Mueller Is Meeting His Mandate

[SolomonVII]

Some of them will.

Criminalizing policy positions destroys the democratic process. The Meuller probe is not a criminal investigation because there is no actual specified crime that is being investigated. Collusion is not a crime. Therefore the Meuller probe s an intelligence gathering operation. The ‘crime’ of firing Comey which sparked it all is either a good policy decision or a bad one, but to investigate it as a crime usurps the electoral process itself. It criminalizes being a Republican.
Now if the allegation was that Trump conspired or colluded with the Russians to hack the private data bases of the Democratic Party to dig up the wiki leaks dirt, that would be an example of an actual crime. But talking to Russians is about as criminal as talking to Canadians. America and Russia are not at war.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

1. (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump
   Michael Flynn [Trump national security advisor] - perjury, lied about communications with Russians prior to inauguration
   George Papadopoulos [Trump foreign policy advisor] - perjury, lied about contacts with Russians
   Roger Stone [Trump associate] - arrested for perjury regarding connections with Wikileaks, obstruction of justice
   Multiple Russian nationals - interfering with 2016 presidential election
   
   
2. (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation
   Micheal Cohen [Trump lawyer] - campaign finance violations
   Paul Manafort [Trump campaign chairman] - perjury, bank fraud
   Richard Gates [Trump campaign aide] - perjury, money laundering
   Alex van der Zwann - perjury, lied about communications with Richard Gates and connections to Ukrainian government
   Richard Pinedo - identity fraud
   
   Mueller Indictments: Who’s Who
   
   Mandate letter:
   https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download
   
   

 

[Sistrin]

"Collusion" is a colloquial and media word. The primary investigation is of any links or cooperation between Russians and any in the trump campaign.

Which, even under that definition, exactly zero evidence has been found to prove.

HOWEVER, for the president, all that matter is himself and PERHAPS his family. No indictments have touched them yet, other than violating campaign rules to pay off women.

That entire affair was a joke, a story promoted by a inappropriate content star and a lawyer who fabricated charges not only against the President but nominee Bret Kavanaugh and who was subsequently arrested for felony domestic violence. In addition that Trump violated campaign finance law was never proven either. His opponents just claim it was.

 

[mark46]

I understand that you do not have sufficient proof, and that proof is only food enough for his opponents: the Justice Department, the FBI, federal and state judges.

Trump was named by the judge in NY. Maybe no more will come out with regard to him. I do believe that more will come out (especially ion NY) regarding the involvement of his family and his company). But, we are a long way from the end of legal proceedings which will continue for years, certainly for at least a couple of years after Trump is no longer president (since Justice will not indict a sitting president).

Which, even under that definition, exactly zero evidence has been found to prove.



That entire affair was a joke, a story promoted by a inappropriate content star and a lawyer who fabricated charges not only against the President but nominee Bret Kavanaugh and who was subsequently arrested for felony domestic violence. In addition that Trump violated campaign finance law was never proven either. His opponents just claim it was.

 

[Sistrin]

I understand that you do not have sufficient proof...

It isn't a question of whether I have seen sufficient proof. It is a question of whether any proof exist at all.

People can scream about Manafort or Flynn or Stormy Daniels all they want, none of it serves to prove anything in regard to the collusion issue.

 

[Speedwell]

It isn't a question of whether I have seen sufficient proof. It is a question of whether any proof exist at all.

People can scream about Manafort or Flynn or Stormy Daniels all they want, none of it serves to prove anything in regard to the collusion issue.

So what? Only the Right cares about "collusion." The rest of us are only interested in actual crimes.

 

[mark46]

I will be more clear.

From a legal perspective "collusion" is not a listed crime. So, I agree, there has been no proof of collusion.

However, there has been proof, indictment and convictions for many actual crimes.

It isn't a question of whether I have seen sufficient proof. It is a question of whether any proof exist at all.

People can scream about Manafort or Flynn or Stormy Daniels all they want, none of it serves to prove anything in regard to the collusion issue.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

Wow. Such logic. I am truly amazed.

Please post the evidence found which serves in any fashion, any fashion at all, to prove collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians during the 2016 election.

Collusion isn’t exactly listed as a crime so proving it seems irrelevant. In fact, the word “Collusion” isn’t even in the letter from the Justice Departnent on May 17, 2017 (1.75 years ago) that gave Mueller his order. However, what Mueller was tasked with in the letter that I posted is coming up with some interesting stuff. EpiscipalMe was kind enough to list them.

1. (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump
   Michael Flynn [Trump national security advisor] - perjury, lied about communications with Russians prior to inauguration
   George Papadopoulos [Trump foreign policy advisor] - perjury, lied about contacts with Russians
   Roger Stone [Trump associate] - arrested for perjury regarding connections with Wikileaks, obstruction of justice
   Multiple Russian nationals - interfering with 2016 presidential election
   
   
2. (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation
   Micheal Cohen [Trump lawyer] - campaign finance violations
   Paul Manafort [Trump campaign chairman] - perjury, bank fraud
   Richard Gates [Trump campaign aide] - perjury, money laundering
   Alex van der Zwann - perjury, lied about communications with Richard Gates and connections to Ukrainian government
   Richard Pinedo - identity fraud
   
   Mueller Indictments: Who’s Who
   
   Mandate letter:
   https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download

---SE---

 

[KCfromNC]

Actually that was discussed earlier.

Given that fact, it is curious you'd say there's zero evidence of collusion.

 

[KCfromNC]

Podesta wasn't a victim of anything or anyone other than himself.

Did he publish his own emails? If not, where are you getting this strange idea that there was no one else involved?

 

[KCfromNC]

The Meuller probe is not a criminal investigation

Guess it is just dumb luck they keep getting so many criminal convictions against people Trump hired, then.

 

[KCfromNC]

Which, even under that definition, exactly zero evidence has been found to prove.

On the one hand, we have baseless claims like this. On the other, federal court documents showing the exact opposite. Which one should we believe?

 

[KCfromNC]

I will be more clear.

From a legal perspective "collusion" is not a listed crime. So, I agree, there has been no proof of collusion.

Even though it isn't listed as a crime, there are several court filings which details the crimes committed to keep secret several meetings between Russians and Trump campaign officials. That itself is documentation of collusion between the two. The fact that is isn't a crime does make me wonder why certain people keep asking for evidence of it, but the fact that it isn't a crime doesn't make it go away.

 

[whatbogsends]

Talking to Russians isn't a crime. Having links to Russians, either in business or the government, isn't a crime. Once having visited Moscow, or any other city in Russia, isn't a crime.

Lying about those contacts under oath and in written testimony for government clearance is a crime. Multiple members of Trump's administration and campaign team did exactly that.

 

[Gigimo]

It isn't a question of whether I have seen sufficient proof. It is a question of whether any proof exist at all.

People can scream about Manafort or Flynn or Stormy Daniels all they want, none of it serves to prove anything in regard to the collusion issue.

Now you know that doesn't make any difference, Trump is still guilty of "something" just because he knows those people.

And even though people on the other side of the political fence know them too they're not guilty, go figure.

 

[mark46]

I have not suggested that no crimes have been committed by those in the Trump campaign. Certainly, crimes have been committed. Some have already gone to jail.

From the very beginning, folks understood that it would very difficult to find direct proof of a transaction between the campaign and Russians: you give me this and I'll give you that. It was thought that the campaign was much too incompetent to be part of a conspiracy to affect the election.

What would be required for what is called "collusion" is a memo or transcript that says that if you release the wikileak documents, Trump will revoke the sanctions if he is elected. Or, if Trump removes sanctions, then Putin will approve theTrump Tower after Trump is out of office (and lend him the money). In this sense, there may be no collusion.

The investigation is about much, much more than this. The first clause asks the SC to investigate any link or cooperation of those in the Trump campaign with efforts by the Russians to try to influence the US elections. BTW, nothing need be proven with regard to whether these efforts were successful. IMHO, Mueller has found lots of this, and more, related to other clauses empowering the SC. Obviously, the easy thing to prove is lying to the FBI or Congress. But, there clearly have been links and cooperation.

What we still don't know is what they are hiding. Surely, Jr didn't present all those incorrect documents and misstatements about meetings for no reason at all. Manafort added 20 YEARS to his jail time when he decided to stop his cooperation and hide something (in hopes of a pardon).
====
The BOTTOM LINE is that there is lots that we don't know. Perhaps we're done and only 15 or so campaign and transition folks were involved. And perhaps Trump and/or his family were involved, or not.

Even though it isn't listed as a crime, there are several court filings which details the crimes committed to keep secret several meetings between Russians and Trump campaign officials. That itself is documentation of collusion between the two. The fact that is isn't a crime does make me wonder why certain people keep asking for evidence of it, but the fact that it isn't a crime doesn't make it go away.

 

[mark46]

It is certainly possible that trump was so incompetent that he didn't know that over a dozen of his appointees were linked to the Russians or were cooperating with their efforts. It is possible that Trump spokes truthfully when he declared so many, many times that no one in the campaign, transition or administration met with any Russians. This is all possible. And there are about 35% of the voters who might believe this.
=========
Consider that an agent of the Ukrainian government worked for free, heading up the campaign, and left after the Ukrainian plank of the platform was changed. Did no one in the family know anything about Manafort's past? Or was it a major plus that he worked for an ally of Russia.

Now you know that doesn't make any difference, Trump is still guilty of "something" just because he knows those people.

And even though people on the other side of the political fence know them too they're not guilty, go figure.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Now you know that doesn't make any difference, Trump is still guilty of "something" just because he knows those people.

And even though people on the other side of the political fence know them too they're not guilty, go figure.

Trump is either guilty, incompetent, or ignorant - maybe all three.

But, let’s just see what the Mueller report says.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I hope Mueller and his man date have a very nice time when they meet.

 

[mark46]

I'm not sure that the Report will include much more than a list of indictments and the supporting documentation for those indictments (redacted when classified information is involved). There may even be indictments sealed until after Trump is no longer president, but that is unlikely.

Obviously, many additional investigations will continue by other folks in the various courts. But the end of Mueller investigation may or may not produce much information that isn't seen in the trials or plea agreements. For me, the unknown is NOT what is in the Report. The unknown is what further indictments will occur and whether any of the family will be indicted.

Congress can get much more by calling Mueller and others as witnesses in their efforts toward legal goals involving future legislation to involving behavior that might rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Trump is either guilty, incompetent, or ignorant - maybe all three.

But, let’s just see what the Mueller report says.