Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[Edge-]

"Mueller gathers evidence that 2016 Seychelles meeting was effort to establish back channel to Kremlin"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.0082b76987ea

At this point if Mueller has the stereotypical investigators "wall of targets" it has to be fucking massive. Seriously, I'm shocked by the scope of this investigation and just how quickly it's all moving.

[DarkTZeratul]

At this point if Mueller has the stereotypical investigators "wall of targets" it has to be fucking massive. Seriously, I'm shocked by the scope of this investigation and just how quickly it's all moving.

I'm just imaging him with one of those giant holographic touch screens like in Minority Report.

[Daelak]

"Mueller gathers evidence that 2016 Seychelles meeting was effort to establish back channel to Kremlin"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.0082b76987ea

Erik Prince is just another piece of shit conservative in a long line of hypocritical conservatives that are willing to bring the US to its proverbial knees by creating a back channel with UAE and Russian dignitaries. I hope he and his sister, Betsy DeVos see prison time.

[Dacien]

At this point if Mueller has the stereotypical investigators "wall of targets" it has to be fucking massive. Seriously, I'm shocked by the scope of this investigation and just how quickly it's all moving.

I'm not. The scope was made wide by design in the Rosenstein Order, indicating a counterintelligence investigation into Russian election interference broadly, while at the same time granting criminal investigation authority. In short, Mueller isn't limited by pursuing an investigation of any specific crime, he's simply allowed to cast a wide net and file charges where he finds wrongdoing. It's an interesting mix of these two types of investigations laid out quite well in Lawfare.

Contrast this with, say, the Ken Starr investigation into Whitewater. Specific expansion authority had to be granted for the independent council to pursue matters beyond the Whitewater investigation, for example, Lewinsky.

[Shadowmelded]

I'm not. The scope was made wide by design in the Rosenstein Order, indicating a counterintelligence investigation into Russian election interference broadly, while at the same time granting criminal investigation authority. In short, Mueller isn't limited by pursuing an investigation of any specific crime, he's simply allowed to cast a wide net and file charges where he finds wrongdoing. It's an interesting mix of these two types of investigations laid out quite well in Lawfare.

Contrast this with, say, the Ken Starr investigation into Whitewater. Specific expansion authority had to be granted for the independent council to pursue matters beyond the Whitewater investigation, for example, Lewinsky.

Rosenstein's order limits the scope to "matters that arise directly from the investigation". If Starr had been limited like that he wouldn't have been able to look into Lewinsky.

[Dacien]

Rosenstein's order limits the scope to "matters that arise directly from the investigation". If Starr had been limited like that he wouldn't have been able to look into Lewinsky.

Rosenstein's order indicates the appointment of Special Counsel Mueller is for the purpose of a "full and thorough investigation of the Russian govermment's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election". This indicates a counterintelligence investigation.

You quoted subsection (b)(ii), but the pertinent subsection is (b)(iii), "any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a)", which are regulations focused on criminal investigations.

It's a broad counterintelligence investigation into no specific crime, yet grants the special council criminal investigation authority.

Edit: Also, the direct quote from (b)(ii) is "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation". It's not a "limiting" subsection, it's an expanding one.

[Shadowmelded]

Rosenstein's order indicates the appointment of Special Counsel Mueller is for the purpose of a "full and thorough investigation of the Russian govermment's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election". This indicates a counterintelligence investiagtion.

You quoted subsection (b)(ii), but the pertinent subsection is (b)(iii), "any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a)", which are regulations focused on criminal investigations.

It's a broad counterintelligence investigation into no specific crime, yet grants the special council criminal investigation authority.

(a)Original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated. The jurisdiction of a 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; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.

Edit: Also, the direct quote from (b)(ii) is "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation". It's not a "limiting" subsection, it's an expanding one.

It's limiting in comparison to Ken Starr's scope. Which is why I mentioned him specifically.

[Breccia]

"Mueller gathers evidence that 2016 Seychelles meeting was effort to establish back channel to Kremlin"

Looks like Nader may have ratted Prince out.

[Dacien]

It's limiting in comparison to Ken Starr's scope. Which is why I mentioned him specifically.

I don't think so. The Whitewater investigation was very narrowly defined.

Note the lack of any expansive subsections into "any other matters that may arise".

[Breccia]

Looks like Trump was even more paranoid than we thought.

He was asking Preibus and McGahn what they told Mueller.

Trump reportedly told White House counsel Don McGahn to publicly deny reports saying he was told by the president to fire Mueller. Per the NYT, McGahn reminded Trump that he had in fact asked him to get rid of Mueller, but Trump said "he did not remember" their discussion in that manner.

In December, Trump asked former chief of staff Reince Priebus about his October meeting with Mueller's office. Per the Times, Priebus told him "the investigators were courteous and professional" but "shared no specifics and did not say what he had told investigators."

The Times reports that Rob Porter, who recently stepped down as White House Staff Secretary, told McGahn that Trump had "suggested he might 'get rid of'" him if he didn't deny Trump asked him to fire Mueller.

[Shadowmelded]

I don't think so. The Whitewater investigation was very narrowly defined.

Note the lack of any expansive subsections into "any other matters that may arise".

And yet, as you yourself pointed out, he was given authorization to look into an entirely unrelated case. If a stipulation was in place that any matter that arose had to be directly related to Whitewater, the Lewinsky aspect doesn't get authorized.

[Breccia]

Hope Hicks says her email was hacked.

This is the second Republican of note who says they were hacked in a week.

Hmm. Someone upset they're not getting what they spent good rubles for?

[Dacien]

And yet, as you yourself pointed out, he was given authorization to look into an entirely unrelated case. If a stipulation was in place that any matter that arose had to be directly related to Whitewater, the Lewinsky aspect doesn't get authorized.

Ken Starr was allowed to investigate information arising out of the narrowly-defined scope of 603.1 (Whitewater, Madison, and CMS), yet Mueller is allowed to simply investigate anything relating to his counterintelligence investigation of Russian meddling. No narrowly-defined scope of allegation, no specific criminal focus, simply a broad investigation into foreign interference.

This is why so many disparate charges are being brought against so many different characters unrelated to any specific crime prompting the special counsel appointment. Manafort on money laundering unrelated to Russian meddling comes to mind. Got caught up in the wide net.

[Breccia]

This is why so many disparate charges are being brought against so many different characters unrelated to any specific crime prompting the special counsel appointment.

You're not honestly surprised that most forms of collusion, would involve money changing hands, are you?

Come on, you're smarter than this.

[Dacien]

I know I've said this before, and it may be tacky to say this, but you are a brutal person to spar with, Shadowmelded.

It's usually so easy until you show up.

This isn't to downplay a lot of other high-quality posters I could mention, but a lot of the time it's a bunch of ad hominem, misdirection, and strawmen.

- - - Updated - - -

You're not honestly surprised that most forms of collusion, would involve money changing hands, are you?

Come on, you're smarter than this.

Yeah, but these money laundering charges against Manafort don't have anything to do with collusion. At least as far as we know with the information we have now. All indications are he simply got caught up in the net unrelated to Russian meddling.

[Breccia]

Yeah, but these money laundering charges against Manafort don't have anything to do with collusion.

Um, he took illegal money from the Russians, then worked for Trump, to push a pro-Russia message. Looking into such is mandatory.

[Shadowmelded]

Ken Starr was allowed to investigate information arising out of the narrowly-defined scope of 603.1 (Whitewater, Madison, and CMS), yet Mueller is allowed to simply investigate anything relating to his counterintelligence investigation of Russian meddling.

Paula Jones' civil case has nothing to do with Whitewater, Madison or CMS. He'd shut down the investigation in 1997 due to lack of evidence until Linda Tripp phoned him up. That wasn't under the course of the investigation and was entirely unrelated to the initial scope.

No narrowly-defined scope of allegation, no specific focus, simply a broad investigation into foreign interference.

There was no allegation made in the Whitewater order. The focus is links/coordination between the Russian Government and the Trump campaign.

I know I've said this before, and it may be tacky to say this, but you are a brutal person to spar with, Shadowmelded.

It's usually so easy until you show up.

This isn't to downplay a lot of other high-quality posters I could mention, but a lot of the time it's a bunch of ad hominem, misdirection, and strawmen.

Thanks.

[Dacien]

Um, he took illegal money from the Russians, then worked for Trump, to push a pro-Russia message. Looking into such is mandatory.

These are actually very specific allegations you're making here, that Manafort's money laundering scheme is somehow connected to an effort in his role with the Trump campaign to push a pro-Russia message (which, admittedly, seemed to come out of the campaign in plentiful amounts). We don't have information that this is the case.

Yet.

[Felya]

Yeah, but these money laundering charges against Manafort don't have anything to do with collusion. At least as far as we know with the information we have now. All indications are he simply got caught up in the net unrelated to Russian meddling.

Manafort was colluding with Russian oligarchs in Ukraine, to misrepresent lobbying in US. Russian oligarchs gave them money to donate to US lobbying groups, which Manafort then lied to these lobbying groups to accept the money.

Collusion isn’t actually something they can be charged with. The illegal part is the exchange of money for services rendered.

- - - Updated - - -

These are actually very specific allegations you're making here, that Manafort's money laundering scheme is somehow connected to an effort in his role with the Trump campaign to push a pro-Russia message (which, admittedly, seemed to come out of the campaign in plentiful amounts). We don't have information that this is the case.

Because that is what he is charged with. You are saying that he stopped colluding with Russian oligarchs when joining Trump’s campaign?

[Dacien]

Paula Jones' civil case has nothing to do with Whitewater, Madison or CMS. He'd shut down the investigation in 1997 due to lack of evidence until Linda Tripp phoned him up. That wasn't under the course of the investigation and was entirely unrelated to the initial scope.

That's not the timeline as I remember it, but it's been a while. I don't remember him stepping down due to a lack of evidence. And I remember Linda Tripp being many months later. Again, it's been a long time since I researched this.

But Ken Starr had to ask for and receive specific expansion authority to go beyond Whitewater. Mueller isn't held back by any such constraints due to the broad nature of the Rosenstein Order.

There was no allegation made in the Whitewater order. The focus is links/coordination between the Russian Government and the Trump campaign.

But the investigation was very narrowly focused on activities regarding the Clintons and Whitewater, et al. In Mueller's case, it's simply an extremely broad "Russian interference" counterintelligence investigation. Specific people involved with specific entities is much more narrow than no specific people involved in the foreign meddling of our elections. I'd like to preemptively remind that Trump was simply a subsection of the "Russian interference" purpose of the Special Counsel appointment.