Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[Ripster42]

That's a fair point, but probabilities don't matter for specific events; if I bat .650 that doesn't inherently mean I will hit the next two out of three pitches. In other words: What's relevant is whether this warrant is illegal. Which it might be, given that the original warrant was rejected by a court that had only rejected something like three warrants in twenty years.

Probabilities do matter when talking about likelihoods. That's basically what probability is about.

And you might want to check again about the warrant being rejected. You seem to be misremembering what actually took place. They had a legally approved warrant, after a review of data collected on those sources, they closed the warrant on those sources. They then presented evidence to a judge that manafort was using different avenues to communicate than the ones they'd previously tapped. Which is why they didn't catch anything on the sources they previously had a warrant for. And it's likely they gleened enough info from those taps (as well as taps on foreign officials) to get the search warrant. Since, again, a judge approved it.

[Nadiru]

Doesn't your own probability claim refute your point?

I don't really buy into probabilistic arguments surrounding legal matters, though it seems Ripster does, so if he wants probabilities I'll give him some.

It's called statistics. @Ripster42 is correct, as long as 51% or more of warrants stand up in court.

I don't believe you're going to break that. Good luck, though.

Statistics are relevant for trends, but aren't relevant for discrete events. To reiterate: What's relevant is whether this warrant is legal or not.

[Shalcker]

Using your lawyer in the furtherance of crimes invalidates attorney client privilege. So there goes that.

What exactly comes first here? You do need to break privilege to obtain it.

It's unlikely the FISA warrant was illegal, since, you know, a judge signed off on it.

So, unlikely but possible? How soon is that argument going to be decided?

I do not expect it to be thrown out, btw. But i do not expect conviction to succeed on all counts either.

Currently, Comey is suspected of releasing classified documents by people who don't know what classified documents are to push an agenda.

I see you're skipping allegations on the rest of Mueller staff (of which Comey isn't part).

The actual hill article does not support you. You're source is literally, "The comments on this hill article." Give me a break.

Сomments giving alternative interpretations to the article is "working as intended". People who actually agree with everything have little to comment other then "lock them up" and stuff like that.

[Breccia]

Statistics are relevant for trends, but aren't relevant for discrete events.

You just tried to handwave dismiss an entire science. Since your entire argument is founded on the opposite of such things as logic and evidence, I think it's safe to ignore you now.

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks to @Bullettime for making me look for this.

The Russian lawyer from the Trump Tower meeting has volunteered to testify before Congress and/or Mueller, as long as she does so publicly.

Her claims include that Trump Jr. asked for written evidence of Clinton taking illegal money, and would reconsider the Maginsky Act, in the same meeting.

[Rukh]

I don't really buy into probabilistic arguments surrounding legal matters, though it seems Ripster does, so if he wants probabilities I'll give him some.



Statistics are relevant for trends, but aren't relevant for discrete events. To reiterate: What's relevant is whether this warrant is legal or not.

Then you should go with the warrant being valid, especially what we know now after the fact.

[Ripster42]

What exactly comes first here? You do need to break privilege to obtain it.

So, unlikely but possible? How soon is that argument going to be decided?

I do not expect it to be thrown out, btw. But i do not expect conviction to succeed on all counts either.

I see you're skipping allegations on the rest of Mueller staff (of which Comey isn't part).

Сomments giving alternative interpretations to the article is "working as intended". People who actually agree with everything have little to comment other then "lock them up" and stuff like that.

I noticed your source is literally the comment section on an article. Not even the article.

1) No you don't. You can get other evidence they're committing a crime. Like, for instance, the lawyer setting up accounts for their client that their client then later used to launder money. Now attorney client privilege doesn't apply.

2) Next court date is in december.

3) I'm skipping the allegations because they're made by a person in the comments section of an article, who I have no reason to believe is anything but a partisan troll.

4) The comments section doesn't exactly screen who posts for veracity. In other words, I could lie, claim you own slaves in the comments section of the article, then quote the comments section in that article as proof that you own slaves and you're a terrible human being.

[Thekri]

The Russian lawyer from the Trump Tower meeting has volunteered to testify before Congress and/or Mueller, as long as she does so publicly.

Her claims include that Trump Jr. asked for written evidence of Clinton taking illegal money, and would reconsider the Maginsky Act, in the same meeting.

I am certainly not a fan of Trump's, as my post history proves, but I would be extremely skeptical at taking this woman's story at face value. Russia is not on our team, or Trump's team. Lies in front of the US Congress would have literally zero negative consequences for her. What ever she says is the official story of the Russian government, which has been carefully crafted for some political goal. It very well might be true, if the truth serves Russian interests, but if a lie serves it better, it will be a lie.

[Ripster42]

I am certainly not a fan of Trump's, as my post history proves, but I would be extremely skeptical at taking this woman's story at face value. Russia is not on our team, or Trump's team. Lies in front of the US Congress would have literally zero negative consequences for her. What ever she says is the official story of the Russian government, which has been carefully crafted for some political goal. It very well might be true, if the truth serves Russian interests, but if a lie serves it better, it will be a lie.

This just isn't true. She's currently litigating a case in court over the fraud that magnitsky uncovered. She's having problems actually paying the US. She's got 4 days til the payment deadline. Her visa was denied when she tried to come here to argue that the dutch didn't release the funds they seized which was going to be part of the deal. But the dutch are also investigating that fraud, and they're not letting go, because they think the US, under sessions' direction, let her off easy.

Edit: When I say "her" I mean "the interests she is representing."

Further edit: Lying under oath in front of congress is a criminal act. It's what bill clinton was impeached for, though he was not removed. He still had to give up his law license. Veselnitskaya isn't a diplomat. She doesn't have implicit immunity conveyed by diplomatic immunity.

[Thekri]

This just isn't true. She's currently litigating a case in court over the fraud that magnitsky uncovered. She's having problems actually paying the US. She's got 4 days til the payment deadline. Her visa was denied when she tried to come here to argue that the dutch didn't release the funds they seized which was going to be part of the deal. But the dutch are also investigating that fraud, and they're not letting go, because they think the US, under sessions' direction, let her off easy.

Edit: When I say "her" I mean "the interests she is representing."

Ok, fair. I will confess I didn't research as much as I should have there. I am still highly skeptical as to any message she gives though, I think the Kremlin is likely to make it worth her while to support their narrative.

[Shalcker]

I noticed your source is literally the comment section on an article. Not even the article.

I literally wrote that in my post, yes.

2) Next court date is in december.

Hmm, that's a lot of time for speculations.

In other comments one person also notes that this is "a judge's order to inform the court about possible pretrial motions". That is, this motion might not be potentially pursued at all.

3) I'm skipping the allegations because they're made by a person in the comments section of an article, who I have no reason to believe is anything but a partisan troll.

Ofc it is partisan troll; those are often the only ones motivated enough to contest.

I do see "Mueller has best team" taken at face value with little supporting evidence (other then first glowing articles from May about them being great, experienced people and bipartisan support).

4) The comments section doesn't exactly screen who posts for veracity. In other words, I could lie, claim you own slaves in the comments section of the article, then quote the comments section in that article as proof that you own slaves and you're a terrible human being.

Certainly. The point is getting directions on other open possibilities.

[Ripster42]

I literally wrote that in my post, yes.

Hmm, that's a lot of time for speculations.

In other comments one person also notes that this is "a judge's order to inform the court about possible pretrial motions". That is, this motion might not be potentially pursued at all.

Ofc it is partisan troll; those are often the only ones motivated enough to contest.

I do see "Mueller has best team" taken at face value with little supporting evidence (other then first glowing articles from May about them being great, experienced people and bipartisan support).

Certainly. The point is getting directions on other open possibilities.

So basically you're just throwing shit at a wall and crying when nothing sticks. Like I said, maybe I should comment on that article that you own slaves so you can turn yourself in for human trafficking. I mean, when are you going to start citing youtube's comment section?

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, fair. I will confess I didn't research as much as I should have there. I am still highly skeptical as to any message she gives though, I think the Kremlin is likely to make it worth her while to support their narrative.

Any reasonable person would be. If I had to guess this is the russians' attempt to throw trump under the bus to try to save their own ass. Pushing russia's narrative is exactly what I expect her to do.

Edit: And seriously, it might be a bargaining chip when DT and putin meet on dump's asia trip.

[wunksta]

Mueller has his hands full. Seems like every couple of weeks some new, previously undisclosed connection to Russia pops up.

[NYC17]

Mueller has his hands full. Seems like every couple of weeks some new, previously undisclosed connection to Russia pops up.

New to us. Most likely not new to him. That's the benefit of having the best in the business working on the case. As much as clowns like shalcker would like to call that into question.

- - - Updated - - -

I literally wrote that in my post, yes.

Hmm, that's a lot of time for speculations.

In other comments one person also notes that this is "a judge's order to inform the court about possible pretrial motions". That is, this motion might not be potentially pursued at all.

Ofc it is partisan troll; those are often the only ones motivated enough to contest.

I do see "Mueller has best team" taken at face value with little supporting evidence (other then first glowing articles from May about them being great, experienced people and bipartisan support).

Certainly. The point is getting directions on other open possibilities.

If you're going to use willful ignorance as your weapon of choice don't be surprised when it has very little impact. Though it's odd you cant even wield your weapon of choice with even basic competency. Comrade Putin would be displeased with your inability to sell your bullshit.

You're barking up the wrong tree here. You should be stirring up shit on Facebook, or did you funding dry up?

[Alakallanar]

May 21st:

So far Democrats had four months of trying to find anything against Trump (wait, actually it's already a year since "DNC Hack"), and all they got is "more investigations needed!!!".

August 26th:

, still nothing so far?

...i thought Skroe said "no-knock raid" meant they had some solid lead?

Looks more like clutching at straws.

Today:

It is record-breaking exactly because their evidence is weak. Unlike the cases that go on to gather evidence and connect the dots for several years.

At least try to keep you bu... creative reasoning consistent.

[Shalcker]

So basically you're just throwing shit at a wall and crying when nothing sticks.

Seems to be the problem with "other side" too.

Shit that they managed to "stick on Trump" in regards to collusion is laughable.

I cannot prove negative in regards to collusion.

Like I said, maybe I should comment on that article that you own slaves so you can turn yourself in for human trafficking. I mean, when are you going to start citing youtube's comment section?

I don't care where good and reasonable idea comes from. If i see one in youtube comments (or twitter) i'll mention it too.

Pre-filtering with "only listening to known and named experts" would get lots of anti-Trump stuff thrown out too.

I'm on lookout for better understanding; even discussions on completely fictional outcomes can improve it.

- - - Updated - - -

Today:
At least try to keep you bu... creative reasoning consistent.

Well, they made good on their promise of indictment!

So at least they got that going for them.

But Manafort still has nothing to do with "Russia collusion" angle, even if he will be convicted on every count.

[Ripster42]

So at least they got that going for them.

But Manafort still has nothing to do with "Russia collusion" angle, even if he will be convicted on every count.

Except his conviction would supply pretty strong evidence for motive: him being blackmailed by russia because they had proof he laundered money they game him.

[Breccia]

Except his conviction would supply pretty strong evidence for motive: him being blackmailed by russia because they had proof he laundered money they game him.

Kind of like how the Russian lawyer from the Trump Tower meeting is supplying evidence -- testimony voluntarily given under oath -- that Trump Jr. was into that kind of thing. Which she's offered to give.

- - - Updated - - -

Ya, I don't see manafort getting his anklet removed. Going with "doubtful" he gets house arrest lifted.

Manafort, associate to remain under house arrest, tracked by GPS

Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his associate Richard Gates will remain under house arrest until they can provide adequate financial assurance to convince a federal judge they will not skip out on future court appearances.

Manafort and Gates have been charged with money laundering and other crimes as part of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian meddling in the presidential election.

They were released into home confinement with GPS monitoring on $10 million and $5 million unsecured bail bonds, respectively, last week and are now petitioning the court for more flexible conditions.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson said Monday that she is prepared to modify the conditions of Manafort and Gates's release — but indicated she does not yet have the information she needs to approve a new bail package.

In a hearing last week, she expressed concerns that both men presented a flight risk because of their substantial ties abroad.

"We're not talking about dangerousness here," Jackson said Monday. "We're talking about flight."

Jackson's original intention was to lift the home confinement but ordered that both men stay away from transportation facilities and continue to be tracked by a GPS monitor, she said, but said she will "keep an open mind."

Government prosecutors said Monday that they are "close" to reaching an agreement with lawyers for both Manafort and Gates that would allow for the house arrest order to be lifted.

At issue is a solid determination of Manafort's net worth, which would allow prosecutors to decide what amount of bail they believe would be necessary to secure his return to court.

The government indicated on Monday that it believes Manafort to be worth $28 million.

Looks like the court didn't accept Manafort's self-described value of his assets.

[cubby]

Kind of like how the Russian lawyer from the Trump Tower meeting is supplying evidence -- testimony voluntarily given under oath -- that Trump Jr. was into that kind of thing. Which she's offered to give.

- - - Updated - - -



Manafort, associate to remain under house arrest, tracked by GPS



Looks like the court didn't accept Manafort's self-described value of his assets.

I really hope whatever bail agreement the court works out will continue to include a GPS tracking device. If he gets bail, I really, really hope they keep round-the-clock surveillance on him.

I seriously doubt they have all his true, off-shore financial information. If I were him I would bolt with whatever I could and never look back. His future if he stays is horrible, at best.

[Shalcker]

Except his conviction would supply pretty strong evidence for motive: him being blackmailed by russia because they had proof he laundered money they game him.

Blackmailed into what exactly???

And "money they gave him" for sources mentioned in indictment came from Ukraine, not Russia.

...To get to Manafort direct Russian ties they would have to indict McCain.

[cubby]

Blackmailed into what exactly???

And "money they gave him" for sources mentioned in indictment came from Ukraine, not Russia.

Lol, just livin' the Dream O' Ignorance, eh? Blackmailed into collusion with Russia. PAY ATTENTION.