How is the Russia Investigation not Serious

[Okeefenokee]

https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/a ... svvp9.webm

[Okeefenokee]

This is serious now.

[ooky]

Ooky, I'm going to start by challenging the very legality of the Special Counsel.

3 Reasons Rod Rosenstein’s Special Counsel Appointment Was Illegal

1. Rosenstein Overreached His Authority Big Time
Rosenstein did not have the authority to grant Mueller such wide-ranging powers because Sessions only recused as attorney general from the investigation of “matters related in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States.”

2. This Special Counsel’s Activities Are Not Authorized
in appointing Mueller as a special counsel, Rosenstein ignored governing federal regulations. Those regulations are codified at 28 C.F.R. § 600.1-600.10 and limit the circumstances under which a special counsel may be appointed. A special counsel may only be appointed when, among other requirements, a “criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted.” The regulations also require the attorney general (or in the case of recusal, the acting attorney general) to provide the special counsel “with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated.”

Two weeks ago, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote to Rosenstein expressing these and other concerns. After noting that “it is unclear precisely how, or whether, the Department is following its own regulations, what the actual bounds of Mr. Mueller’s authority are, and how those bounds have been established,” Grassley directed Rosenstein to respond to a series of question to explain whether (and how) he complied with the governing DOJ regulations.

3. Mueller’s Appointment Violates the Constitution
Rosenstein’s appointment of Mueller to serve as a special counsel violates the constitution’s appointments clause.

Mueller has acted and has behaved like a principal officer even though he was never nominated by the President nor confirmed by the Senate. In fact, Mueller is much more powerful than is a U.S. Attorney because he has nationwide jurisdiction and can indict foreign citizens and corporations without clearance from main Justice as he did when he indicted more than a dozen Russian citizens and three Russian business entities. This action had a major effect on our foreign policy with Russia. Mueller’s actual powers are greater than those of a U.S. Attorney and are akin to those of an Assistant Attorney General. It is thus crystal clear that Mueller is a principal officer.

As a “principal officer,” the Constitution’s Appointments Clause required Mueller to be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. He was not.

https://thefederalist.com/2018/05/31/3- ... t-illegal/


A. Further, Mueller should have never accepted the appointment, he should have recused himself for more than one reason

Mueller should likewise step away because he has a potential personal conflict of interest, having been a longtime friend of a crucial witness, Comey, and Comey's key ally at the most important moment of his career.



https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2017/ ... 24171.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 102827924/

First of all, I just want to note that none of this actually answers what I put forth in my OP about the severity of the actions by those in the Trump campaign, and the severity of this scandal (involving both treasonous behavior and direct attacks on the sanctity of our elections). But I do appreciate what you are saying here.

I lived through Whitewater and Ken Starr. Clinton clearly did some bad stuff but it was just inSANE how that investigation was allowed to range far and wide in the ultimate fishing expedition. From first hand memory I can see major differences here, however. The possible obstruction of justice is DIRECTLY related to the Russia probe in the firing of James Comey and other actions to tamp down and divert the original investigation, which was not into Trump, but Russian interference in general. The financial stuff, if you listen to the very good reporting from pro-publica and Adam Davidson and others, is one of the main ways they are figuring out how these various players, with good evidence to suspect illegal collusion, are connected to Russian agents, oligarchs, and cut-outs. They happen to be finding some financial crimes when they look into this. Honestly, I think this is what has Trump so spooked - if you look over his known history it is clear that he has always aligned himself with shady (sometimes even previously prosecuted!) business interests. If you are commiting financial crimes such as money laundering, I think you should get prosecuted for that. Other criminal stuff that is clearly outside his purview (unless and until it is found to relate to the Russian interference and American collusion), like Cohen, Mueller has sent over to others to prosecute, and has only looked at aspects of that directly related to possible Russian interference, like when he subpoena'd Andrii Artemenko last month, a Ukranian politician who delivered a peace plan to Cohen back in 2016, where Cohen then promised he would get it to the White House and then took it to Flynn. Artemenko is a partner of Felix Sater, also of interest to Mueller for Russian interference related reasons,and Sater and Cohen were trying to get a Trump tower built in Moscow together in 2015 and 2016 and that in my mind, is credible that it could be an interaction involving collusion and/or motive for collusion.

I bring up Whitewater because you may or may not know that 28 CFR 600 was actually drafted in response to how out of control the Whitewater investigation got. With regard to 28 CFR 600.1-10, there clearly *was* a criminal matter to be investigated. It was criminal actions by the Russians, and possible criminal abetting of these efforts by certain Americans, and several people having lied to the FBI. There are multiple indictments and guilty pleas already - they were right to think that crimes had been committed. Also, Rosenstein quoted the statute in his order for the special counsel: his letter expressly stated that “Section 600.4 through 600.10 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.” Rosenstein is a very accomplished lawyer, and he plays very much by the books, and is not an ideologue. He's also a registered Republican, appointed by Trump. Clearly Rosenstein's opinion was and is that his original order IS consistent with 28 CFR 600. IANAL, and I don't expect any of you to come here an be plant ecologists when you speak to me, but to me Rosenstein is credible, appears honorable, and competent to make such distinctions. If he were crazy and completely in an undefendable position legally, I am absolutely sure this would have blown up in a more formal way before now, because much of the GOP and right wing media is acting like defense lawyers for Trump and are looking for ANYTHING they can. On the other hand, I recognize that the arguments have at least some logical merit and I'm sure this will be one of the legal points Trump team uses to push back, if they end up needing to. IOW, I don't think one federalist article, however reasonable on its face in terms of the questions that are raised, is the end of this argument.

Now, is 28 CFR 600 the end-all be-all? I don't know. On one hand, it is new. But if your final point is true, I don't think the main problem with the constitution is with Mueller, it must be for the whole statute, put together by a bipartisan commission headed by Janet Reno. They clearly did not think that the AG appointing a special counsel with these powers was unconstitutional, and that was exactly one of the types of issues they were looking directly at for 18 months to "fix" the special counsel role after Whitewater.

Back to the rest of the GOP - though people like Nunes are acting like defense lawyers for the administration, the GOP majority has repeatedly stressed bipartisan support for this investigation, and have noted over and over it should be allowed to finish. They have declined to enact a law to protect him, not because they don't think he should be protected, instead they say that Trump would never fire Mueller and therefore such a law is not needed. I think they are risking a constitutional crisis through inaction here, but the fact remains Mueller has and still operates under the general approval of a congress that is majority Republican. I'll also note they have not moved to limit his powers or disband the investigation due to unconstitutionality.

I, and many Americans, *want* the FBI to investigate when they find evidence that a nation such as Russia is making a concerted effort to disrupt and taint our election process. Before this all happened, I would have thought that this was the type of thing that most of us on both sides of the divide would agree on. I also *want* the FBI to investigate powerful Americans, especially Americans running for office or helping those who are, who secretly aid such foreign efforts secretly. And they were. I would have been fine without a special counsel and just to proceed with the FBI investigation. But Trump ruined that and risked this amazing scandal being completely ignored when he fired James Comey - like an impatient, petulant baby. No, more than that - his actions have consistently looked exactly like what a guilty person used to always getting his own way before now would do. *That* made this appointment necessary.

[ooky]

The truly amazing thing about all of this silliness is this:

After YEARS and probably almost a hundred million dollars set on fire to fund it, these people found nothing on Trump. It's a giant fishing expedition and they can't get him on anything. That actually surprises me. I figured he would have at the very least some strong organized crime connections. Nah. They couldn't even get that.

They couldn't even get him on a process violation.

That's how much of a farce this is. They seem to have gone after the last clean rich guy in New York. A movie will be made about all this. It will be a comedy.


There is a Jewish proverb that goes something like this: to dishonest men an honest man seems like the greatest liar of all.

It has been 13 months since Mueller was appointed.

Investigation has cost about 20MM so far. 5 Convictions, 19 indictments, over 100 counts filed. Literally the latest was YESTERDAY, Konstantin Kilimnik.

Length of Benghazi Investigation: 4 years, Cost over $7 million (to investigate one woman and one incident) with no indictments, no guilty pleas.

Cost of Trump's extracurriculars in first 13 months: 27MM for trips to Mar A Lago
13 MM for Mar A Lago security
8.5 MM for flights to golfing in Bedminster
75MM for Melania to delay moving to WH for security

If we can afford 27MM in 13 months for Trump to go to Mar-a-lago when he wants, I think this is worth it.

[Speaker to Animals]

Ooky, if the feds run an investigation like that, they are going to entrap people in process crimes if they want to. All you have to do is mis-remember something, or somebody else contradict you, and boom -- indictment.

These clowns have been rooting through Trump's very extensive business and personal dealings for over a year and found jack-fucking-shit.

Get out of here with your appeal to process crimes as a justification for this farce.

They found nothing.

I bet if they rooted through your life like that they'd find something to prosecute. You know this is true. Yet the same could not be said for Trump. Seriously process that shit. It's unbelievable. The man is clean. I am as shocked as you should be shocked, but instead you embraced delusion.

[ooky]

i feel that if there had been something truly damning against trump, it would have leaked by now

In normal times, having your campaign aid convicted, your national security adviser convicted, your campaign manager indicted on multiple counts, and your personal lawyer, who fully appears to have been set up following the election precisely to serve as a pay-to-play entry to Trump, also prosecuted, would have been damaging. To have your legal team assert that the president is entirely above the law and can pardon himself as one of the biggest arguments against an investigation into him would have been damning. To have been proven, over and over and over to have lied egregiously and repeatedly about the investigation and other factual issues would have been damaging. The rest of us in this country have come to believe there is literally nothing that he could do, up to and including rape and murder, that would damage him to his base in the current climate. It feels lawless, and Mueller and the dems on the House investigation committee like Schiff feel like one of the few things keeping us from devolving rapidly into a banana republic clown show.

Look, it may very well be that there is nothing they can get Trump on, only his campaign manager, his son in law, his son, his former national security adviser, and ?? We don't know yet. We do know Mueller keeps his cards close to his vest until he has what he needs to issue charges. But from what we know that I laid out in my OP (and I'm not sure I mentioned the intelligence community specifically briefed him in August 2016 that Russia was trying to throw the election), if he didn't personally collude with Russia, is was in this sense:

With his “no collusion” chant, Trump is like an embezzler who yells, “There was no murder”—and asserts that is the only relevant benchmark. Think of what Trump did during the campaign in this fashion: A fellow is standing on a sidewalk in front of a bank. He is told the bank is being robbed. He can see armed men wearing masks in the bank. Yet when people pass by and ask what is happening in the bank, he says, “There is no robbery. Nothing to see. Move along.” Even if this person did not collude with the robbers, he is helping the gang perpetrate a crime. And in Trump’s case, the criminal act was committed for his gain.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... dal-media/

That may honestly not be enough for THIS Congress to impeach him. But it ain't a lie about a blow job.

[Okeefenokee]

Did Michael Moore go to jail for promoting that russian anti trump protest in new york?

Since we're getting all serious in here.

[Okeefenokee]

i feel that if there had been something truly damning against trump, it would have leaked by now

In normal times, having your campaign aid convicted, your national security adviser convicted, your campaign manager indicted on multiple counts, and your personal lawyer, who fully appears to have been set up following the election precisely to serve as a pay-to-play entry to Trump, also prosecuted, would have been damaging. To have your legal team assert that the president is entirely above the law and can pardon himself as one of the biggest arguments against an investigation into him would have been damning. To have been proven, over and over and over to have lied egregiously and repeatedly about the investigation and other factual issues would have been damaging. The rest of us in this country have come to believe there is literally nothing that he could do, up to and including rape and murder, that would damage him to his base in the current climate. It feels lawless, and Mueller and the dems on the House investigation committee like Schiff feel like one of the few things keeping us from devolving rapidly into a banana republic clown show.

Look, it may very well be that there is nothing they can get Trump on, only his campaign manager, his son in law, his son, his former national security adviser, and ?? We don't know yet. We do know Mueller keeps his cards close to his vest until he has what he needs to issue charges. But from what we know that I laid out in my OP (and I'm not sure I mentioned the intelligence community specifically briefed him in August 2016 that Russia was trying to throw the election), if he didn't personally collude with Russia, is was in this sense:

With his “no collusion” chant, Trump is like an embezzler who yells, “There was no murder”—and asserts that is the only relevant benchmark. Think of what Trump did during the campaign in this fashion: A fellow is standing on a sidewalk in front of a bank. He is told the bank is being robbed. He can see armed men wearing masks in the bank. Yet when people pass by and ask what is happening in the bank, he says, “There is no robbery. Nothing to see. Move along.” Even if this person did not collude with the robbers, he is helping the gang perpetrate a crime. And in Trump’s case, the criminal act was committed for his gain.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... dal-media/

That may honestly not be enough for THIS Congress to impeach him. But it ain't a lie about a blow job.

you are a loon. go back to marching

[ooky]

Ooky, if the feds run an investigation like that, they are going to entrap people in process crimes if they want to. All you have to do is mis-remember something, or somebody else contradict you, and boom -- indictment.

These clowns have been rooting through Trump's very extensive business and personal dealings for over a year and found jack-fucking-shit.

Get out of here with your appeal to process crimes as a justification for this farce.

They found nothing.

I bet if they rooted through your life like that they'd find something to prosecute. You know this is true. Yet the same could not be said for Trump. Seriously process that shit. It's unbelievable. The man is clean. I am as shocked as you should be shocked, but instead you embraced delusion.

1. The convictions and indictments have not been merely for misremembering shit. Most of them have been of Russians doing the interference, which was the original subject of the investigation, not Trump. (Just, you know, most times they found a Russian agent or cut out trying to collude to influence the election, they were talking to Trump's campaign).

2. You don't know what they have on Trump, no one does. The reporting looks terrible though - you should check out Trump, Inc. He has run an incredibly secretive company for years but there are still things people have been able to find out that look very, very, very odd on a basic level regarding his deals, and the use or non-use of debt. Like a,maybe he made most of his money doing money laundering for foreign powers level of strange. Reporters don't even have access to what Mueller does.

3. Any competent person doing this would have created a layer of protection between himself and the actors actually engaging in this stuff - so it's reasonable to think that one outcome may be that it's only his aides, campaign manager, lawyer, etc will have real, prosecutable stuff found on them and we will all just have to live with that. We already know much of what these people did.

4. Many legal scholars say there is already ample legal evidence in the public record for obstruction (what they got Clinton on).

[ooky]

you are a loon. go back to marching

Solid argument, bro