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

It's a try to understand each sides position better to help move on interpretation. You know walk in their shoes approach. I think a little empathy and that approach would be well served for both sides.

From his pov yes, right or wrong he thinks the "WITCH HUNT" was the genesis of the investigation to begin with.

It's not leeway, it's analysis. Everyone is destroying or mocking DT for his "WITCH HUNT" angle but it's so obvious that would be his position. Knowing and using that position could help the investigation imo but instead they feed into it legitimatizing his argument to a certain extent. NO ONE will be willing to or frankly is capable of taking that approach. Most don't want to, they just want him out and will do whatever it takes to get him out. Which.... sort of sounds like a witch hunt if you ask me...

 

Wow, you guys have more confidence in the dossier than the author. I guess it does help your anti-president narrative, so carry on.

 

Because it's rhetoric designed for people who don't understand (or care to understand) the nuance behind it. Framing the dossier as a made up hit piece by the Democrats used to justify spying on the Trump campaign is as dishonest as it gets, but unfortunately it works, as evidenced by certain posts in this thread.

 

I'll put in the effort to understand why the Trump voter comes to the conclusions they do and behave the way they do. That sort of empathy is well-justified. As for Trump himself, though, while I think I can kinda get his point of view (in a few scenarios, depending on the variable of whether he's guilty or not, and of how much), I still don't believe the stimulus justifies his behavior. I would feel taken advantage of to extend a benefit of the doubt to find common ground with someone who appears to me -- in many arenas, not just on election tampering -- to act in bad faith.

 

Why would you say that? The dossier was not the sole piece of evidence used to obtain warrants. Pieces of the dossier have already been confirmed. An intelligence dossier is by definition not pretending to be full of verified facts. It is more like a collection of rumors gathered by the intelligence sources and put forward so that the information in it can be verified or dismissed as intelligence improves. It can be a list of leads to investigate. But nobody should bank on them settled facts until they have been verified?

This dossier was done by reputable folks has gathered some information which has since been verified.

I don't understand how or why anyone would have faith that everything in the dossier is fact. A dossier is by definition not a collection of verified facts. That being said, it also isn't the only piece of evidence used to get the FISA warrants.

 

Curious, do you think those that are criticizing have legitimate reasons for that criticism. And not just "he tweets" or "he says and does things"... but that there are reasons to believe he has things to warrant the Mueller investigation?

 

Yes, there was enough information to have a special counsel investigate Russian influence on election. However, what's become of it is a sideshow imo. Like starting a war with Hussein and the Taliban after 9/11 even though neither had anything to do with 9/11 itself. Now we're going after Americans who have done shady and illegal acts involving money, favors, etc... yes those things are bad (like training camps, and supposed WMD) but that's not the point. None of them are KGB agents executing Kermlin orders. They are selfish, greedy, corrupt, etc... folks and for sure take them down but it's like busting a drug addict (who needs help not jail) or a corner dealer while letting the drug lords run rampant. So yes it's good bad guys are getting busted but bunch of nobodies in the grand scheme of things without much change going forward. That's my gut feeling on how it will play out.

 

Will bookmark for later

 

"like busting a drug addict that needs help not jail"? A "bunch of nobodies"? Seriously?

We don't know what Mueller has already uncovered. Mueller's team has been remarkably quiet. Since we have already seen people doing "shady and illegal acts involving money and favors"... *my* gut feel is Mueller has info on trump's campaign, admin, and family doing shady and illegal acts involving money, favors, etc. My gut feel is that Mueller has info that these shady and illegal acts involved russia.

If either or both of these are true... what should happen next?

 

And I believe trump knows that he is in trouble...

 

I don’t actually. It’s raw intelligence as I noted earlier, it shouldn’t be treated as anything other than what our CIA wouid uncover that wouid then warrant... you guessed it.... INVESTIGATION by law enforcement... namely the FBI in the case of our national law enforcement.

However in this case much of the Dossier has actually been verified while some pieces of intelligence (like the pee tape) seem to be more derived from other stories where the details are a bit mixed up but come from a true story (IE Trump was at a pee show in Vegas but was also in Moscow for Miss Universe so likely the intelligence was conflated). See Issakoff and Corns reporting in Russian Roulette.

Where people miss the easily available mark is having no idea that there is a major difference in intelligence and evidence. The dossier is not evidence ... it’s intelligence. However the Trumpers like yourself try to spin it as if folks like myself are preaching that it’s evidence. That unfair. It’s intelligence from a trusted source of the US government and the FBI had every right to take a good hard look at it.

 

what should happen is this investigation be closed because this investigation is about russian election meddling and collusion. only thing they've found so far is financial crimes not actual treason or corrupt/illegal election. after it's closed, the fbi, sec, irs, etc... should open their own investigations and go after the crooks.

 

They have indicted Russian operatives wrt election meddling.

What we do not know is all that Mueller knows. Thus, it is hard to say how much more election meddling charges are still in the pipe.

 

No one knows and that's good. Soon enough.

 

No matter how many times you say this, it won't become the truth... Mueller can investigate any crimes he discovers during the course of his investigation.

(©ffice of tqe g}cput- J\tiortte}:J ®eneral
.l!lu.sl1ington, /.<!!. 20530
ORDER NO. 3915-2017
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS
By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C.
§§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and
management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the
Russian govemmenfs efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as
follows:
(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed t() serve as Specia] Counsel for the United States
Department of Justice.
(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confined by then-FBI
Director James 8. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is
authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.
(d) Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are
applicable to the Special Counsel.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3726408-Rosenstein-letter-appointing-Mueller-special.html

In March of this year, Rosenstein shot down the trump myth of "witchhunt"...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ller-not-unguided-missle-interview/416388002/

 

I know "truth isn't truth" is so two days ago, but here's the full text of the exchange

GIULIANI: …So, what I have to tell you is, look, I am not going to be rushed into having him testify so that he gets trapped into perjury. And when you tell me that, you know, he should testify because he is going to tell the truth and he shouldn’t worry, that’s silly because it’s somebody’s version of the truth, not the truth. He didn’t have a conversation…


TODD: Truth is truth. I don’t mean to go like…


GIULIANI: No, it isn’t truth. Truth isn’t truth. The President of the United States says I didn’t…


TODD: Truth isn’t truth, Mr. Mayor, do you realize…


GIULIANI: No, no, no. Don’t do this to me.


TODD: Don’t do truth isn’t truth to me.


GIULIANI: Donald Trump says I didn’t talk about Flynn with Comey. Comey says you did talk about it. So tell me what the truth is?


TODD: Don McGahn might know.


GIULIANI: If you’re such a genius — Don McGahn doesn’t know. If that’s situation where you have two pieces of evidence. Trump says I didn’t tell him and the other guy says that he did say it, which is the truth?


TODD: At that point, you’re right. Under two people. No. You are right. I don’t read minds on that front.
​

 

Many crimes and trials involve "he said she saids" (or in this case, Comey said,lying idiot said"). In those cases, collaborating witnesses are called (ie, McGahn), or other evidence (ie. if one party told, say for example, Comey told others and they collaborate what they were told and when) . Or there may be other collaborating evidence... say, for example copious notes from the event. Lastly, the character and honesty of the two people can be considered.

That said... there are not two truths. There may be two stories, or two versions of an event. But even then, there is one truth.

 

that's fine, I agree. But that is not the context of the original statement. Even Todd agreed with Giuliani after he explained himself.

 

"Even Todd agreed..." isn't a very compelling argument for the fact that rudy was spewing out ridiculous garbage out there. And in Todd's defense (who I believe is a smart and respected interviewer) it is likely we was just moving on. The point was made... and like kellyanne's "alternate facts" entry into the Book of Lies (and to be fair, Bill Clinton's "depending on the meaning of the word is... is").

 

Your point is that Rudy's train wreck is as bad as it seems?