Mueller Has Enough Evidence to Bring Charges in Flynn Investigation

[wufan]

I hear where you're coming from, and I think it's a reasonable thought. And to be fair, while the Logan Act is definitely a law, I don't think anyone has ever been successfully prosecuted under it.

That said, I'm not sure "they're not guilty" is a valid defense to obstruction of justice. If it were, I could lie and impede investigations so long as I were confident the person being investigated was innocent on that particular matter.

Read this; agreed with it; would like some discussion to its credibility.

“Some left-wing pundits, who know better, are trotting out the Logan Act, which, if it were the law, would prohibit private citizens (including presidents-elect) from negotiating with foreign governments. But this anachronistic law hasn't been used for more than 200 years. Under the principle of desuetude - a legal doctrine that prohibits the selective resurrection of a statute that has not been used for many decades - it is dead-letter. Moreover, the Logan Act is unconstitutional insofar as it prohibits the exercise of free speech.”

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/362948-why-did-flynn-lie-and-why-did-mueller-charge-him-with-lying

[jdshock]

Read this; agreed with it; would like some discussion to its credibility.

“Some left-wing pundits, who know better, are trotting out the Logan Act, which, if it were the law, would prohibit private citizens (including presidents-elect) from negotiating with foreign governments. But this anachronistic law hasn't been used for more than 200 years. Under the principle of desuetude - a legal doctrine that prohibits the selective resurrection of a statute that has not been used for many decades - it is dead-letter. Moreover, the Logan Act is unconstitutional insofar as it prohibits the exercise of free speech.”

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-hou...him-with-lying

I don't think I've ever heard of that particular principle. This article states that no law has ever been found invalid because of desuetude: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/o...logan-act.html.

But it's my understanding that no one has successfully been prosecuted under the Logan act either. There's just no way Mueller is hanging his hat on the idea of getting a Logan act conviction, right?

[wufan]

Thanks for th links!

[shockfan89_]

CNN reported this week that an FBI e-mail communication concluded that AG Sessions was not required to disclose his interactions with Russian officials. So why exactly did Sessions recuse himself from the "Russian Investigations"?

[CBB_Fan]

CNN reported this week that an FBI e-mail communication concluded that AG Sessions was not required to disclose his interactions with Russian officials. So why exactly did Sessions recuse himself from the "Russian Investigations"?

Well, let's see what the man himself had to say:

"I recused myself, not because of any asserted wrongdoing, or any belief that I may have been involved in any wrongdoing in the campaign," Sessions said, "but because a Department of Justice regulation ... I felt, required it."

The rule that Sessions cited — 28 CFR 45.2 — states that DOJ employees may not "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."

Sessions said that because he served as an adviser and surrogate for the Trump campaign, he had to recuse himself from DOJ investigations into potential collusion between Trump's campaign and Russian officials.

[shockfan89_]

Based on 28 CFR 45.2 there are several FBI agents that should have recused themselves as well. In fact, I am not sure Robert Mueller would even qualify as a Special Counsel if that same standard was applied to him?

[boltforge]

shockfan89_ Mueller required a conflict of interest waver. So ... No. He actually DIDN'T qualify as Special Counsel. Of course they will not say what the waver is actually about. At this point it wouldn't surprise me if he was working for Fusion GPS on the side.

[boltforge]

On conflict of interest I think the 6 minute "going off" by Gowdy starts to covers this mess.

Given all that we know about the top of the DOJ and FBI now, does anyone trust Mueller and his team of merry Hillary Superfans? I mean [insert appropriate curse words]. Meeting in the Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe's office to discuss an insurance policy if Trump is elected? I'd assume McCabe was there because it was his office. Having the Russia colluding Fusion GPS wife working directly with them? Mueller required a conflict of interest waver to get his current job? And they will not say what it's about? And unexpectedly the worst of the worst (that we know of right now) get onto Mueller's team.

This is absolutely completely insane.

So to the question of would anyone have problems with charges coming from this group? Yes. Yes I would. I wouldn't trust them to investigate popcorn spills in a movie theater.

[ShockCrazy]

I find incredulity at Mueller hilarious. He was universally lauded as a great choice by both sides when first selected as a non partisan choice given he has worked in official government roles under every president since and including Reagan, but once he starts finding things out and doing his job, he's suddenly some partisan Hillary shill. Hell he was appointed FBI director by GWB in the immediate aftermath of the Clinton administration, but yes totally in with the Clintons.

With regard to the clip, notice how this was supposed to be about Rosensteins testimony but the Rep. decided the real point was to pontificate and grandstand for 6 minutes without asking a question? Wonder what he was trying to do... Hmmm... Obfuscate? Distract? You really think there is not one person in the FBI who supports or donated to the Trump side? Where are the calls for their impartiality? Lets also ignore that Strzok was immediately removed from the investigation this past summer when they found out he sent some anti-Trump texts. This wasn't some reactionary removal because people found out, we are just finding out about it when he was actually removed over the summer.

Also I love how everyone says we're done with collusion, I must have missed that memo where they said they were done and had resolved that investigation, can anyone point me to it? No? Huh.

[shockfan89_]

Mueller was supported at first even though there was concern with his relationship with Comey and others. Then, the "Independent Counsel" proceeded to hire only people that supported one side. Kind of lacks independence when you only hire people that hate one of the people you are supposed to be impartially reviewing. Then the entire issue with Strzok occurred and Mueller decided to cover it up rather than reporting that someone on his independent counsel was re-assigned for their lack of independence.

Do you think Mueller instructed the attorney's for Manafort and Flynn that one of his lead investigators had to be removed due to being impartial? If he didn't make this known before charging them you can bet their attorney's will use this to get the charges dismissed.

Do you think this "Independent" Counsel will review any of the evidence of collusion against the Hillary campaign or the DNC given the fact that most of them supported Hillary, worked for Hillary, wanted her to win, gave money to her campaign and the DNC, had spouses conducting opposition research for Hillary and the DNC? After all, they are supposed to be looking at Russian interference and collusion, not Trump/Russia collusion. How likely is it that a group of FBI/DOJ investigators that supported one candidate are going to impartially look at that candidate and FBI/DOJ wrongdoing. It seems their focus is based on Trump and any wrongdoing with those associated with his campaign rather than Russian interference/collusion.

The problem with Mueller's Independent Counsel is that it is anything but impartial. As you stated, there are probably many people in the FBI that supported or donated to Trump or the RNC. Wouldn't you expect an impartial special counsel to have at least one person like that? If it was truly impartial, I would expect you would have about half and half since the country was almost evenly divided.

[ShockCrazy]

Mueller was supported at first even though there was concern with his relationship with Comey and others. Then, the "Independent Counsel" proceeded to hire only people that supported one side. Kind of lacks independence when you only hire people that hate one of the people you are supposed to be impartially reviewing. Then the entire issue with Strzok occurred and Mueller decided to cover it up rather than reporting that someone on his independent counsel was re-assigned for their lack of independence.

Do you think Mueller instructed the attorney's for Manafort and Flynn that one of his lead investigators had to be removed due to being impartial? If he didn't make this known before charging them you can bet their attorney's will use this to get the charges dismissed.

Do you think this "Independent" Counsel will review any of the evidence of collusion against the Hillary campaign or the DNC given the fact that most of them supported Hillary, worked for Hillary, wanted her to win, gave money to her campaign and the DNC, had spouses conducting opposition research for Hillary and the DNC? After all, they are supposed to be looking at Russian interference and collusion, not Trump/Russia collusion. How likely is it that a group of FBI/DOJ investigators that supported one candidate are going to impartially look at that candidate and FBI/DOJ wrongdoing. It seems their focus is based on Trump and any wrongdoing with those associated with his campaign rather than Russian interference/collusion.

The problem with Mueller's Independent Counsel is that it is anything but impartial. As you stated, there are probably many people in the FBI that supported or donated to Trump or the RNC. Wouldn't you expect an impartial special counsel to have at least one person like that? If it was truly impartial, I would expect you would have about half and half since the country was almost evenly divided.

Covered up??? He literally took action. Why does it need to be a big grandstanding thing? I thought that was Trump's reason for disposing of Comey. That he liked the attention too much. I'm sorry wait do you know everyone on the special counsel? Do you have a published names of everyone it and their political leanings? Or are you just assuming everyone in it supports Hillary like I know you are? And you can't expect half and half because the demographics that chose to work in law/lawyers(predominately Democrats) are not representative of the country as a whole.

[shockfan89_]

Mueller covered it up for nearly 6 months until it was recently discovered by the DOJ's internal investigation.

There are several publications that list every attorney on Mueller's special counsel. The publications include their background and work history and some include details of political donations. I am not assuming they support Hillary, there is documentation that they have defended Hillary, her campaign, the DNC, and other evidence like public comments they have made on social media.

In DC there are 10s of thousands of attorneys. It would be very easy to form an INDEPENDENT counsel made up of both Republicans and Democrats.

[CBB_Fan]

Having the Russia colluding Fusion GPS wife working directly with them? Mueller required a conflict of interest waver to get his current job? .

?. ??.

I hate this. THIS, right here, is why we are in a terrible place as a country despite a strong stock market and low unemployment. We are a bunch of crazy people that can't agree that the sky is blue. A lie becomes a myth becomes "well everyone knows it."

No, Fusion GPS did not collude with Russia. These aren't random bad labels, they are words. It is the peak of inanity to try and throw back claims of collusion with "I know you are but what am I" playground tactics. I'm sick of breaking it down, I've down so in several rants before.

Steele worked with private Russian citizens previously verified to give accurate info to spies and disclosed that work with US authorities as it happened. That is totally and completely different from working with the Russian government itself to further its interests, and not disclosing that fact or the benefits thereof, which entails numerous misdemeanors and felonies (and is what the Trump campaign is accused of).

[boltforge]

?. ??.

I hate this. THIS, right here, is why we are in a terrible place as a country despite a strong stock market and low unemployment. We are a bunch of crazy people that can't agree that the sky is blue. A lie becomes a myth becomes "well everyone knows it."

No, Fusion GPS did not collude with Russia. These aren't random bad labels, they are words. It is the peak of inanity to try and throw back claims of collusion with "I know you are but what am I" playground tactics. I'm sick of breaking it down, I've down so in several rants before.

Steele worked with private Russian citizens previously verified to give accurate info to spies and disclosed that work with US authorities as it happened. That is totally and completely different from working with the Russian government itself to further its interests, and not disclosing that fact or the benefits thereof, which entails numerous misdemeanors and felonies (and is what the Trump campaign is accused of).

Oh.

OK.

I'll just ignore Fusion GPS's work with Russia to attack the Magnitsky Act. And I'll imagine that somehow Source A 'a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure’ and source B ‘a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin' for Steele's work are private citizens. Of course Fusion GPS is on the up and up.

Yeah. Let's trust Steele (and his Kremlin friend) and the Ohrs (the Fusion subcontractor and her DOJ husband) and Strzok and Page and McCabe (and the $500,000 given to his wife) and Mueller (and his undisclosed conflict of interest waver) and ...

No I guess I'm just nuts for thinking this just maybe might actually suck.

[CBB_Fan]

Oh.

OK.

I'll just ignore Fusion GPS's work with Russia to attack the Magnitsky Act. And I'll imagine that somehow Source A 'a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure’ and source B ‘a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin' for Steele's work are private citizens. Of course Fusion GPS is on the up and up.

Yeah. Let's trust Steele (and his Kremlin friend) and the Ohrs (the Fusion subcontractor and her DOJ husband) and Strzok and Page and McCabe (and the $500,000 given to his wife) and Mueller (and his undisclosed conflict of interest waver) and ...

No I guess I'm just nuts for thinking this just maybe might actually suck.

Fusion GPS never worked with Russia to lobby against the Magnitsky Act. They worked for a law firm supporting Prevezon Holdings (who lobbied against the Act), providing support for unrelated civil litigation which was settled without any admission of wrongdoing. So already, by your first sentence you made three massive jumps of logic to get to an anti-fact. Works with a law firm connected to a lobbying group became works with a lobbying group became "directly lobbied themselves."

Next one.

Source A and Source B are Russian government officials. But, as I've actually already explained on this forum, their information is not the opinion of the Russian government. In fact, they are trusted sources of intelligence from Steele's time as an MI6 spy. There is a massive difference between going to a known source of intelligence on your terms in private versus say meeting a group of Russian officials on Russia's terms, in a building you own, to try to get damaging information on political opponents in exchange for support of policies such as repealing the Magnitsky Act.

Still want to attack those sources? Then attack the FBI, because they reportedly sought to work with Steele and to pay him to develop additional information on the sources. Either they were completely untrustworthy partisans, or they were doing their job and validating information that in hindsight we've seen largely verified. Personally, I'd like to take the option that doesn't magically make Trump immune to prosecution, end faith in the rule of law, and demand a total purge of the intelligence agencies, you know just typical dictator stuff.

On one side we have Steele, who has taken down corruption in FISA and Mueller who took down the Gambino crime family. Perhaps the two most successful criminal investigators alive today with no record of compromising behavior and an impeccable resume of taking down corrupt entities. On the other, a man that openly donated to the Florida Attorney General and subsequently got a case against him dismissed, and man flipped a half-finished property to a Russian magnate and made it the most expensive property in the USA, a man that upon taking power fired two people investigating him. There is no non-partisan reason to distrust the former two and trust the latter. None.

So yes, let's trust Steele. Let's trust sources of information verified by the FBI. Let's trust former government officials considered experts on Russia. Let's trust the groups that find partisans in their mix and remove them, that question their own conflicts of interest. Let's trust the investigative and legal process. Let's trust our intelligence agencies. All of which have done far more to prove their veracity than Trump, his sons, or any of his campaign officials.

[Aargh]

I'm of the opinion that the public can only know what's being reported by media. Fox is reporting one thing. MSM is reporting something else.

If who you voted for becomes a factor in the job you can hold, then we have become an autocracy. If who you supported in a political campaign becomes a condition of employment, we have the same problem.

If the news media can erode our faith in the ability of the judicial process to come to fair conclusions, then we have no judicial system, we have trial by the media. In this case we would have trial by Fox News because that seems to be the most visible source of the conspiracy theories (it's only a bunch of Hillary's supporters doing the investigation) being spread to discredit a judicial investigation.

I'm really not seeing the supposed support of Hillary by Comey. Comey handed Trump the election when he dropped the little atomic bomb a week before the election that he had an additional 600,000 emails to review that were found on Wiener's hard drive. That produced a 4% swing in the polls overnight, which appears to have given Trump the momentum he needed to swing a few more voters his direction. Comey had no obligation to disclose the investigation. In fact, it broke with precedent to release details of an ongoing investigation near an election.

It seems that any time someone on your side of the aisle is investigated that it's just a witch hunt. When it's "the other guy" being investigated, that's a "fair investigation". When It's "your guy" being investigated, that's a "witch hunt".

[Aargh]

There was a documentary about Monica Lewinsky last night and I found this part interesting. She was facing 27 years in jail for (mainly) lying to the FBI, lying to federal prosecutors, and obstruction of justice. She was offered immunity if she testified and she took the deal.

She wasn't required to plead to anything. This would tend to lead one to believe that Flynn may have been facing similar jail time if he didn't cooperate. The fact that he didn't get straight up immunity may just be a factor of who his testimony would affect. With Lewinsky, her testimony went to the Presidency, so that may have been a factor in her immunity.

[SB Shock]

I'm really not seeing the supposed support of Hillary by Comey. Comey handed Trump the election when he dropped the little atomic bomb a week before the election that he had an additional 600,000 emails to review that were found on Wiener's hard drive. That produced a 4% swing in the polls overnight, which appears to have given Trump the momentum he needed to swing a few more voters his direction. Comey had no obligation to disclose the investigation. In fact, it broke with precedent to release details of an ongoing investigation near an election.

Sure he supported her. He could have chosen to indict her which would have probably forced the democrats to replace her on the ballot.

Comey chose to do what he did to CYA. He knew eventually this was going to all get out, so he thought it was a safe time to release the details because Trump was going through his own crisis.

That event didn’t hand Trump the election - Hillary handed the election to Trump because she was a modern day Jezebel. She lost because she was arrogant and refused to campaign in a couple blue states that she refused to believe she could lose.

[CBB_Fan]

Sure he supported her. He could have chosen to indict her which would have probably forced the democrats to replace her on the ballot.

Comey chose to do what he did to CYA. He knew eventually this was going to all get out, so he thought it was a safe time to release the details because Trump was going through his own crisis.

That event didn’t hand Trump the election - Hillary handed the election to Trump because she was a modern day Jezebel. She lost because she was arrogant and refused to campaign in a couple blue states that she refused to believe she could lose.

Comey chose to submit a letter to Congress (note, Congressional Republicans leaked the letter, not Comey) because of fear that conservative members of the NY FBI office would leak the news themselves:

“Yes, it was absolutely explicit that one reason for the letter was that the agents in New York would leak it,” says a Justice Department source.

Comey's decision had little to do with Trump's sexual scandal, and everything to do with the fact that Republican FBI members threatened to leak and Republican Congressmen actually did. From beginning to end, it was about trying and failing to minimize the political impact. And before we castigate him for that goal, remember that it is his legal obligation not to "use [his] official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election" (Hatch Act).

Likewise, his decision to indict or not indict wasn't about giving her or Trump the election. It was about the law. Regardless of the morality or lack thereof of Hillary's actions, it would have been extremely difficult to reach a guilty verdict based on the gross negligence portion of the Espionage Act. The relevant section is 18 U.S. Code § 793 (f):

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

The issue with the above portion is the way the law has been interpreted through the Supreme Court (many portions of the Espionage Act have been tested at that level, as they test civil liberties). In Gorin v. United States (1941), the Supreme Court heard a challenge to a conviction of a Navy intelligence official who sold classified material to the Soviet Union on Japanese intelligence operations in the United States. The outcome of that case is that the section "relating to the national defense" was redefined, and now requires an intent to benefit a foreign power.

The sections are not simple prohibitions against obtaining or delivering to foreign powers information… relating to national defense. If this were the language, it would need to be tested by the inquiry as to whether it had double meaning or forced anyone, at his peril, to speculate as to whether certain actions violated the statute.

While the US probably should have a law punishing the disclosure of classified secrets through negligence, trying to get a conviction for that using 793(f) would essentially require the FBI to reinterpret the law and the Supreme Court to rule against precedence.

There was no existing, Constitutionally tested law the FBI could use to reach a guilty verdict, which is why the decision not to indict despite Clinton's recklessness was correct.

[SB Shock]

Former CIA Director John Deutch would argue otherwise.

[CBB_Fan]

John Deutch wasn't tried under 18 U.S. Code § 793 (f). Before the pardon, he was set to be tried under code 18 U.S. Code § 1924, which states that "[any officer who] “by virtue of his office . . . becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information [and] knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location.”

Deutch's status as a CIA officer allowed him to fall under a wider variety of laws (also including 18 U.S. Code § 798) , which did not have the complicated legal history of the Espionage Act laws.