The Russia Investigations and other Trump-related cases

[elengil]

I feel like there are too many loose ends for this to be the end all be all. There's that mystery company and that Miller guy still fighting their grand jury subpoenas, for example. But maybe those cases will get farmed out somehow?

It's possible that there are still a lot of indictments we simply don't know about yet, maybe they are sealed or something, so just because we see loose ends doesn't mean that everything is just over yet. But I dunno..

[Voronwë the Faithful]

No, there are no further indictments coming from Mueller's office, sealed or otherwise. If there are any other indictments, they will come from one of the U.S. Attorney's offices, and they won't directly relate to the Russia investigation.

[elengil]

I thought that just meant all indictments that are going to be made have already been made, not that all the indictments made have already been made public...?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

My understanding is that there are no outstanding indictments, sealed or otherwise. Whether or not that is true.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[Cerin]

So, no collusion, insufficient evidence on obstruction of justice. It looks like the President was correct in calling the Special Counsel investigation a witch hunt (just as was the Special Counsel investigation of Clinton).

[elengil]

So, no collusion, insufficient evidence on obstruction of justice. It looks like the President was correct in calling the Special Counsel investigation a witch hunt (just as was the Special Counsel investigation of Clinton).

How do you figure it was a witch hunt? It produced quite a lot of indictments and guilty pleas and jail time and further investigations by other departments.

A witch hunt is finding a crime whether one takes place or not - literally deciding someone is guilty just so we have someone to blame things on. It is not a witch hunt to thoroughly investigate the possibility of a crime and determine there wasn't one. That is the exact opposite of a witch hunt. That is called the correct function of the justice department.

[Cerin]

Perhaps 'witch hunt' isn't really apt, I was using the President's terminology. I don't approve of Special Counsels. They are unAmerican , imo; it's basically one unlimited warrantless search. This investigation was based on an over-eager anti-Trump FBI out of control and some partisan political research that had been done on behalf of Clinton. I guess it would be better called a mining expedition; if you dig long enough over a large enough area, you're bound to come up with something. I'll tell you who needs investigating -- the intelligence services, the FBI and the CIA.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I would call it a whitewash more than a witch hunt.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

One important take away is that, unlike with regard to conspiring with the Russians, Mueller did not find that Mr. Trump did not commit a crime with regard to obstruction of justice. Instead he laid out the case and left the decision as to whether to prosecute to Attorney General Barr. Despite the fact that Barr previously sent a memo to the Justice Department saying that Mueller's obstruction of justice probe was fatally misconceived.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[elengil]

Perhaps 'witch hunt' isn't really apt, I was using the President's terminology. I don't approve of Special Counsels. They are unAmerican , imo; it's basically one unlimited warrantless search. This investigation was based on an over-eager anti-Trump FBI out of control and some partisan political research that had been done on behalf of Clinton. I guess it would be better called a mining expedition; if you dig long enough over a large enough area, you're bound to come up with something. I'll tell you who needs investigating -- the intelligence services, the FBI and the CIA.

So, the special council appointed by the Republican Rosenstein, and all those indictments and all those guilty pleas and only lasted about two years (just about average for Special Council investigations) and has now ended without any direct indictment against the president is just an example partisan of "digging long enough to come up with 'something'"?

Just exactly what is it you think an investigation is for, but to see if there is anything to uncover? You don't go into an investigation already deciding what you will or won't find - that isn't justice, that's being railroaded. You go into one seeing if there is anything to find which actually supports the accusations. The fact that they didn't should actually prove that they did their jobs properly rather than just dug until they just uncovered "anything".

Sounds like the intel services, FBI, and CIA are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing and you are the one engaging in 'warantless, over-eager, partisan' attacks on them just because they actually did their job instead of turning a blind eye and refusing to investigate a matter of serious national importance.

[River]

So the investigation into Trump's potential Russia connections began as a counter-intelligence probe during the 2016 campaign season. It was kicked off when George Papadopoulos shared some drinks with an Australian diplomat and started running his mouth. The diplomat, representing an ally and Five Eyes nation, got a little freaked out and got word to US law enforcement that there might be a massive problem with people Trump was hiring to work on his campaign. The dossier that the late Senator McCain's office referred to the FBI and captured everyone's imagination is/was ancillary. Trump's hiring decisions brought more grief shortly after he was inaugurated and it came out that his NSA, one General Flynn, turned out to be the target of an FBI investigation. Trump was eventually forced to fire him, and then went on to fire Comey...which is what freaked out the FBI and DoJ and triggered the appointment of a Special Counsel.

In short, Trump's his own worst enemy here.

[Frelga]

As I understand it, so far the Congress and the public hasn't seen Mueller's report, only Barr's four-page summary.

JUST IN: Rep. Jerry Nadler tweets that "in light of the very concerning discrepancies and final decision making at the Justice Department following the Special Counsel report," the House Judiciary Committee will be calling AG William Barr to testify. https://t.co/4Y4XCM9XsA

[River]

I'm most curious about what was farmed out.

[Frelga]

Nate Silver makes a good point.

For me, the safest conclusion is that a lot of political downside risk was removed from Trump's portfolio, in part because he got through the investigation without firing Mueller or pardoning anyone. https://t.co/sdbW2meMo8

[yovargas]

Pretty disappointed to see someone here attack even the idea of an investigation as some partisan stunt. As if we didn't know that a foreign government purposefully try to corrupt and influence our elections, and as if our sitting president didn't openly encourage them to do so.

[River]

Pretty disappointed to see someone here attack even the idea of an investigation as some partisan stunt. As if we didn't know that a foreign government purposefully try to corrupt and influence our elections, and as if our sitting president didn't openly encourage them to do so.

...and has made no discernible effort to keep it from happening again.

[Cerin]

So, the special council appointed by the Republican Rosenstein, and all those indictments and all those guilty pleas and only lasted about two years (just about average for Special Council investigations) and has now ended without any direct indictment against the president is just an example partisan of "digging long enough to come up with 'something'"?

Yes.

Just exactly what is it you think an investigation is for, but to see if there is anything to uncover?

An investigation (which should be based on objective information rather than partisan fiction) should be limited in scope -- not, for example, start out looking at a land deal and end up with sperm on a dress. This particular investigation, based on the FBI's vengeful, antagonistic attitude toward Trump and some opposition research/fiction produced for a political opponent, should never have been initiated in the first place, imo.  

Sounds like the intel services, FBI, and CIA are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing

 
No, what they were doing was trying to destroy someone they politically opposed who had publicly disrespected them, and who was not under the control of the deep state power structure they represented, and therefore represented a threat to their vested interests. I am no fan of Trump, but I will always oppose the powers of the intelligence apparatus being brought against an individual for political reasons.

and you are the one engaging in 'warantless, over-eager, partisan' attacks on them

Even if so, I do not have the power to destroy lives, so the comparison is moot. 



yovargas, of course the Russians did what they could to influence the election in Trump's favor. The election was between someone who respected Putin's validity as a world leader and was prepared to work with him, and someone who considered him to be Satan incarnate and would have continued the misguided (imo) policy of ramping up hostilities with Russia. It's nothing to the way we interfere all over the world in other countries' destinies to serve our own interests. And in my opinion, it's nothing to what Clinton did to undermine our democracy, by colluding with the DNC and the press to undermine the Sanders candidacy in what was supposed to be an unbiased democratic process. I don't know who leaked the Clinton emails, but in my view, it was a great service to the American public.

Now I've taken too much time with this, so pardon me if I try to avoid commenting further.

[RoseMorninStar]

I've been out of the country and I'm a bit out of the loop, but wasn't there stolen material from the Democratic offices and Manafort shared it with the Russians or.. something. Wasn't he charged with that? The meeting at Trump tower and all of the WikiLeaks/Roger Stone stuff? I understand that there may not have been something concrete like a formal agreement or contract, but there has never been so many Russian/adversarial country connections in direct involvement with our elections/president that I'm aware of. There was Russian interference as evidenced by the huge (Russian) investment spent on the IRA disinformation campaign (information research agency) ie: propaganda.. that doesn't mean Trump had a direct hand in orchestrating that but it should be of major concern as he's done things to block the countering of Russian interference in our elections (by not allowing the money Congress set aside to secure our elections process to be spent, for example).

While it's all well and good to 'get along' with other countries and their leaders, Trump has picked fights with our closest Allies and embraced some of the worst despots. Putin and Kim Jong Un, etc.. do not have the best interests of the American people at heart. They are not our friends.

[Túrin Turambar]

We will need to read the report to say something for certain on this, but I think a big issue here is the casual confusion between "support" and "collusion". We know for certain the Russian Government interfered in the U.S. election by backing the Trump campaign (and the campaigns of some other candidates) in order to create confusion. It is, as far as I know, common for the Russians to interfere in western elections in this way. Based on what we know, there's no evidence of any active co-operation on Trump's part.

I'm curious to see what the Russians will do this time around.

[yovargas]

yovargas, of course the Russians did what they could to influence the election in Trump's favor. The election was between someone who respected Putin's validity as a world leader and was prepared to work with him, and someone who considered him to be Satan incarnate and would have continued the misguided (imo) policy of ramping up hostilities with Russia. It's nothing to the way we interfere all over the world in other countries' destinies to serve our own interests. And in my opinion, it's nothing to what Clinton did to undermine our democracy, by colluding with the DNC and the press to undermine the Sanders candidacy in what was supposed to be an unbiased democratic process. I don't know who leaked the Clinton emails, but in my view, it was a great service to the American public.

None of which changes that this was a very serious matter that deserved to be seriously investigated.

There was certainly more cause for an investigation than your baseless claims that this was all the act of a vengeful FBI or whatever.