The Mueller Investigation

[Hawkeye10]

You can't prove Mueller does not have any evidence of Trump/Russian collusion. ( fact )

I can prove that he has not told us anything after all this time which means that if Trump is guilty of something that matters then Mueller has been negligent.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Red:
You and Mr. Dershowitz have a bizarre notion of what the word "anything" means. Mueller and his team have already found many things and obtained grand jury indictments of some 150+ acts, not one of which has been summarily dismissed or, by the DoJ, withdrawn, and his team has obtained convictions/guilty pleas of half a dozen or more people.

And what are most of the convictions for? Lying about things that had the defendants not lied about them, they'd have not be charged. Why the hell would anyone lie to the FBI, which is illegal, about something s/he did or said not illegal?

• Some folks have remarked to the effect of "if s/he did 'such and such,' doing that isn't illegal." Well, fine, believing that so, why has s/he denied doing "such and such?"
  • I mean, really. Who with any sense at all evaluates a question/matter whereby telling the truth may be embarrassing and telling a lie will land them in prison, and, in turn, opts to go to prison?
    
    For my own part, I think going to prison and being a felon is embarrassing in its own right, for any reason, really, but especially for lying to investigators working to discover the truth of matters pertaining to the behavior of individuals who've been entrusted to conduct affairs of state on behalf of the people of United States.

When someone is being questioned and forgets something irrelevant, that counts as "lying." There is no one in the world who remembers every irrelevant detail perfectly, so EVERYONE would be guilty of that kind of "lying."

Stupid lawyer tricks.

 

[Good4Nothin]

I SAID I think. I’m just some dude on the internet. Why do people keep confusing me with a court of law?

There is an assumption that even anonymous internet commenters will have some grasp of common sense and logic. But I realize, as you have demonstrated, that is too much to ask.

 

[Good4Nothin]

He almost certainly broke a lot of laws running his casinos - they've been documented. Same with how his family handled estate and gift matters, and the foundation. And we know about those because they've been thoroughly examined, starting with the very heavily regulated casinos, the estate and gift tax returns leaked to the press, and the investigation of the foundation.

Just from what's been disclosed publicly, we know he ran those three things with a disregard for the laws, almost certainly breaking them in each case.

Why would anyone suspect the rest of his business is any cleaner than what's been examined, which is a pretty small slice of the big picture?

As Dershowitz said, the same kind of crimes would be found when investigating ANY large business. So the Democrats have a pretty good deal -- they can investigate any president who ever owned a business.

 

[Superfly]

I don't know all the details about this, first of all, because it is so boring, but I have general ideas about it. Democrats are desperate to find something criminal somehow related to the Trump campaign.

It doesn't look as if they will find anything. They arrested Roger Stone because somehow he supposedly had something to do with the wikileaks Clinton emails. And he made some kind of wrong statement, maybe because he didn't have a photographic memory for every detail.

Was the Trump campaign hoping to dig up negative information about Clinton? Probably, that is what political campaigns do.

Alan Dershowitz thinks Mueller won't find anything. He also thinks civil liberties are being threatened, regarding the Infowars ban, for example. He thinks this is all political. And the ACLU is not exactly a right-wing Christian organization.

Dershowitz thinks crimes committed by Trump will be found, but only because anyone who owns big businesses has inadvertently committed crimes.

Obama is proud of the fact that he was never investigated -- well, for one thing, the Democrats obviously weren't out to get him. And he never owned a business. So big deal.

I am not a Trump supporter. But I am seeing the president being mobbed and persecuted.

:lol:

How's the weather in Chelyabinsk today?

 

[Good4Nothin]

The job of people allegedly 'banking' on finding unrelated crimes had their job made a whole lot easier by seemingly everyone surrounding Trump having a contempt for telling the truth, lying to investigators, lying to the public, lying to Congress. You can call them "process" crimes all day long, but they are crimes for a good reason, and when an organization (the campaign and transition) decides that it's not important to tell the truth under oath, and about stuff all around the edges of the core issue - Russia "collusion" - and when there are many BIG money links between members of the campaign (including the Trump family) and Russia, then the job of establishing a plausible case for an investigation was made for them.

The Russia tower projects, plural, are a perfect example of all this. Trump said dozens, maybe hundreds of times, he had no business deals in Russia - Russia..what? Russians who? Then we find out he had TWO active deals being pursued during the campaign, one of them ongoing with very serious people with very serious money and connections right into the Kremlin (as any big project like that would have) until AT LEAST election night. That one was supposedly worth up to $300 million to the Trump Org. It's really unthinkable that kind of thing would NOT be investigated, especially when seemingly everyone around Trump was knee deep in Russians and ALL OF THEM LYING ABOUT IT.

That's the context, and a small part of the context, for these so-called "process" crimes.

You mention Flynn. We have an incoming NSA for goodness sake lying about his lobbying work for foreign governments. He knew better, and it's really unthinkable to have a person in the position of NSA with connections of money and peddling influence that he's hiding from government officials and the public, and Trump supporters are dismissing that as a "process" crime. I mean, he'd only have access to the most guarded secrets in the U.S. government. Is it too much to expect for him to disclose to the government AND THE PUBLIC his foreign connections while in the private sector?

Yes the Russia tower is a perfect example. There was no Russia tower and no official plan to build one. It was just an idea.

 

[HumblePi]

I don't know all the details about this, first of all, because it is so boring, but I have general ideas about it. Democrats are desperate to find something criminal somehow related to the Trump campaign.

It doesn't look as if they will find anything. They arrested Roger Stone because somehow he supposedly had something to do with the wikileaks Clinton emails. And he made some kind of wrong statement, maybe because he didn't have a photographic memory for every detail.

Was the Trump campaign hoping to dig up negative information about Clinton? Probably, that is what political campaigns do.

Alan Dershowitz thinks Mueller won't find anything. He also thinks civil liberties are being threatened, regarding the Infowars ban, for example. He thinks this is all political. And the ACLU is not exactly a right-wing Christian organization.

Dershowitz thinks crimes committed by Trump will be found, but only because anyone who owns big businesses has inadvertently committed crimes.

Obama is proud of the fact that he was never investigated -- well, for one thing, the Democrats obviously weren't out to get him. And he never owned a business. So big deal.

I am not a Trump supporter. But I am seeing the president being mobbed and persecuted.

Let me start by saying that Trump IS a crook and has been a crook all his life. The task of the FBI is to prove without a shadow of a doubt that he's a crook. Roger Stone is a self-professed 'dirty trickster' and has been employing shady campaign tactics since the early 1980'd when he, Manafort and Lee Atwater started their lobbying firm. He's a serial liar just as Trump, Manafort, Flynn, Popadopoulis and Gates are. A leopard never changes his spots.

Opposition research is normal and legal. What is illegal are litigious accusations that damage a person's character or credibility by perpetrating stories that are nothing but false allegations and the hacking into personal computers by a foreign adversary to the United States is the culprit of that hacking.

So far, the FBI investigation under the direction of Robert Mueller has resulted in ;
Paul Manafort - indicted
Michael Cohen - pleaded guilty
Michael Flynn - pleaded guilty
George Papadopoulos - pleaded guilty
Rick gates - pleaded guilty
Alex Van der Zwaan - pleaded guilty
Richard Pinedo - pleaded guilty
Konstantin Kilmnik -indicted
Roger Stone - indicted
13 Russian Nationals - indicted
12 Russian Military Officers - indicted

An example of voter suppression propagated by Russian trolls. People were encouraged to 'tweet' their vote using a link, of course that's illegal but people believed they could do that. Many 'votes' for HRC were made this way which of course negated their vote entirely.

Here's another example of Russian 'click-bait'.

 

[Born Free]

I SAID I think. I’m just some dude on the internet. Why do people keep confusing me with a court of law?

Yeah I know you think, but you have not one shred of factual evidence to support your claims. You libs live your life on what Trump said or not said and his family this and that. Then you've been harping on Trump Russia collusion from the day Trump was elected. Yet not one indictment has been issued against Trump or his family.

The other thing that you on the left refuse, is to talk about all of Obama's failures and Trump successes. And that is because Obama was a complete failure and Trump in just two years is pilling up successes.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Yeah I know you think, but you have not one shred of factual evidence to support your claims. You libs live your life on what Trump said or not said and his family this and that. Then you've been harping on Trump Russia collusion from the day Trump was elected. Yet not one indictment has been issued against Trump or his family.

The other thing that you on the left refuse, is to talk about all of Obama's failures and Trump successes. And that is because Obama was a complete failure and Trump in just two years is pilling up successes.

You clearly haven't paid attention to my postings over the years if you think that applies to me. That is understandable as there are a lot of members here, but not all of us are partisan.

 

[Born Free]

You clearly haven't paid attention to my postings over the years if you think that applies to me. That is understandable as there are a lot of members here, but not all of us are partisan.

Oh really. Do you think, Crooked Hillary paid for a Russian drafted dossier against Trump? Do you think Comey was right in giving Crooked Hillary a pass, all based on "there was no intent"? If you go through a red light and an officer stops you for a violation and starts to write you up, and you say wait a minute "I didn't intend to go through that red light. OK Bob I'm sorry for stopping you, have a good day. Do you think Crooked Hillary by acid washing her hard drives and destroying 30,000 e-mails was done just for fun. Or do you think she had something to hide that would put her in jeperity with our laws.

Just asking

 

[Cramer]

I don't know all the details about this, first of all, because it is so boring, but I have general ideas about it. Democrats are desperate to find something criminal somehow related to the Trump campaign.

It doesn't look as if they will find anything. They arrested Roger Stone because somehow he supposedly had something to do with the wikileaks Clinton emails. And he made some kind of wrong statement, maybe because he didn't have a photographic memory for every detail.

Was the Trump campaign hoping to dig up negative information about Clinton? Probably, that is what political campaigns do.

Alan Dershowitz thinks Mueller won't find anything. He also thinks civil liberties are being threatened, regarding the Infowars ban, for example. He thinks this is all political. And the ACLU is not exactly a right-wing Christian organization.

Dershowitz thinks crimes committed by Trump will be found, but only because anyone who owns big businesses has inadvertently committed crimes.

Obama is proud of the fact that he was never investigated -- well, for one thing, the Democrats obviously weren't out to get him. And he never owned a business. So big deal.

I am not a Trump supporter. But I am seeing the president being mobbed and persecuted.

Democrats?

Mueller is a lifelong public servant, working under different administrations.

Hard to take your post serious, if you fail to acknowledge that.

 

[Cramer]

That's right. Even Mueller himself is trying to tamp down the misguided enthusiasm of his Trump-hating deluded supporters. Mueller's best face-saving tactic will be to have his report sealed so nobody ever finds out how little he ever found and how far removed from Trump was what he did find.

That, is not a democracy.

(or a Democratic Republic if you prefer that terminology)

 

[Xelor]

Red:
You and Mr. Dershowitz have a bizarre notion of what the word "anything" means. Mueller and his team have already found many things and obtained grand jury indictments of some 150+ acts, not one of which has been summarily dismissed or, by the DoJ, withdrawn, and his team has obtained convictions/guilty pleas of half a dozen or more people.

And what are most of the convictions for? Lying about things that had the defendants not lied about them, they'd have not be charged. Why the hell would anyone lie to the FBI, which is illegal, about something s/he did or said not illegal?

• Some folks have remarked to the effect of "if s/he did 'such and such,' doing that isn't illegal." Well, fine, believing that so, why has s/he denied doing "such and such?"
  • I mean, really. Who with any sense at all evaluates a question/matter whereby telling the truth may be embarrassing and telling a lie will land them in prison, and, in turn, opts to go to prison?
    
    For my own part, I think going to prison and being a felon is embarrassing in its own right, for any reason, really, but especially for lying to investigators working to discover the truth of matters pertaining to the behavior of individuals who've been entrusted to conduct affairs of state on behalf of the people of United States.

When someone is being questioned and forgets something irrelevant, that counts as "lying." There is no one in the world who remembers every irrelevant detail perfectly, so EVERYONE would be guilty of that kind of "lying."

Stupid lawyer tricks.

Blue:

• Federal investigators don't ask about irrelevant details because, well, those data points are irrelevant and investigators have better things to do, such "chasing down" relevant details.
• When one responds to investigators' questions, forgetting something doesn't count as lying.
  • Attesting that "X" is so (or not so) when one knows or has reason to know "X" is not so (or is so) counts as lying.
  • Attesting that "X" is so when one has no basis for knowing whether "X" is so counts as lying.

Investigator's questions will cover who, what, when, where, how, why, and who else knows. The questions posed address points of fact and context:

• nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct;
• circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation;
• frequency and recency of the conduct;
• individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct;
• extent to which participation is voluntary;
• presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes;
• motivation for the conduct;
• potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and
• likelihood of continuation or recurrence.

Red:
There may be instances and investigations in which "lawyer tricks" obtain convictions; however, as shown by:

• K.T. McFarland's having misrepresented what she knew and subsequently amending her averrances to Mueller's team, Russia Investigation inquisitors aren't keen to use such tactics to obtain guilty pleas/convictions. Ms. McFarland, though she lied initially, corrected her testimony and she remains unindicted.
• Jeff Sessions clearly misrepresented his behavior during his confirmation testimony, yet he too has not been indicted.

The Russia investigation, which is mainly a counterintelligence inquiry focused on understanding precisely the nature and extent of Russia's infiltration into and corruption of the US political process and key players in it, isn't one that specifically aims to identify, prosecute and incarcerate US citizens. Indeed, the "we need to know the truth of the matter" aspect was presaged when the USIC's early 2017 report stated that US citizens may have unwittingly been co-opted into abetting Russia's efforts to influence the 2016 election outcome. That statement appeared well before Rosenstein emplaced Mueller.

That said, if one lies to the investigators, yes, they'll charge and prosecute one. For instance, if in response to "have you met with Russian officials," one answers:

• "No" --> If investigators know one met with a Russian official, the next thing they're going ask is "are you sure?" At that moment, one is well advised to reveal the nature and extent of imperfection in one's memory and request the opportunity to check one's records. Since they're seeking the truth, they'll allow one that. After checking one's records, one stands on the "no" answer rather than altering or qualifying it, well, one is from that point on in legal jeopardy.

Of course, if one has committed other crimes besides lying to federal investigators, one will be charged and prosecuted for them. That's fitting.

 

[JasperL]

As Dershowitz said, the same kind of crimes would be found when investigating ANY large business. So the Democrats have a pretty good deal -- they can investigate any president who ever owned a business.

OK, so you got the answer to your question and promptly moved the goal posts.... Not unexpected!

 

[uptower]

I definitely think Trump has intentionally broken laws and some of those will likely come to light through this investigation. I'm just not convinced it is going to be the bombshell some are expecting.

Ditto. He's just as likely to be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors committed in plain sight during his presidency.

 

[Fishking]

I definitely think Trump has intentionally broken laws and some of those will likely come to light through this investigation. I'm just not convinced it is going to be the bombshell some are expecting.

It's probably going to be some kind of financial crime related to his real estate business.

 

[Good4Nothin]

OK, so you got the answer to your question and promptly moved the goal posts.... Not unexpected!

I didn't move any goal posts. This post was motivated by reading articles by Dershowitz.

 

[Good4Nothin]

It's probably going to be some kind of financial crime related to his real estate business.

As I said, Dershowitz explained that ANYONE who owns a large business can be found guilty of crimes. This could set a precedent preventing business owners from running for US president. Democrats would love that, because, in general, they despise business.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

You clearly haven't paid attention to my postings over the years if you think that applies to me. That is understandable as there are a lot of members here, but not all of us are partisan.

Oh really. Do you think, Crooked Hillary paid for a Russian drafted dossier against Trump? Do you think Comey was right in giving Crooked Hillary a pass, all based on "there was no intent"? If you go through a red light and an officer stops you for a violation and starts to write you up, and you say wait a minute "I didn't intend to go through that red light. OK Bob I'm sorry for stopping you, have a good day. Do you think Crooked Hillary by acid washing her hard drives and destroying 30,000 e-mails was done just for fun. Or do you think she had something to hide that would put her in jeperity with our laws.

Just asking

Yeah, really.

10% of the emails the IG inspected contained classified information. If that percent holds consistent we are talking about THOUSANDS of classified documents mishandled. At the very least she should get the same misdemeanor conviction that Petraeus received, even though I think that is too light for either of them.

But she is the Democratic front-runner for President and the leader of the Democratic Party is currently POTUS. I would be shocked if she is held accountable.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...-hillary-s-private-emails.html#post1064879865

Again, not all of us are partisans. Some of us actually judge politicians by their behavior, not their party affiliation.

 

[JasperL]

Yes the Russia tower is a perfect example. There was no Russia tower and no official plan to build one. It was just an idea.

More goal post moving - this time to there was no 'official' plan to build one. What does "official plan" even mean?

 

[Good4Nothin]

More goal post moving - this time to there was no 'official' plan to build one. What does "official plan" even mean?

Nothing was signed, it was just something they talked about.

 

[haymarket]

Nothing was signed, it was just something they talked about.

“I tweeted out that I have no dealings with Russia. I have no deals that could happen in Russia, because we’ve stayed away. And I have no loans with Russia… I thought that was important to put out. I certified that. So I have no deals, I have no loans and I have no dealings. We could make deals in Russia very easily if we wanted to, I just don’t want to because I think that would be a conflict. So I have no loans, no dealings, and no current pending deals.”

Donald Trump

 

[JasperL]

I didn't move any goal posts. This post was motivated by reading articles by Dershowitz.

This was the post I responded to in full, quoting you:

"What makes you think he has intentionally broken laws? Do you have evidence, or is it just a feeling you get because you hate Trump?"

I replied with examples of some of the many times there is very compelling evidence he's intentionally broken laws, and why I expect that because he intentionally broke laws with his casinos, estate and gift matters and his foundation that he intentionally broke laws with his wider business interests.

Your response was something to the effect of, "Of course he broke laws - EVERYONE BREAKS LAWS!!"

Well, you said, "intentionally broken laws" but you meant something else, and move the goal posts to this new, unknown standard. What kind of intentional law breaking would satisfy your made up undefined standard? Can you be specific?

 

[JasperL]

Nothing was signed, it was just something they talked about.

That's actually false - he signed LOIs for TWO Trump towers in Russia. They even had architectural models built, had detailed discussions about financing, and more.

So what is your new goal post going to be?

 

[Fishking]

As I said, Dershowitz explained that ANYONE who owns a large business can be found guilty of crimes. This could set a precedent preventing business owners from running for US president. Democrats would love that, because, in general, they despise business.

I think there is a possibility to be more than that as it seems that real estate, especially with casinos and such, involves mob connections.