The Mueller Russian Probe Thread

I have to say I can't remember how Starr got from Whitewater to Lewinsky.  There had to be at least a couple of interim steps in between.

The Rosenstein letter authorizes Mueller to investigate anything that comes "directly" from his initial investigation.  It's not a big leap from investigating a bunch of meetings between the Trump campaign and Russians to discovering that Trump was having business meetings with possibly shady Russians.

yahooyahoo said:

BCC - did you read the question?  What crime instigated the Whitewater investigation?

Clinton committed perjury SEVERAL YEARS AFTER the investigation started.



BCC said:

drummerboy said:

really?

What crime did Clinton commit that instigated the Whitewater investigation?
Really!

HE committed PERJURY!

ETA removed sentence

I'm sorry, that's incorrect.  Hint, the clue for what crime was alleged is in the name "Whitewater".



yahooyahoo said:

BCC - did you read the question?  What crime instigated the Whitewater investigation?

Clinton committed perjury SEVERAL YEARS AFTER the investigation started.
BCC said:



drummerboy said:

really?

What crime did Clinton commit that instigated the Whitewater investigation?



BCC said:



ml1 said:

Ken Starr says Mueller may be overstepping his mandate

My understanding is that it has no boundaries. That's why I am hesitant about these appointments. 


It has led to Bill and the blue dress, Scooter Libby being found guilty of obstruction, and Muller indicting people who can be squeezed for dirt on Trump.

Aside from which, these Counsels were tasked with investigating crimes which the above had committed. Mueller has been tasked with finding a crime.

Really!


HE committed PERJURY!


You seem to have a problem with facts and come to think of it I'm getting tired of tutoring you.

You are quite right, I misread the sentence and my response was directed elsewhere






ml1 said:

I have to say I can't remember how Starr got from Whitewater to Lewinsky.  There had to be at least a couple of interim steps in between.

The Rosenstein letter authorizes Mueller to investigate anything that comes "directly" from his initial investigation.  It's not a big leap from investigating a bunch of meetings between the Trump campaign and Russians to discovering that Trump was having business meetings with possibly shady Russians.
yahooyahoo said:

BCC - did you read the question?  What crime instigated the Whitewater investigation?

Clinton committed perjury SEVERAL YEARS AFTER the investigation started.

Lewinsky denied she had an affair with Clinton in the Jones v. Clinton case, so Linda Tripp handed all her evidence over to Ken Starr.


That was a woefully inaccurate response.

Starr was appointed well before Monica Lewinsky was even a thing.

Did you really not know that?

wow.

I'd be embarrassed. We're only taking about what led to the only impeachment in the 20th century. It seems an important place to get your facts straight.


BCC said:

drummerboy said:

really?

What crime did Clinton commit that instigated the Whitewater investigation?BCC said:



ml1 said:

Ken Starr says Mueller may be overstepping his mandate

My understanding is that it has no boundaries. That's why I am hesitant about these appointments. 


It has led to Bill and the blue dress, Scooter Libby being found guilty of obstruction, and Muller indicting people who can be squeezed for dirt on Trump.

Aside from which, these Counsels were tasked with investigating crimes which the above had committed. Mueller has been tasked with finding a crime.
Really!
HE committed PERJURY!

ETA removed sentence



The underlying "crimes" that started the Whitewater special prosecutor are everyday occurrences in the Trump administration. Just today, the front-page story about Kushner receiving loans from business interests he'd just met with in the White House. 

If the loan to Susan McDougal was enough to start eight years of national torture, the Trump administration supplies enough to last into the 22nd century. 



drummerboy said:

That was a woefully inaccurate response.

Starr was appointed well before Monica Lewinsky was even a thing.

Did you really not know that?

wow.


I'd be embarrassed. We're only taking about what led to the only impeachment in the 20th century. It seems an important place to get your facts straight.




BCC said:

drummerboy said:

really?

What crime did Clinton commit that instigated the Whitewater investigation?BCC said:





ml1 said:

Ken Starr says Mueller may be overstepping his mandate

My understanding is that it has no boundaries. That's why I am hesitant about these appointments. 


It has led to Bill and the blue dress, Scooter Libby being found guilty of obstruction, and Muller indicting people who can be squeezed for dirt on Trump.

Aside from which, these Counsels were tasked with investigating crimes which the above had committed. Mueller has been tasked with finding a crime.
Really!
HE committed PERJURY!

ETA removed sentence

Not really.

I was obviously talking about how these investigations ended and you immediately switched to how they started and I misread what you wrote. Had you stayed with what I wrote we would have had a different conversation.


Is Iran-Contra next?


no, not "not really".

geez. do you even read what you write? Starr was NOT tasked with investigating a crime which had been committed. Like Mueller, he was tasked with finding a crime.

BCC said:



drummerboy said:

That was a woefully inaccurate response.

Starr was appointed well before Monica Lewinsky was even a thing.

Did you really not know that?

wow.


I'd be embarrassed. We're only taking about what led to the only impeachment in the 20th century. It seems an important place to get your facts straight.




BCC said:

drummerboy said:

really?

What crime did Clinton commit that instigated the Whitewater investigation?BCC said:





ml1 said:

Ken Starr says Mueller may be overstepping his mandate

My understanding is that it has no boundaries. That's why I am hesitant about these appointments. 


It has led to Bill and the blue dress, Scooter Libby being found guilty of obstruction, and Muller indicting people who can be squeezed for dirt on Trump.

Aside from which, these Counsels were tasked with investigating crimes which the above had committed. Mueller has been tasked with finding a crime.
Really!
HE committed PERJURY!

ETA removed sentence

Not really.

I was obviously talking about how these investigations ended and you immediately switched to how they started and I misread what you wrote. Had you stayed with what I wrote we would have had a different conversation.



MSNBC crawl: Sources say Mueller readying charges against Russian hackers.


"WASHINGTON — Special Counsel Robert Mueller is assembling a case for criminal charges against Russians who carried out the hacking and leaking of private information designed to hurt Democrats in the 2016 election, multiple current and former government officials familiar with the matter tell NBC News.

Much like the indictment Mueller filed last month charging a different group of Russians in a social media trolling and illegal-ad-buying scheme, the possible new charges are expected to rely heavily on secret intelligence gathered by the CIA, the FBI, the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), several of the officials say.

Mueller's consideration of charges accusing Russians in the hacking case has not been reported previously. Sources say he has long had sufficient evidence to make a case, but strategic issues could dictate the timing. Potential charges include violations of statutes on conspiracy, election law as well as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. One U.S. official briefed on the matter said the charges are not imminent, but other knowledgeable sources said they are expected in the next few weeks or months. It's also possible Mueller opts not to move forward because of concerns about exposing intelligence or other reasons — or that he files the indictment under seal, so the public doesn't see it initially.

The sources say the possible new indictment — or more than one, if that's how Mueller's office decides to proceed — would delve into the details of, and the people behind, the Russian intelligence operation that used hackers to penetrate computer networks and steal emails of both the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. The release of embarrassing Democratic emails through WikiLeaks became a prominent feature in the 2016 presidential election, cited at least 145 times by Republican candidate Donald Trump in the final month of the campaign. At one point he publicly urged "Russia" to find and release emails Trump believed were missing from Democrat Hillary Clinton's private server." 

. . . . . .

"It could not be learned to what extent, if at all, Mueller's office would make allegations in the possible indictments about the role of Russian president Vladimir Putin in ordering and supervising the operation. NBC News has reported that U.S. intelligence agencies have evidence Putin was closely involved, but sources say the intelligence underlying that conclusion is extremely sensitive.

The CIA long ago turned over all the relevant intelligence it had on the Russian operation to FBI investigators, officials said. The NSA, DHS and the ODNI have also passed along to Mueller analysis and forensic information connected to the hacks, including telltale "signatures," malware and methods.

Another question is whether Mueller will charge Russian intelligence officers alleged to have supervised the operation. Often, the people who do the hacking for the Russian government are private freelancers. A former FBI official briefed on the matter said it was likely Russian government officials would be charged — but that Mueller would have to consult widely in the government about that decision."


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/mueller-eyes-charges-against-russians-who-stole-spread-democrats-emails-n852291?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma



McMaster said to be leaving.  Here's his likely Putin-approved replacement

A leading candidate to become President Donald Trump’s third national security adviser is the auto industry executive Stephen Biegun
Mr. Biegun, born 1963, graduated from the University of Michigan where he studied Political Science and Russian Language [...] and is a member of the boards of the US-Russia Foundation for Economic Development and the Rule of Law, the Moscow School of Politics, Freedom House, the US-Russia Business Council, the US-ASEAN Business Council and FordSollers, Ford Motor Company’s joint venture operating in the Russia Federation.



Mueller also looking into Trump's constant badmouthing of Sessions for not doing as bid as a form of obstruction of justice.   The wheels are coming off.


Another candidate for McMaster's position is Bolton, who I believe wrote an op-ed for pre-emptive war on North Korea.   But Paul Surovell thinks Hillary would be worse.

ETA:  McMaster was looking to nuke N. Korea, too, but Bolton seems more nutso.


Bolton is way more nutso.


Where is Paul, anyway? I miss his unique brand of tin-foilery.



Dennis_Seelbach said:

Where is Paul, anyway? I miss his unique brand of tin-foilery.

https://mobile.twitter.com/paulsurovell


Re the NBC story that Mueller is readying charges against Russian hackers, Marcy Wheeler pointed to this story in the WSJ in November, 2017: 

The Justice Department has identified more than six members of the Russian government involved in hacking the Democratic National Committee’s computers and swiping sensitive information that became public during the 2016 presidential election, according to people familiar with the investigation.
Prosecutors and agents have assembled evidence to charge the Russian officials and could bring a case next year, these people said. Discussions about the case are in the early stages, they said.
[snip]
The pinpointing of particular Russian military and intelligence hackers highlights the exhaustive nature of the government’s probe. It also suggests the eagerness of some federal prosecutors and Federal Bureau of Investigation agents to file charges against those responsible, even if the result is naming the alleged perpetrators publicly and making it difficult for them to travel, rather than incarcerating them. Arresting Russian operatives is highly unlikely, people familiar with the probe said.


What is news is that this reporting from the WSJ report is no longer operative.

Federal prosecutors and federal agents working in Washington, Pittsburgh, San Francisco and Philadelphia have been collaborating on the DNC investigation. The inquiry is being conducted separately from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election and any possible collusion by President Donald Trump’s associates.
[snip]
The Justice Department and FBI investigation into the DNC hack had been under way for nearly a year, by prosecutors and agents with cyber expertise, before Mr. Mueller was appointed in May. Rather than take over the relatively technical cyber investigation, Mr. Mueller and the Justice Department agreed that it would be better for the original prosecutors and agents to retain that aspect of the case, the people familiar with the Justice Department-FBI probe said. [my emphasis]
I’ll leave it for you to consider what it means that Mueller subsumed this part of the investigation even as WSJ was reporting he wasn’t going to do that. I’ll leave you to consider, too, what it means that they brought in a prosecutor with the ability to try these things.
But understand that the news here is not that DOJ is contemplating indicting the people behind the DNC hack. WSJ already scooped that story. It’s that Mueller, not prosecutors in Pittsburgh, San Francisco and Philadelphia, are going to charge it."
https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/03/01/nbcs-broken-story-about-mueller-charging-the-dnc-hackers/

Very good discussion on Brian Lehrer today with John Dean, about the Mueller investigation.

One interesting comment from Dean was that Robert Mueller, given his reputation and accomplishments, would not have taken the job if he didn't believe that there was a "there" there to investigate.

https://www.wnyc.org/story/corrupt-president


Caveats: This may be old news already to readers of this thread. It may be behind a paywall. It’s from a mainstream media outlet that silenced Sy Hersh when he dared to challenge the narrative it was pushing. (Or was it the anonymous sourcing?) It’s long. It contains MOL thread-consuming assertions like “But the Bureau didn’t trick the court — it openly disclosed that Steele’s funding was political.” Yet here it is:

Christopher Steele, the Man Behind the Trump Dossier (The New Yorker)


sure has been quiet since Paul's thread bit the dust...


Putin's anti-Semitic "joke" about Jews being behind the scandal was no doubt enjoyed by some skeptics.



dave23 said:

Putin's anti-Semitic "joke" about Jews being behind the scandal was no doubt enjoyed by some skeptics.

It was jarring to hear him casually throw that out.



Morganna said:



dave23 said:

Putin's anti-Semitic "joke" about Jews being behind the scandal was no doubt enjoyed by some skeptics.

It was jarring to hear him casually throw that out.

It wasn’t casual.


Steve Bannon recently told his audience to be proud when they're called racists.

It's all coming together...

Morganna said:



dave23 said:

Putin's anti-Semitic "joke" about Jews being behind the scandal was no doubt enjoyed by some skeptics.

It was jarring to hear him casually throw that out.



He's ignoring this message board and spending time on Twitter.  He even retweeted a Trump tweet the other day.

drummerboy said:

sure has been quiet since Paul's thread bit the dust...




DaveSchmidt said:

Caveats: This may be old news already to readers of this thread. It may be behind a paywall. It’s from a mainstream media outlet that silenced Sy Hersh when he dared to challenge the narrative it was pushing. (Or was it the anonymous sourcing?) It’s long. It contains MOL thread-consuming assertions like “But the Bureau didn’t trick the court — it openly disclosed that Steele’s funding was political.” Yet here it is:


Christopher Steele, the Man Behind the Trump Dossier (The New Yorker)

I started reading the article but dinner appointment interrupted. I found it very informative and will continue reading when I get a chance.

Thanks for the link.



DaveSchmidt said:

Caveats: This may be old news already to readers of this thread. It may be behind a paywall. It’s from a mainstream media outlet that silenced Sy Hersh when he dared to challenge the narrative it was pushing. (Or was it the anonymous sourcing?) It’s long. It contains MOL thread-consuming assertions like “But the Bureau didn’t trick the court — it openly disclosed that Steele’s funding was political.” Yet here it is:


Christopher Steele, the Man Behind the Trump Dossier (The New Yorker)

I mentioned that article last week, on the #releasethedocuments thread.  I had watched an interview of the author, Jane Mayer, by Rachel Maddow earlier that evening.  I posted about it there because of one thing she said about the whole pro-Trump narrative that the GOP memo was pushing.  She said that the facts, about Steele's interest in Russian interference, and about what he knew about who he was ultimately working for, and what DNC knew about what he was doing, are all the opposite of the story pushed by the GOP and the Nunes memo.

I don't know the story about Hersh and the New Yorker, but I do know that Jane Mayer isn't any "neocon" or "tool of the deep state".  She wrote "The Dark Side", about intelligence abuses by the Bush administration in the Iraq war.  She notes in the book that some of the Iraq War justification was based on statements by a tortured witness, and about how it was unreliable (the book was written in 2008).  She writes about Colin Powell being very skeptical of the claims he was to make in his speech to the United Nations.  She also notes that any doubts that the intelligence community had about WMD "evidence" was kept from Powell.

In other words, the whole argument that you can't trust Steele because of the Iraq WMD claims, doesn't work against Mayer.  It's a good article, and it blows apart the nonsense that the Trump defenders have been pushing.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.