Breaking: First Charges Filed in Mueller Investigation

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler

Can we at least agree that it would have been very troubling if the FBI used this for a fisa warrant IF they didnt very carefully corborate the info first?

Yes, we can definitely agree to that. There's no way that uncorroborated claims in an oppo research dossier should be used to get a warrant, FISA or not.

Exactly. Again, I have said all along that although I find the democratic funding of this dossier to be very shady (as was Trump jrs meeting) I dont think its catastrophic.

Its hypocritical, and makes the dems screaming about russian collusion seem ridiculous, but not a huge crime in my opinion (baring if they violated disclosure laws or lied to congress about not knowing about funding it).

So lets see what the FBI has to say about how they used it, thats where the real scandal could be.

Not only was it shaddy, but it led to the investigation and the investigation was based on no evidence of a crime. Then the Assistant AG just went and inserted a Special Counsel there without a crime to investigate.

It reminds me of this line “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.” You manufacture stuff and eventually something gives.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Really?

DOJ - Government Ethics Outline

C. DOJ-Specific Conflict of Interest Regulation: No DOJ employee may participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution, or who would be directly affected by the outcome. 28 CFR 45.2

Political relationship means a close identification with an elected official, candidate, political party or campaign organization arising from service as a principal advisor or official; personal relationship means a close and substantial connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality.

D. Impartiality in Performing Official Duties

1. An employee may not participate in a particular matter involving specific parties affecting the financial interests of a member of his household, or when a person with whom he has a covered relationship is, or represents a party.

2. A covered relationship includes one involving:

a. Someone with whom he has or seeks a business relationship;
b. A member of the employee's household;
c. A relative with whom the employee has a close relationship;
d. A present or prospective employer of a spouse, parent or child; and
e. An organization in which the employee serves or has served in the past year as an employee, attorney or active participant.

C. Representations Before the Federal Government

1. An employee may not represent someone else before any court or an agency of the federal government or accept compensation for someone else's representation on a matter in which the U.S. is a party or has an interest - 18 U.S.C. §§ 203 & 205 - except for:

a. Representing his immediate family;
b. Testifying under oath;
c. Representing another employee in personnel administration proceedings; and
d. Representing a non-profit organization composed of government employees and spouses but not on a claim against the U.S.

2. An employee may not serve as an expert witness in any proceeding before a court or agency of the U.S. in which the U.S. is a party or has an interest unless authorized as being in the interest of the government.

What part of that confuses you?

a reply to: Kettu

The information in the Dossier was provided by russian intelligence agencies with direct links to the kremlin.

originally posted by: Kettu
Even if Hillary wrote a personal check to Christopher Steele's Orbis consulting company for opposition research, I fail to see how it would have changed anything.

Steele isn't a foreign government. He doesn't run a country or represent the government of a country.

Don Jr's meeting on the other hand....meeting with Russians that had direct ties to the Russian government, with the expressed purpose of getting dirt? And then trying to lie about it under the guise of "adoptions" (which is a code word for sanctions..which mysteriously haven't been implemented by Trump's state dept..)

This whataboutism and projection from right-wingers is pitiful and a painfully obvious defense tactic.

What the dems did is differnet the don jr.

PAYING to get dirt from actual and not fake HIGH LEVEL RUSSIAN OFFICIALS and getting ACTUAL DIRT that is then ACTUALLY USED is collusion and possibly treason. It was the democrats that set this standard, yet now they dont want to be held to the same one.

What you are suggesting is that it is ok to pay for dirt on your opponent from high level russian officials, as long as you go through a middle man.

That is ridiculous.

A few kernels of fact from The Hill’s own latest lying presentation on the matter:

Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores confirmed to The Hill a deal had been reached clearing the informant to talk to Congress for the first time, nearly eight years after he first went undercover for the FBI.

Keep that in mind. The informant went to work for the FBI nearly eight years ago ... making the likely time he started somewhere in 2009. Indeed, the article further tells us ...

The evidence was first gathered in 2009, but charges weren’t brought until 2014. Mikerin pleaded guilty a year later to a money laundering charge and is currently in prison.

The investigation began with the informant going under cover in 2009 but WAS NOT COMPLETE UNTIL 2014.

This is further corroborated by ...

Multiple congressional committees have been seeking to interview the informant, whose name has not been released publicly, because he stayed undercover for nearly five years providing agents information on Russia’s aggressive efforts to grow its atomic energy business in America.

This informant started working in 2009 and stopped working sometime in 2014 when the covert investigation ended. Charges were brought and the accused were convicted in 2015.

The buik of the informants “undercover work” and the investigation itself happened long after CFIUS approved the Uranium One deal in 2010, at least another FOUR YEARS.

Further, the informant didn’t try to “come forward” until 2016 ... during the Presidential campaign.

Isn’t that convenient?

Citation: The Hill

a reply to: Gryphon66

Convenient that the Obama DOJ would illegally require a NDA to a witness / CI 2 years after all the cases had been prosecuted and completed. By the way doing that is a violation of a SCOTUS ruling and a Constitutional violation against the witness / CI.

Why6 would the DOJ threaten the witness if all the cases were closed? Could it be they Obama DOJ protected the Clintons and themselves?

Tee answer to that would be yes.

a reply to: Grambler

The informant isnt oppo research, and he was never hired by a political opponent to dig up dirt on another. He was hired by the FBI to investigate russian corruption, which I am sure you will admit is far different.

Yes, of course that's different but he hasn't been an FBI informant in years. As of last year, he was apparently suing the government to "recover some of the money the Russians stole from him" to paraphrase the reporting.

Now he's lawyered up with Victoria Toesing of diGenova & Toesing. Do you know much about them? How do you think you'd feel about the informant's credibility if you found out that he was contacted by GOP operatives, given a GOP lawyer and stood to gain financially?

Are you familiar with Kathleen Willey? She was recently drug out and dusted off this election. Just as she was last election. She was busted in lies and had her testimony thrown out. Another person claimed that she tried to get her to lie to the independent counsel. Her account was refuted by Linda Tripp who arguably as interested as anyone in bringing down Bill Clinton. Then she tried sued after letters she wrote to Bill Clinton after the alleged assault were released, several letters of a span of time that totally contradicted her claims.

Yet, she's made something of a living for herself in the right-wing, anti-Clinton cottage industry. WND gave her a book deal. All the usual suspects are happy to drag her out for paid anti-Clinton interviews. In 2015, a Trump backer set her up this website. She was paid $2,500 to show up at the debate.

Last year, she launched a GoFundMe, Willey Mortgage Trust Fund, getting $18k of $93k she was looking for.

I think you get the idea.

And if she was asked to testify in front of Congress tomorrow? I feel confident that she'd lie her ass off and walk right out of there and try to make a buck off it.

28 CFR 600.1 - Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.

§ 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel. The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and -

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.

28 CFR 600.1

a reply to: Grambler

Steele is a former MI6 agent and cultivated pro-Western sources inside of Russia during his career.

You make it sound like Putin, sitting in the Kremlin made a decision to sell Steele information on Trump. You make it sound like the information that Steele collected was officially sanctioned by the Russian government itself.

Now, the meeting with Don Jr. certainly does seem to be sanctioned at some level within the Kremlin...

I have a friend that works for the US Dept. of Education. If they gave me some inter-office gossip they heard, does that mean that the US government sold me information?

28 CFR 600.3 - Qualifications of the Special Counsel.

§ 600.3 Qualifications of the Special Counsel. (a) An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking, and with appropriate experience to ensure both that the investigation will be conducted ably, expeditiously and thoroughly, and that investigative and prosecutorial decisions will be supported by an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies. The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government. Special Counsels shall agree that their responsibilities as Special Counsel shall take first precedence in their professional lives, and that it may be necessary to devote their full time to the investigation, depending on its complexity and the stage of the investigation.

(b) The Attorney General shall consult with the Assistant Attorney General for Administration to ensure an appropriate method of appointment, and to ensure that a Special Counsel undergoes an appropriate background investigation and a detailed review of ethics and conflicts of interest issues. A Special Counsel shall be appointed as a “confidential employee” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 7511(b)(2)(C).

28 CFR 600.3

a reply to: Gryphon66

DOJ - Government Ethics Outline

C. DOJ-Specific Conflict of Interest Regulation: No DOJ employee may participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution, or who would be directly affected by the outcome. 28 CFR 45.2

Political relationship means a close identification with an elected official, candidate, political party or campaign organization arising from service as a principal advisor or official; personal relationship means a close and substantial connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality.

D. Impartiality in Performing Official Duties

1. An employee may not participate in a particular matter involving specific parties affecting the financial interests of a member of his household, or when a person with whom he has a covered relationship is, or represents a party.

2. A covered relationship includes one involving:

a. Someone with whom he has or seeks a business relationship;
b. A member of the employee's household;
c. A relative with whom the employee has a close relationship;
d. A present or prospective employer of a spouse, parent or child; and
e. An organization in which the employee serves or has served in the past year as an employee, attorney or active participant.

C. Representations Before the Federal Government

1. An employee may not represent someone else before any court or an agency of the federal government or accept compensation for someone else's representation on a matter in which the U.S. is a party or has an interest - 18 U.S.C. §§ 203 & 205 - except for:

a. Representing his immediate family;
b. Testifying under oath;
c. Representing another employee in personnel administration proceedings; and
d. Representing a non-profit organization composed of government employees and spouses but not on a claim against the U.S.

2. An employee may not serve as an expert witness in any proceeding before a court or agency of the U.S. in which the U.S. is a party or has an interest unless authorized as being in the interest of the government.

28 CFR 45.2 - Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship.

§ 45.2 Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship.

(a) Unless authorized under paragraph (b) of this section, no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with:

(1) Any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution; or

(2) Any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.

(b) An employee assigned to or otherwise participating in a criminal investigation or prosecution who believes that his participation may be prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section shall report the matter and all attendant facts and circumstances to his supervisor at the level of section chief or the equivalent or higher. If the supervisor determines that a personal or political relationship exists between the employee and a person or organization described in paragraph (a) of this section, he shall relieve the employee from participation unless he determines further, in writing, after full consideration of all the facts and circumstances, that:

(1) The relationship will not have the effect of rendering the employee's service less than fully impartial and professional; and

(2) The employee's participation would not create an appearance of a conflict of interest likely to affect the public perception of the integrity of the investigation or prosecution.

(c) For the purposes of this section:

(1)Political relationship means a close identification with an elected official, a candidate (whether or not successful) for elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign organization, arising from service as a principal adviser thereto or a principal official thereof; and

(2)Personal relationship means a close and substantial connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality. An employee is presumed to have a personal relationship with his father, mother, brother, sister, child and spouse. Whether relationships (including friendships) of an employee to other persons or organizations are “personal” must be judged on an individual basis with due regard given to the subjective opinion of the employee.

(d) This section pertains to agency management and is not intended to create rights enforceable by private individuals or organizations.
[Order No. 993-83, 48 FR 2319, Jan. 19, 1983. Redesignated at 61 FR 59815, Nov. 25, 1996]

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes there were two decsions made by Obams admin about this, and his admin knew that there was criminality going on and hid it from Congress and possibly even Cfius members while they approved the deal.

In 2011, the administration gave approval for Rosatom’s Tenex subsidiary to sell commercial uranium to U.S. nuclear power plants in a partnership with the United States Enrichment Corp. Before then, Tenex had been limited to selling U.S. nuclear power plants reprocessed uranium recovered from dismantled Soviet nuclear weapons under the 1990s Megatons to Megawatts peace program.

thehill.com...

I dont understand what your point is?

Hillarys foundation got money from the people involved with this deal, bill clinton personally met with Putin who wanted this deal, Clinton recieved $500,000 from a russian bank weeks later, Hillarys assistant then voted for this deal (which her assistant is revealed in wikileaks emails telling podesta he wants to help Hillary, and two weeks after that email he comments that Hillary had no input to him on the deal).

Nothing you put here remotely changes any of that.

And this is a pattern Hillary used several times.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And if the informant was just trying to sway the election, why didnt he send his lawyers out before the election with his story? Instead he tried to talk to congress, Obamas people said no, and then he waited until after the election to have a lawyer tell his story.

originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: Grambler



You make it sound like Putin, sitting in the Kremlin made a decision to sell Steele information on Trump. You make it sound like the information that Steele collected was officially sanctioned by the Russian government itself.

I love this argument!

So now senior Kremlin officials that were the source for the dossier might not have been sanctioned by the russian government.

Well in that case, all Flynn, Manafort, Carter Page, or anyone else has to say is "Yes I know I met with a kremlin official, but I didnt think they were sanctioned by the Russian government itself!"

Case closed.

Was Deputy AG Rosenstein unaware of DOJ policy when he appointed Mueller in May 2017?

Appointment of Special Counsel

Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein today announced the appointment of former Department of Justice official and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III to serve as Special Counsel to oversee the previously-confirmed FBI investigation of Russian government efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election and related matters. “In my capacity as acting Attorney General, I determined that it is in the public interest for me to exercise my authority and appoint a Special Counsel to assume responsibility for this matter,” said Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein. “My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination. What I have determined is that based upon the unique circumstances, the public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree of independence from the normal chain of command.”

Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein added, “Each year, the career professionals of the U.S. Department of Justice conduct tens of thousands of criminal investigations and handle countless other matters without regard to partisan political considerations. I have great confidence in the independence and integrity of our people and our processes. Considering the unique circumstances of this matter, however, I determined that a Special Counsel is necessary in order for the American people to have full confidence in the outcome. Our nation is grounded on the rule of law, and the public must be assured that government officials administer the law fairly. Special Counsel Mueller will have all appropriate resources to conduct a thorough and complete investigation, and I am confident that he will follow the facts, apply the law and reach a just result.”

Department of Justice - May 17, 2017

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: Grambler



You make it sound like Putin, sitting in the Kremlin made a decision to sell Steele information on Trump. You make it sound like the information that Steele collected was officially sanctioned by the Russian government itself.

I love this argument!

So now senior Kremlin officials that were the source for the dossier might not have been sanctioned by the russian government.

Well in that case, all Flynn, Manafort, Carter Page, or anyone else has to say is "Yes I know I met with a kremlin official, but I didnt think they were sanctioned by the Russian government itself!"

Case closed.

well - no intent worked for Hillary sooo.......

originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: Grambler


You make it sound like Putin, sitting in the Kremlin made a decision to sell the Trump campaign information on Clinton. You make it sound like the information that Russia collected was officially sanctioned by the Russian government itself.

Bolded part mine.

One is true but not the other for argument sake? Proof and facts are not in equal supply however.

The double standards some folks are pushing is detestable.

The “confidential informant” that has been released from a DOJ NDA worked undercover from 2009 - 2014.

The investigation resulted in convictions in 2015.

When the matter of the Uranium One merger came before CFIUS in 2010, the investigation into “Russian bribery” was only getting started and continued another FOUR years.

The “informant” then said nothing for another two years.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Tbis is all irrelevant.

First, if we cant trust this informant because of Republican lawyers, then I assume you don't trust the Mueller investigation because he hired democratic lawyers.

Who is representing him is irrelevant.

He was hired by the FBI to be an informant to gather info on Russian criminals. He wants to testify about what he learned in that role.

This is different than steele, who was paid for by the DNC and hillarys team to contact Kremlin officials to get dirt on Trump.

And even with Steele, he should be called on to testify (as I believe he was).

So whats the problem?

a reply to: Gryphon66

A question for him however since it has been raised time and time again by a lot of people in and out of government it makes one wonder why he has not addressed it. It might have to do with his own conflict of interest related to the Mueller probe.

Muellers conflict of interest and Rosensteins apparent lack of integrity on the topic caught the Judiciary's attention. So much so they held a hearing on possibly pushing to terminate Mueller.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The Uranium One deal occurred after the people involved in approving the acquisition were notified of the criminal activities of the people involved in that acquisition, including Russians paying bribes / kickbacks to US officials and the group still approved it.