Postmortem on Mueller

[Berzerker]

like the Steele Dossier

 

[Birdjaguar]

like the Steele Dossier

Read @Zkribbler 's post again. The dossier was not a criminal investigation. It was a collection of findings that have pretty much been found out to be true. Not all, but many of them.

 

[Berzerker]

I did read it

"A criminal investigation arises from probable cause or in proper circumstances from a reasonably articulable suspicion"

like the Steele Dossier

 

[Birdjaguar]

I did read it

"A criminal investigation arises from probable cause or in proper circumstances from a reasonably articulable suspicion"

like the Steele Dossier

The dossier was not a criminal investigation. It began as a campaign research project. When it became public, it led to other investigations. None of those were criminal. It is like the NYT article on Trumps taxes or Michael Cohen's testimony: findings, stories, testimony that have led to investigations, some criminal some not. If NY state takes Trump to court on his taxes, then in court he will be presumed to be innocent and NY will have to prove his guilt.

 

[Berzerker]

I know the dossier wasn't a criminal investigation, a criminal investigation (of Carter Page) arose in part "from a reasonably articulable suspicion" (the Steele Dossier).

 

[onejayhawk]

Point of order:

Presumed innocent is the standard of any criminal trial.
A criminal investigation arises from probable cause or in proper circumstances from a reasonably articulable suspicion.

I'm not clear on where you think we disagree. Presumption of innocence is rather wider than in trial, but I see no conflict. Neither probable cause nor articulable suspicion is present, so nothing there either.

Read @Zkribbler 's post again. The dossier was not a criminal investigation. It was a collection of findings that have pretty much been found out to be true. Not all, but many of them.

He did not make much of a point. The dossier was used as evidence for both purposes of search warrants and as a media ploy, one of the innumerable leaks by the investigating team. Comey, by signing the application for a warrant may have committed a felony, as did everyone else in the process. The leaks, in theory at least, are each felonies. What you are seeing is people that have broken so many procedural rules that they forget there are potential penalties.

I know the dossier wasn't a criminal investigation, a criminal investigation (of Carter Page) arose in part "from a reasonably articulable suspicion" (the Steele Dossier).

Except that the dossier does not meet that standard as it is not unreasonable on its face. The fact that they were reduced to using such tainted evidence shows that it was faked up from the start.

J

 

[metalhead]

I know the dossier wasn't a criminal investigation, a criminal investigation (of Carter Page) arose in part "from a reasonably articulable suspicion" (the Steele Dossier).

There was more than enough evidence apart from the Steele Dossier to investigate Carter Page, just from the unredacted parts of his FISA warrant application. It is nonsense to say otherwise.

This explains why, and also explains why the inclusion of Steele dossier info in the application was OK - the FBI explained at length who Steele was and any potential bias or faults in his intelligence.

So you should probably stop with this lie, hewn from an even bigger and also proven lie about the origins of the entire investigation, that the Steele dossier was either used improperly, or used as the only evidence to support law enforcement activity such as FISA surveillance. Because it's simply a lie.

 

[onejayhawk]

There was more than enough evidence apart from the Steele Dossier to investigate Carter Page, just from the unredacted parts of his FISA warrant application. It is nonsense to say otherwise.

They must not have thought so. Otherwise, why use something known to be improper then double down on the impropriety in the renewal applications.

That's a pattern--there is a multitude of leaks, Strzok and Page have to be dismissed, the report does not meet the statutory language. Compared to the conduct of the investigators, Trump's behavior is a model of legal purity.

J

 

[civvver]

So I've intentionally stayed away from this thread as I have no desire to read the full muller report and it's like impossible to get a non biased summary, but today on my local NPR section the host had a guy who was a consultant and formerly worked on the clinton campaign or something, and then another guy who was a big time republican consultant, and they couldn't have disagreed more on their interpretations of the report. Basically the anti trump guy kept saying, this is objective, ie no spin, that mueller found collusion with russia but not enough to meet the criteria for a conspiracy charge, and mueller found evidence that trump intimidated/bribed witnesses/dismissed fbi head because of the russia investigation, but he could not file an obstruction charge because that was not his mission and he was prohibited from doing so. He also said Barr was way out of line by presenting the report the way he did and it tried to spin the objective facts about it.

The pro trump guy said almost the opposite, that the whole thing was a witch hunt, trump acted like anyone would who was being falsely accused of something, and he's innocent until proven guilty and since no charges were ever brought we must maintain trump's innocence. He said the dems are basically going after trump to prove his innocence, while the burden is on them to prove his guilt.

This is the pod cast if you want to listen to it yourself, the one from today, may 13th.

https://www.npr.org/podcasts/431683857/detroit-today-with-stephen-henderson

So what is it, what's the muller report say trump did exactly? Did he bribe and intimidate witnesses and if he did, why isn't he in trouble? And why are the republicans basically making this a partisan game if that's true? But then again, maybe it's not true?

Just listening to two people have such a different view on a report they both claimed to have read in detail was extremely disturbing. Someone ought to be able to have some sort of objectivity and I have no idea which side to believe.

 

[rah]

Neither. Read the report yourself and make your own educated assessment.

 

[civvver]

gah who has time for that?!

 

[brennan]

Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations. The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/18/us/politics/mueller-report-document.html

 

[TheMeInTeam]

gah who has time for that?!

That's what politics (accurately) count on. Way too much potential information to sift through it all, much of it more inconvenient to access and no less inconvenient in length than this report. We could spend every waking hour of our days trying to scum for knowledge on stuff like this and we'd wind up with only a fraction of the knowable information.

Throw in some selective reporting and the fun continues.

 

[rah]

gah who has time for that?!

I'll be the first to admit that I haven't read the whole thing, but IF (and that's a big if) what I have read is a representative sample. It makes trump look bad.

 

[civvver]

Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations. The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony

Even that is incredibly (perhaps intentionally?) vague. To direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony? Every time you meet with someone you have potential to influence them. Many of the witnesses were his former attorneys/aides/staff/whatever. This reads like they looked at his calendar and drew lines between trump and potential witnesses. Just doesn't seem that objective. I need more details. I'll have to look up some stuff.

Trying to remove Muller is a bad look though.

 

[Berzerker]

There was more than enough evidence apart from the Steele Dossier to investigate Carter Page, just from the unredacted parts of his FISA warrant application. It is nonsense to say otherwise.

This explains why, and also explains why the inclusion of Steele dossier info in the application was OK - the FBI explained at length who Steele was and any potential bias or faults in his intelligence.

So you should probably stop with this lie, hewn from an even bigger and also proven lie about the origins of the entire investigation, that the Steele dossier was either used improperly, or used as the only evidence to support law enforcement activity such as FISA surveillance. Because it's simply a lie.

Your link doesn't say the dossier was unnecessary. Here's what I said:

"a criminal investigation (of Carter Page) arose in part "from a reasonably articulable suspicion" (the Steele Dossier)."

How is that a lie? It appears Page was innocent, true? But he was 'implicated' by a political operative who hated Trump, a man who is being sued for smearing people who defends himself by claiming his dossier wasn't meant for publication but nevertheless leaked it to media.

 

[Birdjaguar]

So I've intentionally stayed away from this thread as I have no desire to read the full muller report and it's like impossible to get a non biased summary, but today on my local NPR section the host had a guy who was a consultant and formerly worked on the clinton campaign or something, and then another guy who was a big time republican consultant, and they couldn't have disagreed more on their interpretations of the report. Basically the anti trump guy kept saying, this is objective, ie no spin, that mueller found collusion with russia but not enough to meet the criteria for a conspiracy charge, and mueller found evidence that trump intimidated/bribed witnesses/dismissed fbi head because of the russia investigation, but he could not file an obstruction charge because that was not his mission and he was prohibited from doing so. He also said Barr was way out of line by presenting the report the way he did and it tried to spin the objective facts about it.

The pro trump guy said almost the opposite, that the whole thing was a witch hunt, trump acted like anyone would who was being falsely accused of something, and he's innocent until proven guilty and since no charges were ever brought we must maintain trump's innocence. He said the dems are basically going after trump to prove his innocence, while the burden is on them to prove his guilt.

This is the pod cast if you want to listen to it yourself, the one from today, may 13th.

https://www.npr.org/podcasts/431683857/detroit-today-with-stephen-henderson

So what is it, what's the muller report say trump did exactly? Did he bribe and intimidate witnesses and if he did, why isn't he in trouble? And why are the republicans basically making this a partisan game if that's true? But then again, maybe it's not true?

Just listening to two people have such a different view on a report they both claimed to have read in detail was extremely disturbing. Someone ought to be able to have some sort of objectivity and I have no idea which side to believe.

You might just read Mueller's summaries that he wrote for public consumption.

 

[onejayhawk]

Your link doesn't say the dossier was unnecessary. Here's what I said:

"a criminal investigation (of Carter Page) arose in part "from a reasonably articulable suspicion" (the Steele Dossier)."

How is that a lie? It appears Page was innocent, true? But he was 'implicated' by a political operative who hated Trump, a man who is being sued for smearing people who defends himself by claiming his dossier wasn't meant for publication but nevertheless leaked it to media.

There is an article delving into why the FBI made, at minimum, erroneous statements in their warrant application. The author uses the Mueller report to fill in some redacted portions of the application. The material in quotes is from the FISA application.

"As discussed above, the FBI believes that Page has been collaborating and conspiring with the Russian government [redacted]," the bureau wrote. "Based on the foregoing facts and circumstances, the FBI submits that there is probable cause to believe that Page [redacted] knowingly engage in clandestine intelligence activities (other than intelligence gathering activities) for or on behalf of such foreign power, or knowingly conspires with other persons to engage in such activities and, therefore, is an agent of a foreign power as defined by 50 U.S.C. 1801(b)(2)(E)."

That allegation was at the heart of the Mueller investigation, and the special counsel did not allege that Page, or any American, was involved in what the FBI described.​

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-fbi-so-wrong-in-trump-russia-wiretap-warrant

J

 

[Estebonrober]

There is an article delving into why the FBI made, at minimum, erroneous statements in their warrant application. The author uses the Mueller report to fill in some redacted portions of the application. The material in quotes is from the FISA application.

"As discussed above, the FBI believes that Page has been collaborating and conspiring with the Russian government [redacted]," the bureau wrote. "Based on the foregoing facts and circumstances, the FBI submits that there is probable cause to believe that Page [redacted] knowingly engage in clandestine intelligence activities (other than intelligence gathering activities) for or on behalf of such foreign power, or knowingly conspires with other persons to engage in such activities and, therefore, is an agent of a foreign power as defined by 50 U.S.C. 1801(b)(2)(E)."

That allegation was at the heart of the Mueller investigation, and the special counsel did not allege that Page, or any American, was involved in what the FBI described.​

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-fbi-so-wrong-in-trump-russia-wiretap-warrant

J

The warrant application made a three-point argument. Point 1 was that Russia was trying to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Point 2 was that Page had a history of involvement with Russia and Russians. Point 3 was that Page was a Russian agent conspiring with powerful Russian officials to influence the election.

Point 1 was true. Point 2 was true. Point 3 was not, and that is when the application went off the rails.

Remember that this is a counter intelligence investigation at this point right? It is not a criminal one. So whereas the concern that Page was a foreign agent his past and the information coming in from reliable sources at that point (Steele work on the FIFA case that was extremely successful and consequential) would indicate it possible and it was worth checking it out right? I mean you have the risk of a literal Manchurian candidate being put into office (this might still be the case if you ask my opinion) and you think its out of bounds to even look into it. There are multiple ironies here, but lets focus on the duplicity of your position. Change Page to Holder, or Clinton. Do tell me how the FBI should have handled an Obama official with such connections making such trips with such a past and information coming in that he was possibly conspiring. Please go on with your bad self.

We are all hypocrites sometimes but this is just absurd.

 

[Gori the Grey]

gah who has time for that?!

I'll be the first to admit that I haven't read the whole thing, but IF (and that's a big if) what I have read is a representative sample. It makes trump look bad.

What if we read it together? I was too busy to read it when it came out, but I just downloaded it, and am thinking of getting started.

It would be like a CFC book club. We could read twenty pages, discuss, read twenty more pages, discuss.

Who'd be in?