Barr Assigns U.S. Attorney in Connecticut to Review Origins of Russia Inquiry

Thr reason that (D)'s are so committed to the charade is because they're SO CLOSE. 4 Senate seats and the EC is abolished. Trump's just taken away their ability to rule through litigation. AG Barr is sifting through nationwide injunctions to take before the SCOTUS, and a permanent ruling limiting district court decisions to their jurisdiction will crush partisan obstruction. (D)'s are panicked.

 

That comes close to (and probably does) satisfying the requirement, but the part about Trump campaign coordination does not in any way shape or form specify a crime to be investigated. And that was the predominant part.

Mueller's investigation will not be thrown out of court -- that horse has long left the corral. It was adjudicated on 2 or 3 counts early on and the courts ruled every time that his investigation was perfectly legal. None of those rulings were appealed because the plaintiffs thought the cost would be too steep for what they assessed was not going to be favorable to them or that it would be moot by the time any appeal got processed.

I didn't exactly say I didn't care how a court rules, I said I don't give a rat's ass -- meaning to say I don't automatically give it credence. I disagree with rulings that are patently wrong and not based on fact or law, and whether I agree or not is not relevant.

Mueller was correct that you need reasonable suspicion to get a FISA warrant (actually any warrant.) But to get a FISA warrant on a US citizen requires much much more than that. Those additional requirements were not met in the FISA application against Page -- not even close.

 

Every investigation should be based on a readily known and specific apparent crime. This is a required by statute for appointing a special counsel, yet there was no such thing in Mueller's appointment to investigate Trump coordination..

 

You're reading more into the requirement for the "factual statement" than the law dictates. It's a stretch to insist this constitutes illegality.

What specific requirements are you referring to that were not met? Please quote from the statute or the Woods procedures.

 

As obvious and clear as the sunrise.

 

Please provide the text that states that. It certainly isn't stated in the portion of the law specifying the grounds for appointing a special counsel.

 

Per 28 CFR § 600.4, "....... The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated." Seems clear to me.

For starters they have to validate and verify "to the best of their knowledge" the facts presented for a FISA warrant. They also have to describe any mitigating circumstances like, in this case, that their key evidence was opposition research paid for by the DNC and the Clinton campaign. All of that and more has to be signed and attested to by senior levels of both the FBI and DOJ.

 

Any and every investigation must be able to withstand scrutiny.

 

If the Democrats are accepting Mueller's findings why is Congress still trying to call witnesses in regard to that same investigation?

Perhaps you're right but I think w3 can both agree that the information contained in that FISA application contained false material and didn't mention the Democrats having been involved in compiling its most salacious contents.

Not just guilt but a crime. There was no evidence of a crime, and it seems from the information we're getting that the people in charge knew there was no crime.

I doubt the FBI brings charges to 'disprove' criminal activity, but there has to be evidence of a crime having been committed. What crime was committed?

The White House cooperated completely. What information is lacking?

There has to be sufficient evidence of a crime having been committed before a criminal investigation begins. What "corrupt intent"?

"If" tax evasion is found? So now the FBI is looking at tax returns in case some evidence of a crime is discovered? And you're for that? Isn't that the job of the IRS? These Witch Hunts are bad for the country and set horrible precedents for future governments.

 

see post 1232

 

You agreed a factual statement was made. There's no requirement that the statement be an exhaustive rendition of all facts, or that suggests the factual statement limits the scope of the investigation.

This appears to have been done, conspiracy theories notwithstanding.

The FISA warrant stated,
1)"The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign."
2) "Notwithstanding Source #1's reason for conducting the research into Candidate #1's ties to Russia, based on Source #1's previous reporting history with the FBI, whereby Source #1 provided reliable information to the FBI, the FBI believes Source #1's reporting herein to be credible."

#1 Is a factual statement that arguably provides sufficient disclaimer regarding the nature of the source. As a rule, the FBI refrains from making direct references to people or institutions.

#2 expresses a judgment, one that you may disagree with - but you'd have a hard time making the case that this judgment was the product of bias. Christopher Steele is not Rachel Maddow - he is an experienced intelligence officer, and clearly - some of the items he reported have been verified.

You'd also have to make the case that the Steele information was critical to obtaining the warrant. There's a lot we don't know, because of the redactions.

 

1. The Democrats do not have all of Mueller's evidence. 2. Mueller terminated the investigation in an unsatisfactory, and potentially inconclusive state because of the President's refusal to testify.

The primary problem, IMO, is determining whether or not Trump's obstructive acts were due to corrupt intent. That is a difficult case to make, but it's not unreasonable to think it could be established by investigating further; e.g. exposing crimes in the material Trump is hiding from us; clearly this would be a corrupt motive for obstructing the investigation.

It contained some information that later proved to be false, but that's only a problem if it was actually known to be false, or if the quality of the information was knowingly misrepresented. With regard to the Steele information, the warrant application noted, ""The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign." This is arguably a sufficient disclaimer, despite the fact that they could theoretically have said more - although it is standard practice for the FBI to refrain from naming individuals.

There was evidence of a crime: Russian interference is illegal.

Trump failed to answer any of Mueller's questions about obstruction. What is lacking is Trump's assertions about the intent behind his obstructive actions.

The crime of Obstruction of Justice depends on proving the obstructive acts were the product of corrupt intent.

Michael Cohen alleged that Trump fraudulently misrepresented his finances to obtain loans. While no accusation should be treated as absolute fact, it's still a reasonable basis to investigate further. Trump, if he's completely innocent of all crimes, kcould have avoided all this by being careful to avoid any appearance of impropriety. I hope future candidates take heed and behave with such care - that would be the best way to avoid 'witch hunts'.

 

Frankly, this is becoming tiresome. There are factual statements and there are non-factual statements. For instance Mueller's appointment letter says, "Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special] Counsel for the United States Department of Justice." That is a factual statement. It also says, "The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney 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;"​

That is not a factual statement of a specific crime. That makes it an appointment in violation of the Special Counsel statute.

Then, secondly, the factual statement of the crime does strictly limit the scope of the investigation, by statute, to wit,

"If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel concludes ...... to investigate new matters that come to light in the course of his or her investigation, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General, who will determine whether to include the additional matters within the Special Counsel's jurisdiction or assign them elsewhere."​

Best efforts is in the mind of the beholder. The FBI's efforts in this case fell well short of typical FBI standards.

The FBI speculates???? What, based on Page's previous assistance to the FBI in charging Russian operatives with spying on the US and arresting one???? Did looking for information to discredit an opposing candidate suddenly become odd, let alone illegal AND terrorism connected?????

Steele's previous history with the FBI?????? You mean like when they fired him??????

That warrant has more holes than a flattened ton of swiss cheese!

 

Indeed, it is in the eye of the beholder, including your judgment that this fell short of FBI standards. You are treating the application as guilty until proven innocent.

What's your point? For several years, Steele had been collecting information on Russian interference in elections in the UK, Italy, France, Germany, and Turkey. It's not unreasonable to think he picked up information about interference in the US in the process, prior to being engaged by Fusion.

Steele was fired for giving information to the Press, not for manufacturing intelligence. Other than this error of judgment, what evidence is there that Steele was fraudulent? Steele himself has always acknowledged that this was raw intelligence, and he didn't expect it to be 100% factual.

What would matter with respect to Steele's intelligence is: what was known and understood at the time, and might an objective FBI agent have reasonably felt that Steele was a source of credible intelligence. I've seen plenty of outrage expressed by those on the right, but based only on the fact that his hiring was to serve a political end, along with the outrage that he disclosed his information to the press. I have seen no evidence to suggest there's cause to be consider him a non-credible source. The right has overplayed this.

 

I still haven't seen anything in the statute that that limits the investigation to the specific crimes specified in the factual statement. In fact, the statute provides the AG broad discretion to appoint a prosecutor when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted." The term "matter" is clearly broader than that "crime".

Your problem is that the factual statement was broad enough to cover almost everything associated with the "Russian governments efforts to interfere in the 2016 Presidential election." Granted, this does not cover investigation of obstruction, but it's a near certainty that Mueller consulted with Rosenstein on this.

 

Testify about about what? What information was Mueller lacking?

There are no 'hidden materials'.

All of this is now under investigation. The public waited two years for Mueller's report and I doubt it will take that long for the other investigations to be completed. Barr is letting it all out.

So far we are certain of Russian interference in one area and that will be opened up and clarified as well. There'll likely be indictments.

Trump has already asserted his position and that will not change.

When the MSM and Democrats rely on people like Michael Cohen and Michael Avenatti it's well past time for them to step back, take a deep breath, and ask themselves just what the hell they've been doing.

 

Known knowns, Known unknowns, and Unknown unknowns.

Got it.

 

An investigation employing the help of others from other countries based on lies that were manufactured explicitly to frame the president in an attempt to remove him from office is.....wait for it..... TREASON!

 

Testify about Trump's actions that are potentially obstruction of justice.Trump answered none of the questions Mueller asked on that.

Trump's tax returns are hidden, at least for the time being.

Sure.

I wouldn't be too sure, if I were you - but certainly anything is possible. But when you get over your glee at the payback, you should reflect on the fact that none of that will alter the facts exposed by Mueller.

No, he hasn't. He hasn't offered an explanation for his obstructive actions.

You appear to be uncritically accepting Republican spin, which wants you to believe that zero consideration should be given to anything Cohen says, because he has lied under oath in the past. That is an absurd position. Lying criminals frequently provide useful leads. Their word alone would never be sufficient to convict, but it's perfectly reasonable to follow the leads they provide.

 

But wait!

What about RUSSIA! RUSSIA! RUSSIA!?

Have you forgotten that Trump is Putin's puppet?

What matter is obstruction of justice when we have a RUSSIAN! operative running the country? Why are you wasting time on such a relatively minor offense? We have a RUSSIAN! spy running the country!!!

Sheesh! You're getting distracted from the true threat. Come back to Earth. Save us from Putin!

 

LOL! When trapped by facts, change the subject. You forgot to say, "But Hillary....".

 

You're not going to save us from the RUSSIAN! horde?

What is the point then?

Are you not the gallant hero, saving us from the dire threat posed by the RUSSIANS!? But instead the shameless political operative, who shifts with the winds? One who will use any lie in order to advance the agenda. Is that who you are?

 

It has been established that Russia interfered in our election and that was the subject of the "treasonous" investigation. Trump is his own worst enemy. Employing the help of other countries when other countries were involved? Wait for it because it is not over.

 

Applications and documents do not have the presumption of innocence.

I am quite sure that is very true -- makes perfect sense. Which makes sense why Hillary would arrange to pay Steele for information -- a clear violation of election laws, BTW.

 

Your problem is that you turn your eyes from the law which says a broad all-inclusive assignment is not legal. Try as you must you simply can't wipe that word specific away. A misunderstanding that you also have is that to investigate something uncovered but not connected to his (illegal) assignment he must get Sessions approval, not Rosenstein. Rosenstein is acting AG only for Russian interference kinds of things. Manafort's prosecution was clearly not authorized under the statute. Though, oddly enough, the obstruction investigation might arguably fall under connected activity.