Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[Deleted]

...and here we are, with Popadopolous and Flynn pleading guilty for exchange of info, NOTHING in the past year of the investigation ever leaking whatsoever (Mr. Popodopo wearing a wire for 2+ months, and cooperating for nearly 5 months didn't leak...everything only appears when Muller allows it so far), and a person presuming the NYT has better connections and info than the FBI, the CIA and the SS combined.

to be fair that person is the former director of the CIA.

[Felya]

I'm sorry, I'm literally just stepping into this... I generally try staying away from extremist sites unless it's for comedy value. While I would say I lean left, I don't bother with extremist sites, so the question now comes;

Is Mother Jones the left's version of Breitbart?

There is no left version of BrietBart, because none of these publications had their CEO as a member of White House staff, like Bannon was.

[Dacien]

We're all speculating because obviously the investigation has a lot of information we don't. Shit, nobody even knew who Papadopoulos was until his guilty plea, and he'd been nabbed at a fucking airport months earlier.

But I wouldn't get too excited about there not being a case-closed statement on collusion yet. First of all, we have a long way to go still. Secondly, even if Mueller doesn't find enough to get Trump personally, or even any of his staff, there's still obstruction of justice in the firing of Comey over Flynn, which is so transparently obvious Trump effectively confessed to it on Twitter without realising it.

I intend to simply evaluate the information as it comes out myself. When new information comes out, we should all evaluate it and base our positions on reality.

But about Trump's firing of Comey, it certainly could be a factor in an impeachment proceeding, but not in obstruction. Trump's lawyer over-extended, to be sure, in claiming that Trump cannot obstruct period, but the truth is that while it may appear shady, Trump did indeed have the authority to fire Comey for any reason or no reason whatsoever. That doesn't mean it couldn't be brought up in impeachment.

The Tweet is something else entirely, an admission of something that could substantially be construed as obstruction, but he seems to have dodged that bullet by claiming his lawyer wrote it, that it was a "shorthand" error.

Anyway, you're right, Morm, we just have to wait and see.

[Felya]

That's perfectly fair. I assumed that anything truly damaging would have leaked by now or been uncovered.

Why? We didn’t know of one guilty plea for months.

Papadapolous isn't the particularly damaging story everyone made it out to be, for reasons I explained a month or so ago. The plea deal does not detail that he sought Hillary dirt, only that he was offered Hillary dirt, but there was nothing in the plea deal about him trying to obtain that dirt. Again, the plea deal does not describe him as pursuing those emails. It only describes that he was setting up meetings, which, as I pointed out then, is not unusual in and of itself; Obama campaign officials met with foreign leaders during the 2008 campaign. Once again, the documents Mueller produced via the plea deal do not indicate that any of these meetings were set up with the express purpose of transferring stolen emails. So while it's true that this information only came about through Mueller, it's not particularly damaging.

Obama met with other countries very publicly, to result in a Nobel peace prize, not pleading guilty to lying. Setting up a meeting to get dirt on Hillary, is in fact seeking information on Hillary. Comparing Obama’s, very public and scruitinized by Trump and GOP tour, is nothing like Trump’s staff doing it in secret and then lying about it.

Flynn's activity described in the plea deal was known back in February.

Which Trump knew weeks before it became public and did nothing about it. Then tried to sway the public by calling it a nothing burger and sway the FBI, by asking Comey to go easy on Flynn.

So anyway, I do somewhat hold the opinion that damning evidence of criminal collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia would have been leaked or uncovered by now, but sure, I could be wrong. It's just a hunch based on the extra-Mueller effort against Trump, which is not insignificant.

The thing is, for a lot of people, these guilty please, the idigtments, the Trump jr secret meetings... already show that... I think yours is irrational, largely for saying things like this:

The plea deal does not detail that he sought Hillary dirt, only that he was offered Hillary dirt, but there was nothing in the plea deal about him trying to obtain that dirt. Again, the plea deal does not describe him as pursuing those emails. It only describes that he was setting up meetings, which, as I pointed out then, is not unusual in and of itself; Obama campaign officials met with foreign leaders during the 2008 campaign.

Not only the bold contradiction, but you are comparing Trump staff’s secret meetings that they lied or forgot about, as the same as this:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/...rip/index.html

(CNN) -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is in Afghanistan on a multistop overseas trip for meetings with international leaders but with an eye on the U.S. presidential race back home.

Obama's trip, which includes visits to Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Germany, France and the United Kingdom, is intended to bolster his foreign policy credentials before U.S. voters.

"This is the campaign trail via satellite -- pictures for the rhetoric back home," CNN's Candy Crowley said, adding that the trip was intended to demonstrate that Obama was up to the job of taking a lead role on the international stage.

"The question is, is he tough enough to stand up for America but graceful enough to improve [its] image?" Crowley said.

In a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, 48 percent of registered voters said Obama would make a good commander in chief, compared with 72 percent for his Republican rival, John McCain.

[DarkTZeratul]

But about Trump's firing of Comey, it certainly could be a factor in an impeachment proceeding, but not in obstruction. Trump's lawyer over-extended, to be sure, in claiming that Trump cannot obstruct period, but the truth is that while it may appear shady, Trump did indeed have the authority to fire Comey for any reason or no reason whatsoever. That doesn't mean it couldn't be brought up in impeachment.

How would it be a factor in impeachment if not being used as evidence of obstruction?

And while you're right that Trump has the right to fire Comey for any reason, that doesn't mean that firing him can't still count as obstruction of justice. This has been explained dozens of times since Comey was fired.

[Felya]

But about Trump's firing of Comey, it certainly could be a factor in an impeachment proceeding, but not in obstruction. Trump's lawyer over-extended, to be sure, in claiming that Trump cannot obstruct period, but the truth is that while it may appear shady, Trump did indeed have the authority to fire Comey for any reason or no reason whatsoever. That doesn't mean it couldn't be brought up in impeachment.

This is not true. A president cannot fire an FBI director, just because he feels like it. If he could, than the lawyer would be right, the president would be above the law.

Don’t forget, this is an FBI director Trump praised just a few months prior, for his ability to do what’s right, without being afraid of people like the president. Trump just wasn’t the president at the time...

- - - Updated - - -

How would it be a factor in impeachment if not being used as evidence of obstruction?

And while you're right that Trump has the right to fire Comey for any reason, that doesn't mean that firing him can't still count as obstruction of justice. This has been explained dozens of times since Comey was fired.

He cannot fire an FBI director, with the intent to obstruct an investigation. Which means, that he cannot just fire an FBI director, for any reason. If it was true that a president can, Clinton would never have been impeached and Nixon would never have been forced to resign.

[Dacien]

Obama met with other countries very publicly, to result in a Nobel peace prize, not pleading guilty to lying. Setting up a meeting to get dirt on Hillary, is in fact seeking information on Hillary. Comparing Obama’s, very public and scruitinized by Trump and GOP tour, is nothing like Trump’s staff doing it in secret and then lying about it.

No, not Obama, officials for the Obama campaign met with foreign officials. And, once again, the documents provided by the investigation, the Papadopolous plea deal, does not, repeat does not, describe him setting up meetings to "get dirt". They describe him being offered dirt in one meeting, but nothing in the way of him attempting to obtain that dirt in that meeting, or that subsequent meetings were about that dirt. Again, this is just what can be shown by the documents Mueller provided.

Not only the bold contradiction, but you are comparing Trump staff’s secret meetings that they lied or forgot about, as the same as this:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/...rip/index.html

You're talking about entirely different meetings. I'm referring to these meetings:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/wa.../14policy.html
"Even before the election, senior advisers to Mr. Obama — including Anthony Lake, the former national security adviser — had been meeting with European officials, including Pierre Vimont, the French ambassador to Washington, and Nigel Sheinwald, the British ambassador, European diplomats said."

And:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...canadian-govt/
"By now, everyone is familiar with the Canadian television report that alleged an Obama adviser went to the Canadian government and told officials that Obama’s NAFTA-bashing is merely campaign rhetoric, and shouldn’t be taken seriously."

(It should be pointed out that this one is only a news story due to the scandalous allegation that Obama was speaking out of both sides of his mouth, not that the meeting took place.)

It is not unusual or scandalous for campaign officials to meet with foreign leaders in and of itself.

- - - Updated - - -

How would it be a factor in impeachment if not being used as evidence of obstruction?

And while you're right that Trump has the right to fire Comey for any reason, that doesn't mean that firing him can't still count as obstruction of justice. This has been explained dozens of times since Comey was fired.

Because in impeachment you don't need to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt, the bar is much lower. I'm only drawing a distinction between criminal prosecution and impeachment here.

[mvaliz]

That's perfectly fair. I assumed that anything truly damaging would have leaked by now or been uncovered.
.

...dafuq!? o_O

You really think this is the "most" we're going to see!? are you fucking kiding me!?

You really think they knocked off 60 years from Flynn's crimes just so they can get something LESS than what he did!?

- - - Updated - - -

to be fair that person is the former director of the CIA.

Key word I highlighted. ;P

[Dacien]

...dafuq!? o_O

You really think this is the "most" we're going to see!? are you fucking kiding me!?

You really think they knocked off 60 years from Flynn's crimes just so they can get something LESS than what he did!?

I've gone into great detail over Mueller's decision to let Flynn skate on major charges, and @Shadowmelded posted a great article giving several possible hypotheses on this decision, including the one I put forth.

I don't think that this is the end of the Mueller investigation or the end of any other plea deals, but I do think, I am inclined to believe, that bombshell evidence of Trump or Trump associates working with the Russian government in election related criminal collusion, for example in the DNC hack, would have been uncovered and leaked by now. Not saying this is definite, it's just what I'm inclined to believe.

[Resurgo]

I've gone into great detail over Mueller's decision to let Flynn skate on major charges, and @Shadowmelded posted a great article giving several possible hypotheses on this decision, including the one I put forth.

I don't think that this is the end of the Mueller investigation or the end of any other plea deals, but I do think, I am inclined to believe, that bombshell evidence of Trump or Trump associates working with the Russian government in election related criminal collusion, for example in the DNC hack, would have been uncovered and leaked by now. Not saying this is definite, it's just what I'm inclined to believe.

I don't believe the bombshell will have been leaked this early. Going by timelines of any other major investigation, plus the possibility of prosecution, a bombshell of that nature is obviously going to have to go through discovery by the other party's lawyers. Typically, you always want to keep your ace card well hidden.

[Dacien]

I don't believe the bombshell will have been leaked this early. Going by timelines of any other major investigation, plus the possibility of prosecution, a bombshell of that nature is obviously going to have to go through discovery by the other party's lawyers. Typically, you always want to keep your ace card well hidden.

My supposition is based off the particularly unique atmosphere surround this president. This is a particularly divisive president in a particularly polarized time. I'm sure I don't need to tell you, but there are many people who don't just dislike Trump, they really don't like Trump, and some of these people have power, money, and influence. Finding hard evidence of criminal collusion by the Trump campaign cooperating with Russia or Russian-connected agents is the holy grail, and I'd be welcome personally to receive such news. Get this over with. If it happened, it's over, get him out. You don't get to cooperate with a foreign government, particularly Russia, against the American people to secure an election illegally. I think support for impeachment and removal of Trump would be overwhelming if this information came to light.

So it's precisely for this reason that I believe it may not exist. Mueller is one investigation, and I believe there are others that don't involve the government at all, and these investigations are just as determined, likely better funded, and much more motivated. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but evidence that would secure Trump's removal from office is literally, at this point in time, the most valuable information one could possibly possess.

[mvaliz]

I've gone into great detail over Mueller's decision to let Flynn skate on major charges, and @Shadowmelded posted a great article giving several possible hypotheses on this decision, including the one I put forth.

I don't think that this is the end of the Mueller investigation or the end of any other plea deals, but I do think, I am inclined to believe, that bombshell evidence of Trump or Trump associates working with the Russian government in election related criminal collusion, for example in the DNC hack, would have been uncovered and leaked by now. Not saying this is definite, it's just what I'm inclined to believe.

OK, going to bookmark this post for future reference. How you can possibly think this is beyond me... especially about the "it would've leaked by now" when NOTHING has leaked, at all, from the investigation - like... ever. o_O

[Dacien]

OK, going to bookmark this post for future reference. How you can possibly think this is beyond me... especially about the "it would've leaked by now" when NOTHING has leaked, at all, from the investigation - like... ever. o_O

Well I hope if you bookmark it and quote me, you include the last line: "Not saying this is definite, it's just what I'm inclined to believe."

[mvaliz]

I don't believe the bombshell will have been leaked this early.

Not to mention, what would the bombshell be that would've leaked? "Leaked: Trump colluded with Russia!" !?

I mean, Durr!? :P

- - - Updated - - -

Well I hope if you bookmark it and quote me, you include the last line: "Not saying this is definite, it's just what I'm inclined to believe."

I'll be happy to prove your inclination to be wrong, so long as you own up to the idea that you have much more to learn. :P

EDIT: And, vis-a-vis - of course. ;P (That means the same goes with me, if you didn't know)

[Dacien]

I'll be happy to prove your inclination to be wrong, so long as you own up to the idea that you have much more to learn. :P

Absolutely. If I ever can't admit that I'm wrong, stick a fork in me, my place in political discussion is done.

[Resurgo]

My supposition is based off the particularly unique atmosphere surround this president. This is a particularly divisive president in a particularly polarized time. I'm sure I don't need to tell you, but there are many people who don't just dislike Trump, they really don't like Trump, and some of these people have power, money, and influence. Finding hard evidence of criminal collusion by the Trump campaign cooperating with Russia or Russian-connected agents is the holy grail, and I'd be welcome personally to receive such news. Get this over with. If it happened, it's over, get him out. You don't get to cooperate with a foreign government, particularly Russia, against the American people to secure an election illegally. I think support for impeachment and removal of Trump would be overwhelming if this information came to light.

So it's precisely for this reason that I believe it may not exist. Mueller is one investigation, and I believe there are others that don't involve the government at all, and these investigations are just as determined, likely better funded, and much more motivated. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but evidence that would secure Trump's removal from office is literally, at this point in time, the most valuable information one could possibly possess.

We partially agree, however some would say those people you speak of ("... have power, money, influence") would likely be directly benefiting from both the president in power as well as doing what they can to profit during the divisive times. Don't forget, while everyone else is busy scrambling from one circus to the next, the folks in the upper end have free reign to profit at our expense while we're too busy too notice.
Take for instance this bill that lets them dump right back into our water again... you don't think that's extra profit for the company that doesn't have to go out of their way to follow another regulation?

edit:
Let's take the flipside... you think those in power are going to look to flip the tables in the hopes that the next president might be just as favorable to their business model?

[mvaliz]

I don't believe the bombshell will have been leaked this early. Going by timelines of any other major investigation, plus the possibility of prosecution, a bombshell of that nature is obviously going to have to go through discovery by the other party's lawyers. Typically, you always want to keep your ace card well hidden.

That's really the key right here why there's going to be far more major arrests/charges made. Look at any prior investigation along these lines, they don't make the "big arrests" first. They start with the small ones, then work their way up.

Specifically, Muller's investigaitons like Enron. The whole reason he went after smaller fry first is a) to get them to sing and b) to make the bigger fish squirm into making mistakes and/or want plea bargains - ultimately leading to the final arrests of the Top Brass of Enron.

[Felya]

No, not Obama, officials for the Obama campaign met with foreign officials. And, once again, the documents provided by the investigation, the Papadopolous plea deal, do not, repeat do not, describe him setting up meetings to "get dirt". They describe him being offered dirt in one meeting, but nothing in the way of him attempting to obtain that dirt in that meeting, or that subsequent meetings were about that dirt. Again, this is just what can be shown by the documents Mueller provided.

Are you saying, that setting up a meeting, with someone offering dirt... is not setting up a meeting, seeking dirt? Are you sure?

You're talking about entirely different meetings. I'm referring to these meetings:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/wa.../14policy.html
"Even before the election, senior advisers to Mr. Obama — including Anthony Lake, the former national security adviser — had been meeting with European officials, including Pierre Vimont, the French ambassador to Washington, and Nigel Sheinwald, the British ambassador, European diplomats said."

And:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...canadian-govt/
"By now, everyone is familiar with the Canadian television report that alleged an Obama adviser went to the Canadian government and told officials that Obama’s NAFTA-bashing is merely campaign rhetoric, and shouldn’t be taken seriously."

(It should be pointed out that this one is only a news story due to the scandalous allegation that Obama was speaking out of both sides of his mouth, not that the meeting took place.)

It is not unusual or scandalous for campaign officials to meet with foreign leaders in and of itself.

Here is a big problem. You are saying that they critique Obama for speaking out of both sides of his mouth? Why can’t we do the same about Trump staff’s meetings? These are not at all the same and you are severely misrepresenting them. Obama’s staff did not lie or hide these meetings, but made them public enough to be criticized. If Trump’s staff was doing the same, there would be no guilty plea.

[Dacien]

Are you saying, that setting up a meeting, with someone offering dirt... is not setting up a meeting, seeking dirt? Are you sure?

Context is key here, Felya. The plea deal details that the meeting was set up, and in that meeting, the "Professor" offered that his Russian connections had stolen Hillary emails. It does not describe the meeting as being set up explicitly for that purpose, or that Papadopolous was receptive to the offer, or, indeed, describe his feelings about it at all; it simply details that the meeting was set up and that the stolen emails were brought up by the Professor. It goes on to detail that Papadopolous continued to set up meetings and communicate with the Professor, but it does not describe him seeking the stolen emails or setting up any meetings for the express purpose of obtaining those emails, or anything of the sort.

I'd like to point out that I'm simply describing the evidence we have on hand via the plea deal. Speculation is fine, but I'm sticking with the evidence we have on hand.

Here is a big problem. You are saying that they critique Obama for speaking out of both sides of his mouth? Why can’t we do the same about Trump staff’s meetings? These are not at all the same and you are severely misrepresenting them. Obama’s staff did not lie or hide these meetings, but made them public enough to be criticized. If Trump’s staff was doing the same, there would be no guilty plea.

There's no evidence that Papadapolous took efforts to "hide" his meetings. Papadopolous lied to Mueller about the timeline of the meetings, not that the meetings took place. The Obama campaign official, Austan Goolsbee, who met with the Canadian consulate, was not the subject of a news story simply because he met with a foreign government representative, he was the subject of a news story because of what he said. Similarly, Papadopolous meeting with foreign representatives is not a story in and of itself, the subject matter they spoke about is the issue (and the fact that he lied about the timeline and the charge that brought), and as I explained, the information we have available does not describe a willing exchange of stolen emails, only that stolen emails were offered, and then a frustrating lack of follow-up information about whether those emails were sought or whether meetings were set up for the express purpose of obtaining those emails.

[Stormspark]

Well sure, obstruction is obviously much easier to prove than collusion. Almost everyone has even been saying that when an actual case is built, it will almost certainly be an obstruction case rather than a collusion case. But you seem to be arguing that's because there is no evidence for collusion, which is an absurd position to take.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter. Mueller may not even push the collusion angle if it's difficult to prove. Because he's going to go with what works. Al Capone went down for tax evasion.