Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Is Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation

History...

 

I wonder, as the American right embraces Russia as okay and supports Two Scoops at all costs, all while tearing down FDR, if they might start to rebuild Nixon as a heroic, tragic misunderstood great president. Maybe it's already begun.

 

Nixon is a victim of his time. He would be fine today.

 

Prosecutor is preserving all options to criticize the outcome should he lose.

Why can't the Senate hire their own expert?

 

Prosecutors, I do not know if by rule of law or convention, do not appeal jury verdicts. Or at least that is my understanding.

 

Trump could try to revoke Robert Mueller's security clearance next, top Democrat warns
by Daniel Chaitin
August 15, 2018 04:36 PM

Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, warned on Wednesday that President Trump revoking former CIA Director John Brennan's security clearance could set a precedent for taking similar action against special counsel Robert Mueller.

"I worry whether this precedence will lead to the president trying to take away Mueller and his whole team's security clearances. This is clearly another effort to silence critics and not allow the Mueller investigation, and for that matter our Senate intelligence community investigation, to get to the bottom of this," Warner said, referring to his committee's Russia investigation as well as the federal inquiry.

The Virginia Democrat was addressing reporters on Capitol Hill after White House press secretary Sarah Sanders announced the move against Brennan and read a statement from Trump, citing the "risks posed by his erratic conduct and behavior." Brennan has been a vocal critic of the president, and he was the first in a list of ex-top officials-turned-Trump-critics whom the Trump administration has taken action against.

 

True to form, trump distances himself from his former campaign chairman...

 

https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-am-c3b981ef-6f7c-4e44-a3a8-93001d8ba97a.html

Jeremy Bash, NBC national security analyst and former chief of staff at the CIA and Pentagon, tells me:

• "My concern this morning is that Trump will strip the clearances of Bob Mueller and the investigative team. (They obviously need access to classified information to conduct the mother-of-all counterintelligence investigations.)"
• "It’s critical that Congress protect the Mueller investigation now by passing a law that makes it impossible for Trump to restrict the Special Counsel’s access to classified information."

 

Manafort may well be guilty on the merits, but no one associated with GOP politics is getting acquitted by a DC jury, regardless of the particulars

 

Do any of us care about this trial? I guess the back and forth with the judge has been interesting but I dont see the verdict as a game changer in this investigation.

 

the case has nothing to do with Trump or the election or Russia, and Manafort would never have been prosecuted had he not worked for Trump

CNN trying to doxx jurors before the verdict is in



CNN probably knows they won't get their way, the point is to let the jurors know their lives will be scrutinized after the fact, depending on the verdict of course

 

Also worth noting that he probably wouldn't have been prosecuted if he weren't a criminal.

 

I'm pretty sure the press from all angles ask for this in any high profile case.

 

Just another potential reason for appeal if convicted.

 

This is trial one of two.

The trial may not have a direct connection with trump, other than he was trump's campaign chairman and raises continuing questions about the choices trump made/makes for the people around him. It also is another connection with russia (allegation manafort was a backchannel connection).

But a big question still hangs over Manafort today: What motivated him to sign up for months of unpaid work and unforgiving media exposure at the Trump campaign, when his cashflow had already run dry?

There was testimony about loan applications and possible quid pro quo. That will also be brought up in the next trial.

 

Data?

 

Why? Because the Juror is aware of the request?

 

Please pardon the less than grammatical nature of this run on sentence:

If I'm neck deep in debt to Russian oligarch's with years of potentially shady business dealings with said oligarch's it is concieveable that I might be beholden to or at risk for some not so subtle peruasion by said oligarch's, maybe no?

Now let's say I become the campaign manager of the president-elect...

 

I would like to join B-Bob in asking to see the data you based that statement on, Commodore.

You clearly don't care, but many Americans do. In the latest CNN poll, 6 in 10 Americans said trump was too friendly with Russia. Manafort? Russia? My guess is that many of those people polled by CNN are paying attention to the Manafort trial.

 

Wow...