary Clinton. The government later apologized to Trump for its involvement.
We have links from Ukraine to Clinton. If such types of linkage mean guilt then Hillary is definitely guilty. But, that is not my claim. What is the crime you are accusing Trump of?
MSM, Dems and those dumb enough to buy into their lies are doing everything they can do to derail this President and the nation. It will be interesting to see what they will try and pin on President Trump next. What will da Crispy Ken Rainman do when this comes to nothing.
Trump has done everything he can do to derail his own administration, AKA The DC Dumpster Fire. We elected a depraved and ignorant lout President, how did it go so wrong?
How did it go so wrong – probably because voters did not and still do not agree with you.
Actually, I fault the electoral college…..
2016 was the election from Hell, that the nation would lose was determined at the conventions.
re: ” That would have been less notable when Mueller was appointed in 2017 than it is now, after more than a year, dozens of criminal counts, hundreds of thousands of documents, and a bevy of cooperating witnesses.”:
It’s only been 10.5 months, not more than a year.
According to Comey’s sworn testimony, the investigation began in July, 2016. Mueller merely took over the investigation. The reality is that the investigation is coming up on being two years old.
The FBI investigations of Manafort, Carter Page, probably Gates, and possibly others go back to as far as 2014.
Mueller did not “start from scratch” in May 2017, and some of the key targets (or “subjects) were on the FBI’s radar for years.
Yes, I’ve read that as well — but I don’t recall whether I read it from any official source. Journalists know less about the law than a newborn chipmunk, so I wouldn’t feel comfortable relying on them if there’s an official source upon which I can rely.
I went with the July, 2016, date as a matter of simplicity, because Comey specifically testified under oath that that’s when the investigation into Russian collusion with the Trump campaign began.
When they started investigating Carter Page — according to reports — there wasn’t even a Trump campaign to investigate.
But you’re right — and despite Comey’s sworn testimony — this nonsense has probably been going on for 3 or 4 years. I would guess — and it’s just a guess, or maybe a deduction — that the plan to accuse Trump of colluding with Russians began to solidify when the FBI first notified the DNC that Russians were trying to infiltrate their computer system, and I believe that was in 2015 (although I’ve read conflicting accounts of that). From what I’ve read, the DNC took NO action to shore up its cybersecurity in response to the FBI warning, and one reason for that might be that their brain trust started concocting a plan to allow it to happen so that they could contort it into something to use against Trump, since it was never any secret that Trump has had business dealing in/with Russia.
William Bayer said, “the DNC took NO action to shore up its cybersecurity in response to the FBI warning, and one reason for that might be that their brain trust started concocting a plan to allow it to happen so that they could contort it into something to use against Trump.”
To use against Trump when? Before the election? They didn’t use it against Trump before the election. To use against Trump after the election? Because they knew Trump would win the election? Therefore they concocted a plan by which Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear would hack DNC emails and leak them to Wikileaks and D. C. Leaks, so that Trump would win the election, so that they could hatch their plot to use it all against Trump after the election?????
So your use of the term “brain trust” was strictly sarcastic????? Why does William Bayer so desperately need his adversaries to be just such stinking imbeciles as William Bayer has grown overly accustomed to imagining his supposedly imbecilic adversaries to be?????
“To use against Trump when?” — when/if he won the nomination. It corresponds to information contained in one of the DNC documents hacked or released, which instructed democrat operatives in the media to play up Trump, Cruz, and one other republican (I can’t immediately recall who — I think maybe Rubio) to help them get in front of the other republicans, so that one of them would get the nomination, because they’d determined that those three would be the easiest for Hillary to beat.
Yes, “brain trust” was sarcastic, but not strictly so, because that’s what the geniuses (that IS sarcasm) at the democrat think tanks think of themselves.
L4D asked, “To use against Trump when?”
William Bayer said, “[W]hen/if he [Trump] won the nomination.”
William Bayer had previously said, “the DNC took NO action to shore up its cybersecurity in response to the FBI warning, and one reason for that might be that their brain trust started concocting a plan to allow it to happen so that they could contort it into something to use against Trump.”
The DNC did not use the Russian hack of its emails to prevent Trump from winning the Republican nomination. Having been leaked to D. C. Leaks and Wikileaks, the DNC emails and the Podesta emails that the Russians hacked contributed to Trump’s election victory over Clinton. Bayer’s theory that the DNC allowed the Russians to hack the DNC emails necessarily entails the DNC enabled the Russians and Julian Assange to contribute to Trump’s eletion victory over Clinton. Bayer’s theory requires the DNC and Clinton, and Podesta, too, to be exactly as stupid as Bayer needs them to have been in order to make good on Bayer’s theory.
We will never know if the RNC was targeted for hacking or what actions, if any, were taken to prevent it. If info. was obtained, either it didn’t end up in Assange’s hands, he gave it to Russia to use as blackmail, or…?
We do know that tech support is expensive. The DNC was on the verge of bankruptcy during the presidential campaign. We know that the RNC is flush with money from corporations, etc. So, calling people stupid for not having gold faucets is disingenuous.
We also have reason to believe that Hillary Clinton was seriously paranoid about the FBI having anything at all to do with email servers.
She shouldn’t have been friends/allies with Podesto nor the corporate sponsored Center for American Progress (obvious since they led her to defeat, and took America with them). Her political choices were affected adversely by the unrelenting and unfair attacks from conservatives/Putin.
If there was incriminating information against Hillary to be found on the DNC computer systems, then Hillary’s concern was not paranoia.
And the warnings about the compromized DNC system started in Sept. 2015….the FBI stepped up those warnings in November 2015.
Hillary was not the nominee until the summer of 2016, so the neutral chair 😏 of the DNC, DW Shultz, was probably to one who made the call to block FBI access to the DNC system.
John Podesta was a key figure in the Bill Clinton administration, and in the 2016 Hillary campaign.
He was a long-time booster of both Clintons.
That doesn’t indicate that “they wouldn’t have been friends.
As far as the observation that “cybersecurity is expensive”, it casts a new light on Hillary’s homebrew system while she was Sec. of State; maybe her motive was to save the State Dept. money by relieving them of the financial burden of providing and protecting the more secure government systems she was sypposed to use.
Yet, when Hillary’s predecessor used a private server- o.k.?
The DNC lacked money. Hillary’s campaign did not.
Yet, when Hillary’s predecessor used a private server- o.k.?
More talking points. Colin Powell used a private account for his personal communications, and wasn’t trying to evade FOIA requests.
The investigation started in July 2016.
So, if feet are drug to prevent appointment of investigators, those days of foot dragging by the Republicans in control of the House, Senate and Presidency get counted?
Obama was in office until 2017.
If there was “foot dragging” in the years long investigations of Manafort, Page, etc., it spanned two administrations.
Your accusation that the Obama DOJ and Comey FBI were dogging the investigations into Manafort and Carter Page may or may not be true.
But at least try to get the dates right..Obama left office in Jan. 2017.
Also, the stepped-up actions against Manafort and Gates started after their association with Trump in his campaign….there are no known charges these guys were facing from the earlier investigations and the years-old alleged offenses, but that those same pre-Trump alleged offenses are now deemed worthy of pursuing.
Manafort is the nexus, the vinculum, the cross-roads of all things Trumpish in the 2016 election. Assuming that Mueller has not yet uncovered everything that he needs to know, then Manafort is the person most likely to know whatever else Mueller still need to find out.
And for another thing, Manafort and Gates had an ongoing conspiracy to launder money through bank fraud and the attendant tax fraud that did not end until Mueller indicted the both of them. That conspiracy continued apace before during and after Manafort’s tenure as Trump’s campaign manager. And Gates was never fired from the Trump campaign. In fact, Gates served on Trump’s transition team.
None of which changes the fact that Manafort has been under FBI investigation since 2014.
My comment was specifically in response to the comment that somehow “Republican foot dragging” impeded investigations.
That’s why I pointed out that the investigation of Manafortstarted under the Obama DOJ in 2014.
I suppose that the appointment of Special Counsel Mueller by the Trump DOJ is also an example of Republican foot dragging.
The more anyone looks the Dirtier Mueller & Rosenstein are:
New Photos Reveal Robert Mueller And Paul Manafort Both Worked With Former Ukraine President In 2013
Robert Mueller is investigating Paul Manafort for working with Viktor Yanukovych in 2013. Mueller also worked with Yanukovych in 2013…
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-08/new-photos-reveal-robert-mueller-and-paul-manafort-both-worked-former-ukraine
On some date in some FBI office, some FBI employee wrote a document “A” alleging potential crimes concerning American citizen “B” associated with the Trump campaign (likely Carter Page but the name is totally irrelevant). The FBI submitted “A” as “probable cause” to convince a judge to sign a warrant. IIRC it is illegal and/or against FBI policy to submit probable cause that is not confirmed to be true and accurate. Obviously, if such was not the case, any LEO could make any pile of dung, thus incinerating all purposes associated with a warrant signed by an “independent” judge.
FBI employees are not elected, and not an independent branch of government, but rather work under the POTUS, with legal oversight by Congress. Congress is elected, and their sworn duty is to confirm the FBI does not commit crimes, and to instruct the DOJ to prosecute FBI crimes (such as McCabe’s multiple felony lies). The FBI is the most heavily armed police group in the world, they can legally kill Americans. For the FBI to operate without Congressional supervision is insane.
How do we “know” that document A is a pile of dung, an illegal and unauthorized pack of FBI BS? Because Congress has requested for about 8-9 months, demanded to view document A in a closed secured office. When the FBI complied, parts of document A were redacted. The FBI has no legal authority to redact it, because the Congress persons viewing it have equal or greater clearance v. the unelected FBI pricks. Congress (elected officials) is the FBI’s boss.
It has come now to Congressman Nunez having to threaten legal action against the FBI to show the naked original document “A.” That’s how we know that Mueller’s reason to exist, the foundation of Mueller’s appointment, is a sham and a crime.
That being the case, how can anyone say that every one of Mueller convictions should not be overturned? Every bit of it appears to be fruit from a poison tree.
We also “know” the Steele dossier is the foundation of the FISA warrant, because if there was other evidence, the FBI would have leaked it months ago to avoid situations like McCabe’s firing.
All the above being the case, the only reason I can imagine why Rosenstein has not already fired Mueller is because Rosenstein and his FBI pals are all part of the DNC conspiracy described above, and to fire Mueller Rosenstein would have to explain and justify it, which incriminates himself.
This is the biggest scandal in FBI history, and I have no idea how and why Turley sees it differently.
The content of the Steele document hasn’t been found false. One Russian guy who could have corroborated it, was found dead from a heart attack, in his car trunk.
Linda – did he crawl in there to die?
The lethal injection that caused the man’s heart attack prevented him from doing anything, at all, let alone crawling into his car trunk. And if you tell me I’m just making stuff up, or demand that I prove it, I’ll regale you with ridicule the likes of which the world has never before . . . actually the world has probably heard it all before.
Diane – go for it. I want to see your best stuff. 🙂 Prove it!!!
Falsehoods are valued for their utility in Russia. The Russians have never yet denied any false allegations. The only allegations that the Russians have ever denied are allegations that have eventually turned out to be true. The eventual revelation of the denial as a lie is the most highly valued form of falsehood in Russia.
Diane – that is circular logic. That can be your phrase for next week if you like. 😉
The only allegations against Diane that she denies are the ones that turn out to be true.
I guess we can use her “logic” in the same way.
That’s not true.
Here’s the quasi-pseudo-official version of the story from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_Erovinkin
One common thread between Russia and conservatives-lying with abandon. The Weyrich training manual proves the link to conservative behavior and, England’s exposure of Putin’s poisonings proves the Russian link.
I’d never heard of the Weyrich manual….the only obsessive mention of it, and facination with it, has been posted by the same person.
She probably ran across that two-word slogan when reading a left-wing training piece talking about Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals (Weyrich could be considered an opposite). The left loves Alinsky who among other things was a petty thief.
Linda – the two do not connect. Logic is not your strong suit. Quit while you are ahead.
American Conservative 11/17/2017 “Republic of Lies”
Explaining it away, like the poisonings with exotic chemicals manufactured only in Russia, seems to be an abandoned effort.
The reports that I’ve seen indicate that the Russian was found dead in the back seat of his car, not the trunk.
But the “trunk story” is promoted to boost a claim of murder.
He may or may not have been murdered.
As for the claim that he was poisoned, I haven’t seen any confirmation of that.
Unlike the case in England, I haven’t seen any evidence produced that the Russian killed in December was poisoned.
( Suspicions aren’t evidence).
Putin will investigate and publish the unvarnished truth in Pravda?
It’s fair to say that when it comes to producing “the unvarished truth”,
I have equal confidence in Putin and Linda/ Hal.
Are you allowed to say that?
Are you capable of processing that?
Paul C. Schulte,..
Which is worse…being “regaled with curses the likes of which the world has never heard”, or being “regaled with ridicule the likes of which the world has never seen”?
If you find that either or both of this predictions have come true, please keep us posted.
It’ll save the expense of calling California Psycics if
we have somebody on this thread to provide the same service for free.
Trump supporters always knew there was ⭕️Russian “collusion” from day 1. We are so sick of this endless BS on TV, radio, & internet. Trust me we only care about Rosenstein, Mueller, Schiff, Comey, Hillary, Brennan, McCabe and the others who lied & cheated to throw our election have lady justice come upon them. We Conservatives will stand by Trump because the Demo🐀🐀🐀 in the Media, Congress and Senate have done nothing but lie. We know the alleged🤔 corrupt actors who broke law and ethics starting with the Liar-in-Chief BHO & his admin SC, FBI, SOS, IRS, DOJ etc.
Too dull for the Daily Tatler. Spiked, sorry.
“Mueller at this time apparently does not believe Trump meets the definition of a target or a ‘person as to whom the prosecutor or the grand jury has substantial evidence linking him or her to the commission of a crime and who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is a putative defendant’.”
Key phrase: “evidence linking him or her to the commission of a crime”
To link Trump to the commission of a crime, someone would have to first identify a crime that Mueller’s supposed to be investigating — aka 28 CFR § 600.4(a) “original jurisdiction” — “specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated” —a CRIMINAL matter to be investigated.
And the circus roles on, as Mueller hopes to find a crime, then jump in his time machine and go back to the date he was appointed special counsel so Rod Rosenstein can retroactively establish original jurisdiction.