Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[Canpinter]

god so many people seam to have already read the report.....

[Fugus]

I didn't miss anything, I am well aware that NBC needs to save face after leading their viewers down this path of fake news and stringing them along for 2 years. "Well at least there could still be some crimes committed somewhere, we'll get him for something!!!" I don't disagree at all that there could be investigations at other levels and for other things, in fact I guarantee there will be; it's just political ammunition. But those wouldn't involve the collusion narrative, that fake news oppo research charade is over and done.

Now you are getting into tinfoil level here. It wasn't fake news and isn't fake news. We have multiple indictments, convictions, and guilty pleas thus far. Much of it related to Russia. We have Trump caught working with Russia and lying about it. That isn't fake news, that is real news.

[Honkler]

god so many people seam to have already read the report.....

We'll almost certainly see the findings soon enough, point is reporting has been actually quite accurate in terms of inside sources. The same people reporting that the investigation was going to end when it did are the same ones who have provided the public with some early highlights: there are no sealed indictments and there are no more indictments coming. And considering not a single person has been indicted so far regarding the actual collusion narrative, the picture is pretty clear. Even the analysts on CNN, MSNBC, etc. that have been peddling this fake news for the last 2 years are walking things back already\

[Zaktar]

You are being purposely obtuse, of course the general concept of "collusion" is not directly a legal definition of a crime but there are specific crimes that revolve around the concept. Not a single person has been indicted regarding the initial goal of this investigation: crimes related to collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to undermine the US election. If you disagree with that I said, please present an indictment that contradicts that. (I'll save you some time, you can't.)

Let's see, there were actually several but you said "not a single person," so I'll just offer 1 person.

Collusion: secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

Sound good? If not, please let me know your definition and source.

Let's use Papadopoulos, a campaign advisor for Trump, for our example. Convicted of lying to the FBI during their investigation into Russian meddling in the campaign. What did he lie about? Contacts with Russians in which he was trying to secure damaging information on Clinton. We have a member of the Trump campaign illegally cooperating with Russians and conspiracy to deceive investigators. Unfortunately for your argument it isn't terribly difficult to meet the definition of collusion.

[Honkler]

Now you are getting into tinfoil level here. It wasn't fake news and isn't fake news. We have multiple indictments, convictions, and guilty pleas thus far. Much of it related to Russia. We have Trump caught working with Russia and lying about it. That isn't fake news, that is real news.

Really? That would be some news to everyone. Can you name a single person that was indicted for crimes related to collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government? What was the crime they were indicted for?

[Fugus]

Really? That would be some news to everyone. Can you name a single person that was indicted for crimes related to collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government? What was the crime they were indicted for?

I said we have caught Trump working with Russia. Not indicted for it. I was mentioning his Hotel he was trying work with Russia while running for office. We also have all the information from his own people working with them as well. Plus all the stuff since.

When I was referring to indictments, I was referring to all those around him being indicted for working as foreign agents or those working to illegally help Trump win.


Either way you cut it, Trump falls into one of 2 categories.

1) He worked with them and is a traitor or....

2) He didn't work with them and just so happened to surround himself with those who did which makes him the height of incompetent. With a weird knack for liking people who work against this nation.

[Spectral]

Why would a lawyer advise you not to cooperate if you're innocent?

There's absolutely no upside. The prosecution's goal isn't to uncover some absolute truth, it's to prosecute you. The standard operating advice in most potential criminal situations is to not answer anything that you're not legally compelled to unless you're receiving something in return.

[Honkler]

Let's see, there were actually several but you said "not a single person," so I'll just offer 1 person.

Collusion: secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

Sound good? If not, please let me know your definition and source.

Let's use Papadopoulos, a campaign advisor for Trump, for our example. Convicted of lying to the FBI during their investigation into Russian meddling in the campaign. What did he lie about? Contacts with Russians in which he was trying to secure damaging information on Clinton. We have a member of the Trump campaign illegally cooperating with Russians and conspiracy to deceive investigators. Unfortunately for your argument it isn't terribly difficult to meet the definition of collusion.

There was no cooperation or conspiracy, this was a low-level guy shopping for oppo research, he met Trump himself literally 1 time and his few attempts to establish contact between people in the Trump campaign and Russian officials were ignored. His crime? He lied to the FBI about dates. Even Mueller himself is reported to have said Papadopoulos's eventually cooperation wasn't really useful.

[Spectral]

You're being misleading.

The issue wasnt that he didnt cooperate more.

The issue is he kept pushing back and proclaiming how unjust it was and whining about how unfair he was being treated.

I'm addressing a specific point that I've seen trotted out a lot, which is the notion that innocent people are cooperative with prosecutors. This is a fallacy, about on par with the notion that if someone doesn't have anything to hide, they should be happy to consent to searches.

[Zaktar]

There was no cooperation or conspiracy, this was a low-level guy shopping for oppo research, he met Trump himself literally 1 time and his few attempts to establish contact between people in the Trump campaign and Russian officials were ignored. His crime? He lied to the FBI about dates. Even Mueller himself is reported to have said Papadopoulos's eventually cooperation wasn't really useful.

Meeting with Trump isn't relevant to the discussion or to the investigation. It's not about Trump, it's about his campaign. If it turns out that he was orchestrating the many crimes committed by people who were working for him, that's something else entirely, but by no means required as an end result of the investigation. Trump may not be guilty, he may just be the worst hiring manager in history.

Papadopulous's lies and illegal cooperation with a foreign government mean he crossed the threshold for the so-broad-it's-irrelevant- but-you-still-choose-to-fixate-on-it collusion definition. In any case further discussion with the burner account isn't necessary.

[Honkler]

I said we have caught Trump working with Russia. Not indicted for it. I was mentioning his Hotel he was trying work with Russia while running for office. We also have all the information from his own people working with them as well. Plus all the stuff since.

When I was referring to indictments, I was referring to all those around him being indicted for working as foreign agents or those working to illegally help Trump win.


Either way you cut it, Trump falls into one of 2 categories.

1) He worked with them and is a traitor or....

2) He didn't work with them and just so happened to surround himself with those who did which makes him the height of incompetent. With a weird knack for liking people who work against this nation.

Not a single person has been indicted in regards to collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to undermine the US election. Seriously, look at all the indictments, whoever has told you otherwise has severely misled you. Nobody has been indicted for "working illegally to help Trump win".

The closest thing you could even begin to claim that is Papadopoulos and that dude was literally some low-level guy who met Trump 1 time and spent most of his time trying to setup a working relationship between the Trump campaign and the Russian government in terms of cooperation (as one of the things Trump said during the campaign was that it would have been nice to have a better relationship with Russia). His attempts were ignored. He tried to source some oppo research too at some point but that went nowhere. His crime of indictment? Lying to the FBI about dates.

Again, not a single indictment or even a credible piece of evidence to support the notion that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to undermine the US election, which is what the initial intention of the investigation was. If you think otherwise you have been lied to.

- - - Updated - - -

Meeting with Trump isn't relevant to the discussion or to the investigation. It's not about Trump, it's about his campaign. If it turns out that he was orchestrating the many crimes committed by people who were working for him, that's something else entirely, but by no means required as an end result of the investigation. Trump may not be guilty, he may just be the worst hiring manager in history.

Papadopulous's lies and illegal cooperation with a foreign government mean he crossed the threshold for the so-broad-it's-irrelevant- but-you-still-choose-to-fixate-on-it collusion definition. In any case further discussion with the burner account isn't necessary.

Can you name some of these crimes? Lying about dates? Obstruction? Things completely unrelated to the election and from years prior? Process crimes? Lol. Think you might be too far down the rabbit hole at this point.

[Canpinter]

Again just pointing out we have don jr willingly meeting with people representing the Russian government to try to get dirt on Hillary during the campaign.

that's conspiracy.

[Levelfive]

The "initial goal" of the investigation was Russia's interference in the 2016 election:

"Let’s start by reexamining the most fundamental question: What is this investigation about? In his congressional testimony this fall, as Schmidt and Goldman had discovered, Baker made an arresting comment: the investigation “was about Russia, period, full stop.” The purpose of the investigation, he explained, was to assess what the Russians were up to with respect to the 2016 election. The FBI was trying to learn what the Russians had done and whether any Americans had done things in support of those efforts, either knowingly or unknowingly, so that they could understand the full scope of what the Russians had sought to do.

This quoted testimony immediately above reminded me of a passage Baker had written elsewhere, a passing discussion in an essay on a different subject which Baker wrote for Lawfare but has not yet published. This passage was cleared in pre-publication review by the FBI some months ago when we at Lawfare thought the essay’s publication was imminent. Here, too, Jim stressed that the investigation was about Russian activity. Here is the relevant passage:

A lot of the criticism seems to be driven by the notion that the FBI’s investigation was, and is, an effort to undermine or discredit President Trump. That assumption is wrong. The FBI’s investigation must be viewed in the context of the bureau’s decades-long effort to detect, disrupt and defeat the intelligence activities of the governments of the Soviet Union and later the Russian Federation that are contrary to the fundamental and long-term interests of the United States. The FBI’s counterintelligence investigation regarding the 2016 campaign fundamentally was not about Donald Trump but was about Russia. Full stop. It was always about Russia. It was about what Russia was, and is, doing and planning. Of course, if that investigation revealed that anyone—Russian or American—committed crimes in connection with Russian intelligence activities or unlawfully interfered with the investigation, the FBI has an obligation under the law to investigate such crimes and to seek to bring those responsible to justice. The FBI’s enduring counterintelligence mission is the reason the Russia investigation will, and should, continue—no matter who is fired, pardoned or impeached (emphasis added).

There is a lot packed into this little paragraph, so let’s pause for a moment to unpack it. First, note the structure of Baker’s fundamental understanding of the investigation as fundamentally about Russia, with the U.S. component subsidiary to the investigation of Russian government activity. Note also that this construction is fully consistent with Jim Comey’s Mar. 20, 2017, congressional testimony in which he disclosed the existence of the investigation in the first place:

I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts (emphasis added).

Comey’s construction of the investigation here is really the same as Baker’s. The investigation is not at its core an investigation of Trump campaign “coordination” with Russia, much less of Trump himself. The core of the investigation is of Russian government activity; the U.S. side is subordinate to that. It is an investigation of a foreign target that includes any “links” to “individuals associated with the Trump campaign” and “coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.” Remember as well that throughout the winter of 2017, Comey felt able to assure President Trump that the FBI was not investigating him.

This construction as, in Baker’s words, “always about Russia” is also consistent with the pattern of indictments brought by Mueller. With the partial exception of the Paul Manafort cluster of cases, which were—in any event—the subject of an additional, clarifying referral letter to Mueller and appear to have resulted from a preexisting U.S. attorney’s office investigation, nearly all of the people prosecuted by Mueller are charged in connection with Russian government activity or their own links to that activity. The Internet Research Agency and hacking indictments both involve Russian activity itself. The Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos cases both involve lies by “individuals associated with the Trump campaign” about their “links” to “the Russian government.” The portion of the Michael Cohen case that Mueller retained deals with lies about, among other things, interactions between the Trump Organization and the Russian government. Even the relatively obscure case against Richard Pinedo fits this pattern; Pinedo, after all, was accused of identity fraud in connection with Russian activity designed to interfere with the election. Anything that does not fit this pattern tightly—for example, the Turkish lobbying case against Flynn’s associates (spun off from the Flynn matter) or the Michael Cohen/Stormy Daniels matter—Mueller has kicked to other actors.

It was about Russia. Full stop. It was always about Russia. And it still is about Russia.

The best way to understand this probe is as an umbrella Russia-related national security investigation in which the bureau opened subsidiary files, some with a counterintelligence focus and some with a criminal focus, on individuals who proved to have substantial “links” to the broader Russian activity."

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-if-...test-bombshell

[Zaydin]

How did Trump "handle" him? The only thing Trump did was cancel the joint training exercises with South Korea, which is what North Korea wanted.

And Obama wanted to talk to Kim Jong Un, but the right wingers went fucking berserk when Obama wanted to meet with him. But cheered Trump for doing the same fucking thing. Put the crack pipe down that is Fox News, you might learn the real news and facts.

It's not even that Obama wanted to meet with him. Obama merely said he was willing to consider meeting with the leader of North Korea and the right-wing freaked out.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Mueller's report could indicate deep seeded corruption, money laundering, tax fraud, and collusion with Russia, and not include any indictments since Mueller himself cannot indict a sitting president. I realize Trumpkins are fucking DESPERATE to be vindicated, but the reality isn't so simple. Of course, no matter what happens, the right wing Trumpkin Nazi apologists on here will say Trump is innocent simply because of lack of indictment, no matter how much corruption is revealed.

[Ragedaug]

Mueller's report could indicate deep seeded corruption, money laundering, tax fraud, and collusion with Russia, and not include any indictments since Mueller himself cannot indict a sitting president. I realize Trumpkins are fucking DESPERATE to be vindicated, but the reality isn't so simple. Of course, no matter what happens, the right wing Trumpkin Nazi apologists on here will say Trump is innocent simply because of lack of indictment, no matter how much corruption is revealed.

And Orange-Man-Bad people are sexing DESPERATE to be vindicated of this 2 year hoax and fake news regarding Russian collusion. The Left Wing Trump-Hating Nazi's will simply say Trump is guilty regardless of the fact that there is no evidence and nothing is revealed.

People from both sides, who don't care about the truth, are DESPERATE for their agenda to be substantiated.

[lolpve]

Mueller's report could indicate deep seeded corruption, money laundering, tax fraud, and collusion with Russia, and not include any indictments since Mueller himself cannot indict a sitting president. I realize Trumpkins are fucking DESPERATE to be vindicated, but the reality isn't so simple. Of course, no matter what happens, the right wing Trumpkin Nazi apologists on here will say Trump is innocent simply because of lack of indictment, no matter how much corruption is revealed.

The only tax fraud it has revealed was Manafort's when he was working with Podesta. It has implicated no one around in Trump in connection to Russia. It's very sad how some brainwashed young people like yourself cannot partake in sensible political discussion because you are in some alternate reality. Trump winning in 2020 won't be a shock to anyone except the tiny minority of idiot SJWs and hipsters successfully subverted by the media.

[Ragedaug]

Now we have the fact that the Obama administration participated in political espionage at levels that make what Nixon's folks did seem tame. I'm curious if we'll see anything come from that, or if trumped up charges, based on no evidence, leading to spying on your political opposition will become standard practice going forward and excused by the followers of those carrying it out.

[Felya]

The only tax fraud it has revealed was Manafort's when he was working with Podesta. It has implicated no one around in Trump in connection to Russia. It's very sad how some brainwashed young people like yourself cannot partake in sensible political discussion because you are in some alternate reality. Trump winning in 2020 won't be a shock to anyone except the tiny minority of idiot SJWs and hipsters successfully subverted by the media.

The guy you are calling a young person, has been registered to this site for 11 years. One thing that’s interesting about that brainwashing, is how you attack everyone... while he attacks Trump. How would you know you were brainwashed?

- - - Updated - - -

Now we have the fact that the Obama administration participated in political espionage at levels that make what Nixon's folks did seem tame. I'm curious if we'll see anything come from that, or if trumped up charges, based on no evidence, leading to spying on your political opposition will become standard practice going forward and excused by the followers of those carrying it out.

You cannot claim that this investigation is some form of espionage and that it will find Trump not involved in anything. You cannot have it both ways...

- - - Updated - - -

Mueller's report could indicate deep seeded corruption, money laundering, tax fraud, and collusion with Russia, and not include any indictments since Mueller himself cannot indict a sitting president. I realize Trumpkins are fucking DESPERATE to be vindicated, but the reality isn't so simple. Of course, no matter what happens, the right wing Trumpkin Nazi apologists on here will say Trump is innocent simply because of lack of indictment, no matter how much corruption is revealed.

That’s the bizarre shit we see here. According to these people, this witch hunt of a conspiracy will prove that Trump did nothing wrong. What would then have happened if it were a legitimate investigation? They would have found something? But, you are the one brainwashed... lol

[Ragedaug]

You cannot claim that this investigation is some form of espionage and that it will find Trump not involved in anything. You cannot have it both ways...

That's not the claim I made. I'm just saying that the results of this investigation show that there was no evidence for the FISA warrants that allowed the surveillance of folks in the Trump campaign and communications with Trump during the 2016 elections.