Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[Breccia]

Rand Paul just blocked the Senate's attempt to make the Mueller report public.

"The one that was unanimous in the House?"

The same. He blocked it because but her emails.

"...no."

Paul objected because Warner wouldn't agree to amend the non-binding House-passed resolution to include provisions calling for the public release of communications between several Obama-era officials including former President Obama, former FBI Director James Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan.

Paul argued that Congress still needs to figure out the "entire story" including the origins of the investigation into Trump's campaign and a controversial research dossier compiled against then-candidate Trump.

"I think it's very important that we not turn our country into this back and forth where each successive party tries to use the apparatus of government to investigate the previous president," Paul said.

"What we don't know is was President Obama told that the evidence to get this investigation started was paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign? We need to know that," Paul continued.

Paul has warned that he would block the resolution backing the Mueller report's release unless information about the opposition research dossier compiled against Trump was also released. He first blocked the House-passed resolution last week.

Paul is taking a risk here. This is a big move to protect Trump. He's claiming the Mueller report can't be released without the context of investigating a bunch of other things first.

This does not sound like total and complete exonoration to me. If Paul really wanted that other information, he should work with GOP members in the Senate to go find it. Blocking other information does not achieve that goal.

[Edge-]

Failure to register as a Foreign Agent in... Turkey. So much Russia.

Who said anything about Flynn's sentence being about Russia?

I think his case has more to do with the FISA abuse than that charge but we will see.

You mean the alleged abuse that Republicans keep whinging about but have currently yet to turn up a single piece of actually credible evidence to support their claims?

[Xirrohon]

Who said anything about Flynn's sentence being about Russia?



You mean the alleged abuse that Republicans keep whinging about but have currently yet to turn up a single piece of actually credible evidence to support their claims?

I did in my first post about nothing from the investigation had to do with Russian collusion and the 2016 election.

They haven't started looking at FISA yet. Nunes just said that we need to start investigating the investigators. They will find out if there was abuse or not then.

[Edge-]

I think his case has more to do with the FISA abuse than that charge but we will see.

They haven't started looking at FISA yet. Nunes just said that we need to start investigating the investigators. They will find out if there was abuse or not then.

That didn't take long for those goalposts to move.

I mean I have no issues with them re-looking into the issue, last I recall the FISA warrant on Page was already looked and the FBI released it, actually - https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/21/polit...ant/index.html

So I'm not sure what you're still complaining about. Remember, these were renewed multiple times, which requires a judges signoff and would entail the surveillance providing meaningful, actionable intelligence. If it was a "nothingberder" it would have never been renewed.

[beanman12345]

I'm still not sure why people think "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard we should be using for impeachment for a national security issue. Impeachment doesn't send someone to jail, and "beyond a reasonable doubt" isn't the standard used for denying people jobs that revolve around national security.

Mueller can't impeach. I'm just speculating that's the conclusion mueller reached which is why trump isn't exonerated, which is why they need to release the whole findings so the house came come to their own conclusion.

[Daelak]

I did in my first post about nothing from the investigation had to do with Russian collusion and the 2016 election.

They haven't started looking at FISA yet. Nunes just said that we need to start investigating the investigators. They will find out if there was abuse or not then.

Why not? The president can start one immediately.

[Xirrohon]

That didn't take long for those goalposts to move.

I mean I have no issues with them re-looking into the issue, last I recall the FISA warrant on Page was already looked and the FBI released it, actually - https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/21/polit...ant/index.html

So I'm not sure what you're still complaining about. Remember, these were renewed multiple times, which requires a judges signoff and would entail the surveillance providing meaningful, actionable intelligence. If it was a "nothingberder" it would have never been renewed.

Is all you read is CNN? Wtf.

I didn't move anything. I'm saying the reason Flynn hasn't been sentenced is because people think an illegal FISA was put on him. This isn't anything new.They haven't looked at the issue, FBI saying they didn't abuse FISA isn't looking at it. Congress wants to open a Special Council just like Mueller to look into FISA abuse. I'm not complaining, I'm saying that is what I think Flynn has information on and why he hasn't been sentenced. He knows that he had a FISA placed onto him. Many people have speculated this. Its nothing new. And... many know the FBI used to dossier and circle reporting to collaborate the dossier, which is illegal. The dossier and FISA and how this all got started has not been investigated and many want to the answers to how it all did get started.

My comments started with that Flynn didn't get sentenced and his charge has nothing to do with Russian collusion. But yea, this has moved from that but not from me.

[Ripster42]

Mueller can't impeach. I'm just speculating that's the conclusion mueller reached which is why trump isn't exonerated, which is why they need to release the whole findings so the house came come to their own conclusion.

That's not what I'm getting at. Why do people think mueller saying the SCO "did not establish" means anything WRT impeachment, as the same standard of proof should not apply (as to the collusion related offences-I still believe the obstruction charges would need to meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard).

[Breccia]

Who said anything about Flynn's sentence being about Russia?

Well, Flynn did tell Russia not to panic about Obama imposing sanctions for attacking the election.

Before he had the authority to do so.

Then he lied about it. To Pence and the FBI.

Then his lies were exposed.

Trump says he fired Flynn for lying to the FBI.

So even if he was sentenced for one thing, it's now on record that he colluded with Russia -- specifically, about negating the penalties for Russia attacking the election.

And now he's going to jail.

[Xirrohon]

Why not? The president can start one immediately.

Prob cause it would look and possibly be considered obstruction, since its what launched the investigation.

[Edge-]

Is all you read is CNN? Wtf.

Nope, their articles just happened to pop up at the top of search when I went to look up this report.

I didn't move anything.

You started with "THE FISA ABUSES!" and followed with "Let's investigate to see if there are FISA abuses". That's moving goalposts.

I'm saying the reason Flynn hasn't been sentenced is because people think an illegal FISA was put on him.

Public opinion has no bearing on sentencing. And where is this public opinion poll?

They haven't looked at the issue, FBI saying they didn't abuse FISA isn't looking at it.

We have the redacted, 400+ page warrants. Not a full investigation, but it's hardly as if we have no information.

He knows that he had a FISA placed onto him.

There wasn't, they were monitoring Kislyak and picked up the conversation with Flynn - https://www.lawfareblog.com/treatmen...ion-procedures

And... many know the FBI used to dossier and circle reporting to collaborate the dossier, which is illegal.

They used the dossier...to collaborate the dossier? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, and we need citations.

The dossier and FISA and how this all got started has not been investigated and many want to the answers to how it all did get started.

How all what? The investigation into Trump? Because the dossier and the FISA warrants had little to nothing to do with that, the investigation began months earlier - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/30/u...adopoulos.html

We know how it started.

[Xirrohon]

How all what? The investigation into Trump? Because the dossier and the FISA warrants had little to nothing to do with that, the investigation began months earlier - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/30/u...adopoulos.html

We know how it started.

Haha. yea and Mifsud never testified or even met with Mueller. JFC, how you link that old dumb ass story. But what I said is true. They used the dossier to justify the FISA and then used circular reporting to say that the dossier is true.

[beanman12345]

The DOJ doesn’t indict sitting presidents. That’s all you’re going off of. Good luck with that saving him when he leaves office.

The DOJ would definitely indict if it wasn't a partisan hack. I also haven't defended trump this entire time, he should be in a jail cell.

[Shadowferal]

I think things will reach a point where Barr will find a spot where he will have to protect himself.

[Bodakane]

Haha. yea and Mifsud never testified or even met with Mueller. JFC, how you link that old dumb ass story. But what I said is true. They used the dossier to justify the FISA and then used circular reporting to say that the dossier is true.

You ignored an awful lot of edge's post answering each one of your claims.

Why is that?

[Edge-]

Haha. yea and Mifsud never testified or even met with Mueller. JFC, how you link that old dumb ass story. But what I said is true. They used the dossier to justify the FISA and then used circular reporting to say that the dossier is true.

Uh...he didn't meet with Mueller because Mueller was brought on nearly a full year after the investigation began. And Mifsud wasn't the only thing that caused the investigation. He also claims he was interviewed by the FBI in February 2017 - https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/08/polit...ion/index.html (sorry, it's CNN again)

They used the dossier as additional evidence to support the FISA extensions, but they didn't rely solely on the dossier. That's bullshit pushed by Nunes and his ilk.

[Benggaul]

Haha. yea and Mifsud never testified or even met with Mueller. JFC, how you link that old dumb ass story. But what I said is true. They used the dossier to justify the FISA and then used circular reporting to say that the dossier is true.

You certainly are doing your level best to ignore every fact posted that refutes your claims, aren't you?

It sure is "strange" how there isn't one reasonable Trump supporter around that can argue in the realm of reality as opposed to regurgitating FOX "News" talking points that have already been debunked.

[Levelfive]

The investigation is over, the report has been filed. Flynn still never sentenced. Even the judge said, I don't like to convict an innocent man, are you sure that you don't want to change your plea. But yea, I guess still awaiting...

What? What judge are you talking about? You think the judge delayed his sentencing because he was worried Flynn was innocent?

"Michael Flynn's defense attorney asked a federal judge to delay sentencing after the judge unleashed a blistering attack on the former Trump adviser's conduct.

Judge Emmet Sullivan, a veteran of the bench who received his judicial appointments from Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, admonished Flynn at a hearing on Tuesday in Washington, D.C., for lying to the FBI, which he said was made worse because of where it occurred.

"In the White House! In the West Wing. By a high ranking security officer who up to that point had an unblemished career of service to his country,” the judge said. “It's a very serious offense. ... Arguably, this undermines everything this flag over here stands for! Arguably, you sold your country out!"

...

“Is there an opinion about the conduct of the defendant that rises to treasonous on the defendants part?” the judge asked Van Grack, who said the special counsel had not considered leveling that charge. “Hypothetically could he have been charged with treason?” the judge asked again."

https://abcnews.go.com/US/michael-fl...ry?id=59873492

[Xirrohon]

What? What judge are you talking about? You think the judge delayed his sentencing because he was worried Flynn was innocent?

"Michael Flynn's defense attorney asked a federal judge to delay sentencing after the judge unleashed a blistering attack on the former Trump adviser's conduct.

Judge Emmet Sullivan, a veteran of the bench who received his judicial appointments from Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, admonished Flynn at a hearing on Tuesday in Washington, D.C., for lying to the FBI, which he said was made worse because of where it occurred.

"In the White House! In the West Wing. By a high ranking security officer who up to that point had an unblemished career of service to his country,” the judge said. “It's a very serious offense. ... Arguably, this undermines everything this flag over here stands for! Arguably, you sold your country out!"

...

“Is there an opinion about the conduct of the defendant that rises to treasonous on the defendants part?” the judge asked Van Grack, who said the special counsel had not considered leveling that charge. “Hypothetically could he have been charged with treason?” the judge asked again."

https://abcnews.go.com/US/michael-fl...ry?id=59873492

Same judge said it. Go look it up.

- - - Updated - - -

You certainly are doing your level best to ignore every fact posted that refutes your claims, aren't you?

It sure is "strange" how there isn't one reasonable Trump supporter around that can argue in the realm of reality as opposed to regurgitating FOX "News" talking points that have already been debunked.

Which refute? Mifsud never met with Mueller, dont you think the guy that kicked off the entire investigation would meet with him? and... sorry, I dont watch any MSM and yes FOX is MSM. Not even a good try. Im guessing youre Stelter or is it a Maddow fan? Lol.

- - - Updated - - -

Uh...he didn't meet with Mueller because Mueller was brought on nearly a full year after the investigation began. And Mifsud wasn't the only thing that caused the investigation. He also claims he was interviewed by the FBI in February 2017 - https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/08/polit...ion/index.html (sorry, it's CNN again)

They used the dossier as additional evidence to support the FISA extensions, but they didn't rely solely on the dossier. That's bullshit pushed by Nunes and his ilk.

yea, they also used circular reporting like I said, but I guess you dont know wtf circular reporting is so why even talk about it?

- - - Updated - - -

You ignored an awful lot of edge's post answering each one of your claims.

Why is that?

Was doing work, didnt have time to respond to it all, kind of boring as well.

[Levelfive]

Same judge said it. Go look it up.

That's not relevant to the question I asked you: do you think the judge delayed his sentence because he was worried Flynn is innocent?