Special Counsel Mueller's Team

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Meet Mueller's team, full of lawyers who gave $$ to Hillary now investigating the Trump team. Lots of money being spent for results that will not be credible because of politics. Kind of like the fox being let inside the chicken house. One side will like the results, the other won't and nothing will happen. Just like the FBI/Comey in the Hillary e-mail investigation. Not to even mention Mueller's long timeclose relationship with Comey who may have violated the law by giving classified info to the NYT.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/24/mueller-probe-meet-lawyers-who-gave-to-hillary-now-investigating-team-trump.html

[homersapien 11,374]

It's not fair!  So sad!  

[AUDub 11,149]

The party line has been finalized. Time to paint Mueller as a dem partisan.

Oh, wait.

[homersapien 11,374]

7 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

The party line has been finalized. Time to paint Mueller as a dem partisan.

Oh, wait.

Brooke Singman quoting Kellyanne Conway on Faux News doesn't "trump" the Republican speaker of the house?

Only in PT's world.    

 

[SaltyTiger 7,808]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

It's not fair!  So sad!  

Results Homer. We need results. It is fair. As guilty as this administration is it  should only take a few days. Read the news. 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Millions of taxpayer's money has already been spent since congressional committees, special counsel, etc,. since last year nad to my knowledge NOT ONE violation of the law by anyone in the current administration has been found. Can the Trump haters here tell me one? Even major DEM Chuck Schumer said today the Dems have no one but themselves for losing the election.

[homersapien 11,374]

2 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

Millions of taxpayer's money has already been spent since congressional committees, special counsel, etc,. since last year nad to my knowledge NOT ONE violation of the law by anyone in the current administration has been found. Can the Trump haters here tell me one? Even major DEM Chuck Schumer said today the Dems have no one but themselves for losing the election.

I love this argument!

[TitanTiger 20,482]

11 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

Millions of taxpayer's money has already been spent since congressional committees, special counsel, etc,. since last year nad to my knowledge NOT ONE violation of the law by anyone in the current administration has been found. Can the Trump haters here tell me one? Even major DEM Chuck Schumer said today the Dems have no one but themselves for losing the election.

I think you're jumping the gun on things a bit. Some perspective is in order. Trump has been in office for about 7 months and the investigations didn't get under way the day he stepped into office.  Mueller was only appointed special council in May.  By contrast the investigations into Bill Clinton that resulted in the Starr Report began in 1994 and didn't conclude until 1998.

Why are you so eager to shut it all down when it's just gotten going?  Did you have such a short attention span for investigations when it was being done to Clinton, or did you wish to let it play out and allow the special council to do their job?  If you did, why not now?

[Elephant Tipper 430]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I think you're jumping the gun on things a bit. Some perspective is in order. Trump has been in office for about 7 months and the investigations didn't get under way the day he stepped into office.  Mueller was only appointed special council in May.  By contrast the investigations into Bill Clinton that resulted in the Starr Report began in 1994 and didn't conclude until 1998.

Why are you so eager to shut it all down when it's just gotten going?  Did you have such a short attention span for investigations when it was being done to Clinton, or did you wish to let it play out and allow the special council to do their job?  If you did, why not now?

Crimes are investigated, not accusations.  What is the "crime" that is supposedly being investigated ?

[TitanTiger 20,482]

9 minutes ago, Elephant Tipper said:

Crimes are investigated, not accusations.  What is the "crime" that is supposedly being investigated ?

When the investigation started with the Clintons, they were mere allegations .  Nothing had been proven.

You investigate to determine whether a crime was committed.  But some areas that may end up being criminal in nature include (via Vox):

Trump business transactions involving Russians from before the campaign: Per Bloomberg, Mueller is looking into the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow, a Trump business deal with Russian associates for a condo development in SoHo, and Trump’s sale of a Florida estate to a wealthy Russian back in 2008. These, in theory, could help illuminate the nature of any Trump ties to the Russian state.

Michael Flynn’s foreign ties: Separately from the major Russia investigation, the FBI had been looking into whether former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn lied about his contacts with the Russian ambassador and Flynn’s paid work lobbying for Turkish interests. In June, Reuters reported that Mueller was taking over this probe, which had already advanced to the grand jury stage. As a close counselor to Trump during the campaign who also has extensive Russia ties, Flynn is a potentially vital witness.

Paul Manafort’s finances and potential money laundering: Meanwhile, federal investigators had embarked on another criminal investigation about the finances of former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort, who did work for pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine for several years and was paid quite handsomely for it. The Associated Press reports that Mueller has taken over this probe too, which, per the Wall Street Journal, is about money laundering (more on that later).

Whether President Trump obstructed justice: The Washington Post reports that Mueller’s team is interviewing government officials about whether President Trump tried to interfere with any investigations — likely in connection with Comey’s firing, the president’s alleged pre-firing request that Comey back off Flynn, and a report that Trump reached out to top intelligence officials for similar reasons. Proving such allegations would be a massive deal — obstruction was at the core of the impeachment charges against Richard Nixon...

...There are basically two kinds of crimes Mueller’s team might uncover. The first is crimes directly related to the election — if the Trump team engaged in a criminal conspiracy to help hack Hillary Clinton’s email (stealing documents is illegal) or violated campaign finance lawsby soliciting help from a foreign source, for example. The second kind is crimes committed during the investigation itself: witness intimidation, perjury, obstruction of justice, and the like.

Whether any of it ends up being criminal, or if there's sufficient proof is undetermined.  But that *is* why you investigate.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

When the investigation started with the Clintons, they were mere allegations .  Nothing had been proven.

You investigate to determine whether a crime was committed.  

Whitewater started with an actual crime that was revealed by banking regulators.

What crime has been committed to precipitate the "Russia collusion" investigation ?

[TitanTiger 20,482]

1 minute ago, Elephant Tipper said:

Whitewater started with an actual crime that was revealed by banking regulators.

What crime has been committed to precipitate the "Russia collusion" investigation ?

I have added some of the potentially criminal things that they can investigate to my post.

If you want to read the full explanation, you can see it here:

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/24/16008272/robert-mueller-fbi-trump-russia-explained

It's about as straightforward and neutral a presentation of what's going on as you could find anywhere.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

This article has several law experts commenting on the potential criminality of what's being investigated.  It's another good presentation of what's at stake here.  Some lean toward there being no criminality at all, where most see at least some potential criminal actions involved.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/12/what-is-collusion-215366

[Elephant Tipper 430]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

I have added some of the potentially criminal things that they can investigate to my post.

Quoting you: "There are basically two kinds of crimes Mueller’s team might uncover."  To rephrase, No crime has been committed.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Just now, Elephant Tipper said:

Quoting you: "There are basically two kinds of crimes Mueller’s team might uncover."  To rephrase, No crime has been committed.

We don't know if a crime was committed yet.  That's what investigations are for.  You see indications or allegations that a crime may have been committed.  So you look deeper into them.  Not all investigations end up uncovering evidence of an actual crime in the end.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

This article has several law experts commenting on the potential criminality of what's being investigated.  It's another good presentation of what's at stake here.  Some lean toward there being no criminality at all, where most see at least some potential criminal actions involved.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/12/what-is-collusion-215366

Everything you and the Dems say is potential.  America does not investigate accusations, as these all are.  America investigates actual crimes.  So, again, what "crime" has been committed by DJT ?

[Elephant Tipper 430]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

We don't know if a crime was committed yet.  That's what investigations are for.  You see indications or allegations that a crime may have been committed.  So you look deeper into them.  Not all investigations end up uncovering evidence of an actual crime in the end.

Again, what is the "crime" to have precipitated these investigations ?

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Just now, Elephant Tipper said:

Again, what is the "crime" to have precipitated these investigations ?

I just told you several crimes that could be involved.  You investigate allegations of possible criminality.  I don't know where you got this idea that no one ever investigates anything until they are certain that a specific crime was committed, but that's not how it works.  

For instance, you find someone dead.  You have various pieces of evidence.  It could be foul play or it could be an accident or self-inflicted.  You do an investigation to find out if it was criminal in nature or something else.

[Strychnine 1,802]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

I just told you several crimes that could be involved.  You investigate allegations of possible criminality.  I don't know where you got this idea that no one ever investigates anything until they are certain that a specific crime was committed, but that's not how it works.  

For instance, you find someone dead.  You have various pieces of evidence.  It could be foul play or it could be an accident or self-inflicted.  You do an investigation to find out if it was criminal in nature or something else.

 

I find it disturbing that it was necessary to point that out.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Just now, Strychnine said:

I find it disturbing that it was necessary to point that out.

Seriously.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

I just told you several crimes that could be involved.  You investigate allegations of possible criminality.  I don't know where you got this idea that no one ever investigates anything until they are certain that a specific crime was committed, but that's not how it works.  

For instance, you find someone dead.  You have various pieces of evidence.  It could be foul play or it could be an accident or self-inflicted.  You do an investigation to find out if it was criminal in nature or something else.

"For instance, you find someone dead.  You have various pieces of evidence."  Now we have something to work with.  So, where is the dead person in this case which precipitated the investigation ?

[TitanTiger 20,482]

5 minutes ago, Elephant Tipper said:

"For instance, you find someone dead.  You have various pieces of evidence."  Now we have something to work with.  So, where is the dead person in this case which precipitated the investigation ?

ET, I'm beginning to feel like this is a disingenuous waste of my time.  For instance in the four or five things I mentioned from the Vox article, there is plenty of evidence of questionable Russian involvement in the US election as well as plenty of evidence of communications between Trump associates and Russian officials mentioned.  And it's hardly the only source of information.  You don't live in a cocoon so I know you have heard of and have access to this info. 

Whether it ends up meaning anything or nothing is still up in the air.  I actually don't have an opinion on whether it adds up to any criminal activity by anyone in the Trump administration yet, so I'm not on a witch hunt.  It could just be a series of coincidental connections that happened to coincide with suspicious Russian hacking activity and such.  I'm open to the idea that "correlation does not equal causation" here.  I'm just hitting back at this ridiculous notion that there's nothing even worth investigating at all.  It wouldn't matter who was in the White House right now to me, I would expect this to be investigated.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

6 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

ET, I'm beginning to feel like this is a disingenuous waste of my time.  For instance in the four or five things I mentioned from the Vox article, there is plenty of evidence of questionable Russian involvement in the US election as well as plenty of evidence of communications between Trump associates and Russian officials mentioned.  Whether it ends up meaning anything or nothing is still up in the air.  I actually don't have an opinion on whether it adds up to any criminal activity by anyone in the Trump administration yet, so I'm not on a witch hunt.  It could just be a series of coincidental connections that happened to coincide with suspicious Russian hacking activity and such.  I'm open to the idea that "correlation does not equal causation" here.  I'm just hitting back at this ridiculous notion that there's nothing even worth investigating at all.  It wouldn't matter who was in the White House right now to me, I would expect this to be investigated.

No, I'm not being disingenuous.  You have listed what investigators would consider, but they have to have justification to do so, ie, an actual crime.

Eg, in Whitewater, the McDougals were investigated because of their banking crimes uncovered by a banking examiner.  They, et al, were prosecuted and convicted.  Because of an actual crime and HRC's legal oversight [of Whitewater], she and her husband were investigated.

Again, what crime has been committed in the "Russia collusion" investigation ?  Is collusion the crime ?

[TitanTiger 20,482]

3 minutes ago, Elephant Tipper said:

No, I'm not being disingenuous.  You have listed what investigators would consider, but they have to have justification to do so, ie, an actual crime.

Eg, in Whitewater, the McDougals were investigated because of their banking crimes uncovered by a banking examiner.  They, et al, were prosecuted and convicted.  Because of an actual crime and HRC's legal oversight, she and her husband were investigated.

Again, what crime has been committed in the "Russia collusion" investigation ?  Is collusion the crime ?

According to most legal experts, yes.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/12/what-is-collusion-215366

Another article I already posted.

Though it may not be the only one.  For instance obstruction of justice was mentioned.  

And again, you don't only investigate when you know a crime was committed.  I'm having a hard time believing this is a serious line of questioning.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

According to most legal experts, yes.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/12/what-is-collusion-215366

Another article I already posted.

Though it may not be the only one.  For instance obstruction of justice was mentioned.  

And again, you don't only investigate when you know a crime was committed.  I'm having a hard time believing this is a serious line of questioning.

"Collusion" is NOT a crime. 

"..you don't only investigate when you know a crime was committed".  An investigation must be based on evidence of some kind.  If you tell a police officer that so and so hit your car, then he'll ask you for evidence.  The first evidence would be damage to your car coupled with some form of identification of the perpetrator.

Again, what "crime" has been committed ?  IE, what is the damage that has been done ?