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

@TheresTheDagger , riffing further. I'll grant you this: there are problably a number of career Washington DC people who do not "like" Trump and would be open to believing negative information about him. Sure. There were also a number (maybe even a greater number) of career Washington DC people who did not "like" Obama, and in fact they did everything in their power to cut him off at the knees. He was fairly clean, so there was nothing much illicit to go after. But he was vigorously opposed. There was no special investigation, but not because his enemies wouldn't have relished it. There was no special investigation, because there was no merit for it.

My point overall is not to compare to Obama, however, at all. My point is, when you see people resisting, I think we all have to distinguish:
1. when is the DC organism just recoiling from something "new" (which definitely happens), and
2. when is the DC organism sensing a potentially harmful element (i.e. possibly beholden to foreign government, possibly up to truly criminal activity, like international money laundering, etc.) and sending out white blood cells (not sure of their hat color) to investigate. It's an immune response that any healthy government will need.
I mean, Two Scoops campaigns for the top job, with historical ties to the NY mob, an incredibly history of being sued, a history of bogus business ventures (e.g. fake university), and then surrounds himself with some known unsavory characters. And then we blame the government's immune system for perking up? If it looks biased, a lot of us think, ... um, yeah, it's biased against illegal activity. Not Republicans, or nouveau conservatives, or whatever Two Scoops might be.

So if a far right person sees all "deep state" as malevolent, then that person doesn't believe in the white blood cell model. I think moderates, however, have to recognize that a lot of career law enforcement people take it seriously and see their work as above the normal partisan squabble-fest.

(Also, as per the New Yorker article Sam linked, that is truly ****ing disturbing if documents are disappearing. That is quite possibly a virus attacking the immune response.)

 

If this investigation was purely about getting to the bottom of Russian interference in our election and not to undermine the Trump administration , why was the Trump campaign SOLELY singled out at the beginning? This is the 2nd time I've asked this question (which both of you declined to address before).

An investigation into Russian interference could lead anywhere, yet the direction from the beginning was laser focused on 1 campaign only. Why is that?

 

It's because by the time Mueller was appointed Special Counsel, the FBI under Comey had already done some significant amount of investigation that found some reasons to believe there may have been ties between the Russian effort and the Trump campaign.

 

And?

Was it the start of the Mueller investigation or not? Did they know at that moment where the Russian interference investigation would lead? Was it a case of clairvoyance?

And what if they found evidence that another entity disconnected altogether with the Trump campaign was involved in Russian interference, would that entity have a case for dismissal of any charges based upon the specific "Trump centric" direction the Special Counsel was given?

Lets be honest. If the investigation was about "Russian interference", then why not simply leave it at that?

 

I don't think I understand your point. Did they know where it would lead? Yeah, broad strokes they probably did. We're not given a ton of detail in investigations, but from what's come out, it sounds to me like a lot of the suggestive material (like Papadopoulos, like the Trump Tower meeting, like Comey getting fired) was discovered by Comey's investigation. They've apparently looked into Russian contacts with the Stein campaign as well. So, I think they had a framework already by the time Mueller was appointed.

Now, if they were to find something wholly disconnected from Trump's campaign, Mueller's mandate was written very large so I think he could arguably still pursue it. And, if there was trouble with that but the investigation was legitimate, Rosenstein could probably change or enlarge it.

The reason to not leave it as simply Russian interference is because Mueller's is not the only office that should be working on this issue. He works for the DOJ. But, international espionage is not primarily in the DOJ remit; they are only involved where there are crimes that can be prosecuted. So complicity of American actors makes sense for him to investigate. Cyber attacks from foreign agents should be handled by NSA or similar agency. To say "Russian interference" broadly is too broad for the DOJ to handle. Now, it could have said Russian interference and ties with any political campaign. I think the investigation would look the same as it does today, but the rhetoric of the objections might change a little. I just think they knew enough by that time that it was clear the suspicious activities were in Trump's campaign, not Clinton's.

 

Well, two important points.
1. I didn't see your question, but we don't owe one another answers around here unless they're about basketball!
2. I don't believe there was a "SOLELY." You can't equate media coverage and leaks with the actual nuts and bolts of the Mueller investigation. Certainly, the most smoke came from that camp, but Rubio has been informed that he was a (negative) target of Russian cyber activity. Stein and Sanders were both, according to what I've seen reported, supported by fake ads, etc, also. That's not as news-worthy compared to the campaign of the eventual POTUS, but I would strongly assume that will be in the final report. But neither of us have a foggy idea what's going into the final report.
That's why it's weird to think either of could know Trump's campaign was a singled out. Certainly, the investigation is most stressful to him and he had staff actually communicating with a number of Russian entities. If Sanders did the same, I would expect we'll learn about it and it will receive lots of scrutiny. If you're asking, "why no Sanders or Stein indictments?!" well maybe it's as easy as they didn't break any laws in those camps. They didn't lie when interviewed. They didn't embezzle money, LOL, etc.

I don't trust the FBI blindly, but I think Mueller has a lifetime of honesty and devotion to this country that contrasts sharply with certain other public figures we're discussing. Cheers.

EDIT: Further LOLs with @JuanValdez pointing out that the Comey part of the investigation discovered that Comey was fired. True enough.

 

Manafort's former son-in-law cops a plea...

Exclusive: Manafort's former son-in-law cuts plea deal, to cooperate with government - sources

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ter_impression=true&__twitter_impression=true

 

Let remind us all what is the role of a special prosecutor:

In the United States, a special prosecutor (or special counsel or independent counsel or independent prosecutor) is a lawyer appointed to investigate, and potentially prosecute, a particular case of suspected wrongdoing for which a conflict of interest exists for the usual prosecuting authority.​

Simply put, the reason it's focus on Trump campaign is of suspected wrongdoing by Trump (obstruction of justice) and by his campaign. How did this all started? FBI director was fired and Trump made statement that indicate he was fired due to the FBI investigation into Russia and the fired FBI director believe he was fired to stop Russia investigation. If these set of events never happen, we WOULD continue to have a Russian interference investigation, which may or may not yield a special prosecutor, but not this current special prosecutor.

The special prosecutor is given a very specific investigation, but is allowed to broaden beyond that if the investigation yield additional potential wrongdoing. It starts somewhere very specific because of suspected crimes (Trump campaign wrongdoing) but it might balloon beyond his campaign.

The overall investigation into Russian interference is being carried out by Congress. Too bad it's being politicized in the House and too bad it's not a full scale investigation, similar to the 911 investigation. I think if there is a point on too narrow of an investigation into Russian interference (only focusing on Trump campaign - which isn't true for Congress, but still it mostly revolves around that), it should be directed at Congress for failing to have a full broad investigation (security failure, detection failure, potential crimes of all involved, administration failure - all the way back to Bush Jr, prevention, etcs). It's actually maddening that our Intel agencies is telling us Russia will be at it again and we don't seem to have a response to fight back.

 

Because Trump's was the only campaign with high level contacts with Russians.

Because there was only evidence pointing at one campaign.

 

1. Very true. Mea culpa for suggesting you owe me anything. But I also know you're a stand up guy here and of course being the stand up guy you are you answered my question. Thanks for that! (Also, I need to find a good basketball take for you to comment on!)

2. I would simply direct you to the order https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download that was given by Rosenstein to Mueller at the start of the investigation. When I state the Trump campaign was "SOLELY" spotlighted, this is what I am referring to. There is no other entity specifically mentioned in this order. Media coverage and leaks have not been any part of my contention in this discussion with you.

 

If the Mueller investigation was just starting...and it was truly about Russian interference, how could this possibly be known for a fact? It seems to me, narrowing the focus of the investigation is counterproductive at the start of the investigation if you don't know for sure.

See above.

 

Again, because there has only been evidence of Trump's campaign being involved with Russian officials.

 

1. I am very proud of my take before the Celts/Cavs series started. I said Lebron would have a hard time overcoming superior coaching, home-court, and the superior defense. Otherwise, my b-ball takes stink something awful, but I love the Rockets.

2. I think it's a fair point. Sure, I think this was based on the evidence. And it occurred in the shadow of Comey suddenly being fired. That made a lot of long-time FBI folks see the Trump camp as very fishy. But your basic point is well-taken. If someone like me says "we need to get to the bottom of Russian interference!", well, okay, but it's not clear we were going to have a special counsel for such a matter until Comey was fired. At that point, enough people said, "uh oh, a normal FBI investigation is going to have trouble if the prez can just fire anyone, anytime."
So I guess the best answer to your question is what others have said: b/c Two Scoops fired a sitting FBI director.

 

When the investigation is begun as a result of evidence of high level Trump campaign workers meeting with Russian officials, why exactly should there be a focus outside of the Trump organization?

 

All you have to do is read what you quoted. The answer is there.

 

Yes, it is, why don't you understand it?

Since you got your panties in a twist about others not answering your question, perhaps you should do others the favor and give a plain answer. Why, if there is only evidence of contact with Russian officials by one campaign, should both campaigns be focused on equally?

 

Stay classy GR!

As B-Bob stated,(correctly) nobody owes anyone an answer to anything here. Nevertheless, I did give you one. You just don't like it.

I said "narrowing the focus of the investigation is counterproductive at the start of the investigation if you don't know for sure." (Know for sure meaning at the start of any investigation you don't know where the investigation might lead.)

I don't know how to make my answer any more plain.

See above.

 

You need to grow a thicker skin if you think that such a mild jab is somehow indicative of a lack of class on my part.

You sure seem to think that people owe you answers.

No, you didn't, you said "All you have to do is read what you quoted."

That isn't an answer, it is a deflection.

So you think that if there is evidence of wrongdoing committed by Person Alpha, it would be "counterproductive" to limit your investigation to the people around Person Alpha. In other words, you think that an investigation opened as a result of evidence of wrongdoing by one person should result in an investigation into anyone who may have ever committed the same wrongdoing, even if there isn't a shred of evidence that anyone other than Person Alpha has done so.

I don't know how to make your non-answer show any more clearly how biased your partisanship is on this topic.

 

trump via rudy increasing his efforts to obstruct justice and protect his hide by going after Rosenstein (then Mueller)...