Talk:Mueller investigation/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 10 March 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

A start[edit]

@GrammarCommie Here is a start. I'm literally only 8 pages into volume one of the report. --RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@RipCityLiberal Just one more thing before we get started, do you have access to a reliable (not redacted or edited) copy of the report? I can start porting over sources from the orginal artcle (and potentially "borrowing" a few from Wikipedia) but the report will likely end up being the backbone of this article.☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Right here big dog: https://www.justice.gov/sco . ^{— Unsigned, by: RipCityLiberal / talk / contribs}

@GrammarCommie Here is a start. I'm literally only 8 pages into volume one of the report. --RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Right here big dog: https://www.justice.gov/sco . ^{— Unsigned, by: RipCityLiberal / talk / contribs}

If You're Here to Help[edit]

Wherein we discover that Rob is illiterate

I cut out the last 50 or so pages of volume I so if someone is interested in adding it, knock yourself out. Also lots of images or additional links would probably help too.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

All the crap about Mifsud, Carter Page, and Papdopolous will be the first thing destroyed by the IG report and John Durham. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 04:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

So like 3 paragraphs? --RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

<smh>a counterintelligence investigation into criminal wrongdoing

You should start thinking of how to rephrase this, since by law, a counterintelligence investigation cannot be used for criminal investigations. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 20:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Those six words outline abuse of power and FISA abuse.

A criminal investigation's goal is to bring indictments, prosecution, and conviction.
A counterintelligence investigation is to neutralize a national security threat.

For this cause, a counterintelligence investigation has a lower standard of probable cause. FISA courts were established to guard against abuse of this lower standard.

A counterintelligence investigation has the exact opposite objective of a criminal investigation, to not bring indictments and convictions. Venona project for example, lasted 38 years and never brought a single indictment.

If a crime is discovered in the coarse of a counterintelligence investigation, by Parallel construction a criminal indictment can be brought; however the practice is rare and risks neutralizing the counterintelligence investigation.

Initiating a counterintelligence investigation with the specific aim to pursue criminal indictments is an abuse of power that the FISA Act specifically forbids. If that language above came from the Mueller Report, all the conspirators in the FBI who pursued it are in serious trouble. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 20:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

You're combining a whole load of bollocks together. Here is the investigations regulatory support -

Appointment Order ¶ (b). Section 600.4 affords the Special Counsel “the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel’s investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.” 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a) . The authority to investigate “any matters that arose . . . directly from the investigation,” Appointment Order ¶ (b)(ii), covers similar crimes that may have occurred during the course of the FBI’s confirmed investigation before the Special Counsel’s appointment. “If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate,” the Order further provided, “the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.” Id. ¶ (c). Finally, the Acting Attorney General made applicable “Sections 600.4 through 600.10 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations.” Id. ¶ (d) .

Additionally they acknowledge that a portion of this investigation would in fact overlap with foreign intelligence and counter-intelligence investigations -

From its inception, the Office recognized that its investigation could identify foreign intelligence and counterintelligence information relevant to the FBI’s broader national security mission. FBI personnel who assisted the Office established procedures to identify and convey such information to the FBI. The FBI’s Counterintelligence Division met with the Office regularly for that purpose for most of the Office’s tenure. For more than the past year, the FBI also embedded personnel at the Office who did not work on the Special Counsel’s investigation, but whose purpose was to review the results of the investigation and to send—in writing—summaries of foreign intelligence and counterintelligence information to FBIHQ and FBI Field Offices. Those communications and other correspondence between the Office and the FBI contain information derived from the investigation, not all of which is contained in this Volume. This Volume is a summary. It contains, in the Office’s judgment, that information necessary to account for the Special Counsel’s prosecution and declination decisions and to describe the investigation’s main factual results.

So while I respect that your criticism in this specific case is not totally without merit, the level of detail you would like to address is generally unnecessary, as it doesn't seem like the people who would read this page would know or even care about the distinction. Additionally as a source of information, this page is better thought of as a tool to help read the report, but for greater detail I have explicitly stated that reading the report for yourself is necessary. --RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, we're in agreement the page is a tool to better help understand the report. The FISA abuse report is going to sow much confusion over the Mueller report. That's why I suggested re-thinking that six word phrase.

As previously posted below (in scroll), the Grassley/Graham letter questioned the legality of Rosenstein's initial order (we don't have Rosenstein's response. It remains classified). That was the purpose of Rosenstein's August 2, 2017 scope memo, to clarify, grant authority, and expand criminal investigations to persons previously under FISA surveillance (Manafort, Gates, etc.).

To thumbnail it, Go back to when Comey awoke at 3:00 AM in the morning; Comey was mulling this problem of converting a counterintelligence investigation into a criminal investigation so that a Special Counsel could be appointed.

As an aside, Comey should have left it as a counterintelligence investigation; it could have lasted the duration of Trump's presidency and all nominees and appointees would have remained under intense surveillance, hamstringing the administration's effectiveness in all fields. By converting it into a criminal "obstruction of justice" investigation only proves the political nature of the probe, particularly since Mueller found no collusion, and compounded by the likelihood both Horowitz and Durham will find the original counterintelligence investigation was illegal.

I know you don't like to hear any of this, but those six words add to the confusion. We need another Church Committee when this is all over, and revisions to the FISA Act, the FARA Act, and other bi-partisan solutions. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 20:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

It's like clockwork, every single time you seem to have a reasoned an rational opinion for me to consider, you utterly obliterate any semblance of goodwill with utter bullshit. There is nothing, zero, nada from any investigation into the FISA system or FARA compliance, or even investigations into Comey, McCabe or Strozk, that will fundamentally change anything about the results of this investigation. The details in Volume I are clear that the Russian government intended to influence the 2016 election by favoring Trump over HRC. They made attempts to contact and coordinate with the campaign, generally unsuccessfully. The details in Volume II identify ten specific instances of obstruction of justice, nine of which probably also violate criminal statues on corruption and witness tampering.

Additionally, Rosenstein's authority and guidelines for the investigation, are in the report, including two memo's expanding the scope to include criminal wrongdoing by Manafort, Gates, Flynn, Papadapolous and Page. Your assertions into the mindset of James Comey is also comically inept and stupid. Just read the report, this isn't hard. Stop trying to create an alternate universe where the entire intelligence apparatus of the US has been trying to overthrow and attack Trump. Because that isn't true, and conspiratorial plots like this don't actually happen outside of books and movies.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Go ahead. Piss in the wind, like Mueller, Comey, and McCabe did. See where it gets you. How many on Crossfire Hurricane were fired? How many on the Mueller probe? I guess facts don't matter, huh? nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 06:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

No, those facts don't matter, they are immaterial. As I've said again and again and again, no one can take what you say seriously about this issue because, like Trump, you don't believe the central tenet of this investigation; The Russian government, through a coordinated effort of hacking and misinformation, influenced the 2016 presidential election in support of and to benefit Donald Trump. If you can't agree with that FACT, then nothing you say matters.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

If that alleged "fact" is true, we will find out if there was a legal basis to begin the Crossfire Hurricane counterintelligence investigation and later Special Counsel criminal investigation; if not, you're ignoring the real national security threat to the United States, the threat to the integrity of elections, and threat to American democracy. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 16:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

It is a fact! CIA, FBI, DNI all support that conclusion. The legal basis for one portion of the investigation is immaterial. And your correct there is a national security threat, from foreign actors interfering in future elections. How is this so difficult? A foreign nation targeted one of the most critical things to American Democracy, and your fucking spinning conspiracies about a plot to discredit Trump starting in 2015 (that really did a bang up job considering he won), then that the ENTIRE intelligence structure of the US lied about Russian involvement in the election, and then the ENTIRE intelligence structure then conspired to overthrow Trump, including telling him about the investigation, sharing intelligence with him about the investigation, planning on Trump firing the FBI director. And then, that appointment of the SCO was so critical to remove that President, that they didn't make a recommendation to prosecute Trump. That's mind mindbogglingly stupid.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

What is Durham investigating? What is Horowitz investigating? Why? Why did Judge Sullivan accept Flynn's motion? See Fruit of the poisonous tree to see if Papadopolous', Flynn, Manafort, and even Michael Cohen, or the Mueller Report itself, will ever stand up to scrutiny.

Foreigners interfering in U.S. elections? Who paid Christopher Steele? How much did Christopher Steele pay Trubnikov for false information with money from the DNC and Clinton? nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 19:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

First and foremost, none of this shit has anything to do this investigation. Second, that legal concept has nothing to do with the conclusions of the report because presently, there is no legal remedy.

Also Papodoplous, Flynn and Manafort all submitted guilty pleas, including lying to the FBI. Durham and Horowirtz are on legit fishing expeditions to find something, anything for the GOP to use as cover to try to ignore the conclusions of the report, that a foreign government intervened in the 2016 presidential election, and it will most certainly try again in 2020. Sullivan, while granting some reprieve for Flynn, still expects to sentence him in December.

The Steele Dossier has nothing to do with this investigation. It was not a factor in the initial investigation into Russian interference, nor was it a factor into the eventual investigation into connections between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and it most certainly played no role at all in the appointment of the SCO and it's investigation into obstruction of justice. The FBI wasn't even aware of the existence of the document until December 2016, a month after the election and five months after the FBI investigation began in July. Additionally the Washington Free Beacon was the first firm to pay Fusion GPS for the dossier until May 2016, and Clinton camp hired multiple law firms, including Fusion GPS for opposition research after that fact.

Stop talking about the Steele dossier. It is immaterial, and not important to this page or to the investigation as a whole.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

* FBI wasn't even aware of the existence of the document until December 2016

Duh, the FBI & DOJ used the Steele dossier forthe October 21, 2016 Carter page FISA warrant. They had most of it in mid August, had two months to vet it, found nothing, and lied to the FISA court.

And since when is no probable cause necessary to begin any investigation? or since when is illegal FISA 702 queries probable cause? Judge Collyer already ruled it happened. And it began happening on a massive scale about November 2015, when (a) Papadopoulos and Mifsud started working together; (b) Strzok asked Lisa Page if all their European "lures" were in place; (c) Nellie Ohr started working for FusionGPS doing illegal FISA 702 queries; (d) a bunch of other stuff I can't remember off the top of my head, but Durham and Horowitz are looking into. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 03:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

How can you say duh when I literally refuted your central point, then go on to add more random bullshit. All of this is immaterial, none of your wild conspiracy theories are based on anything except conjecture and fantasy. The Steele Dossier has nothing to do with this investigation. ditto the fucking FISA warrants. There is likely evidence of FISA court abuse, but likely that's for its use as a whole, not specifically for it's use in this case. There is definitely bi-partisan support for the government spying on American citizens in less than legal ways.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Actually I blame Republicans for this mess. They loosened the rules on the FISA Act with Amendments to the Patriot Act in 2006 and got Democrats to go along with it; Laws that were intended to be applied against al Qaeda, drug cartels, and the mafia, Barack Obama applied against Republicans. When this whole thing got started in 2015, the FBI, CIA, DNC, and Clinton campaign were going to smear the Republican nominee no matter who it was. (They were kinda hoping for Trump cause he supposedly would be the easiest to beat).

Even with the 2006 Amendments making it easier to surveill "national security threats", Obama, Brennan and company still violated the law. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 19:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Again, rational thought, followed by unhinged conspiracy. There is no evidence that this was used specifically to target Republicans. How it managed to continue to pick up Republicans says more about what charlatans choose to align themselves with the GOP. Also, this has nothing to do with the investigation, the report or this page. Find somewhere else to spin your bullshit.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The "lures" were in place in December 2015, well in advance of the primaries. Judge Sullivan has already ordered Mueller's prosecutors and the FBI to disclose the lures (we already know who they are, Halper, Mifsud, and crew). Mueller's prosecutors have til October 14 to disclose who they were. The FBI is stalling. They don't want to comply with the court order. If they don't comply, Flynn walks. Then you have to rewrite a bunch of this stuff. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 11:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Lol Flynn isn't walking. And those "lures" are complete bollocks. This conspiracy you've created is so uninspired, honestly I don't even think your trying, which good less work for me, but maybe the reality is finally settling in: There is no grand conspiracy, only a series of bumbling mistakes from a narcissist.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

In the Flynn case there are two likely scenarios (listed in order of probability): (1) the Mueller team fails to comply with Judge Sullivan's Brady order (order to provide exculpatory evidence); at which point Flynn's conviction is thrown out. (2) The Mueller team complies with the Brady order, and the whole Obamagate fraud is exposed; here's some of the evidence the judge has ordered to be given to the defense:

The unredacted Page-Strzok text messages as well as text messages, emails and other electronic communications to, from, or between Andrew McCabe, James Comey, Rod Rosenstein, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, John Carlin, Aaron Rouse, Carl Ghattas, Andrew Weissmann, Tashina Gauhar, Michael Steinbach, [redacted], and Zainab Ahmad, regarding Mr. Flynn or the FISA applications or any surveillance (legal or illegal) that would have reached Mr. Flynn’s communications.
Any Sally Yates 302s or other notes that concern Mr. Flynn, including treatment of her meetings with FBI Agents on January 24 and 25, 2017, her meetings with anyone in the White House, and the draft 302 of the Flynn interview on January 24 she reviewed or was read into. (Yates and Comey were original signers of the October 21, 2016 Carter Page FISA warrant).
Information identifying reporters paid by Fusion GPS and/or the Penn Quarter group to push “Russia Collusion,” communications regarding any stories about Mr. Flynn, and any testimony or statements about how the reporters were used by the government regarding Mr. Flynn. (Penn Quarter Group employed FusionGPS after the DNC & Clinton campaign during the transition and in 2017).
Any information regarding the SCO’s [Special Counsel Office] and DOJ’s destruction of the cell phones of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page (after being advised of the thousands of text messages that evidenced their bias) that has been classified or otherwise not available to the public from the published Inspector General Report.
Any information regarding eradication of cell phone data, texts, emails, or other information belonging to Peter Strzok and Lisa Page that created the “gap” identified by the IG.
Information about any parts of any polygraph examinations failed by Peter Strzok after Mr. Flynn was first the subject of any FBI investigation—authorized or unauthorized.
All FBI 302s, notes, memoranda of James Clapper regarding Mr. Flynn, and the cell phone and home phone records of Mr. Clapper and [WaPo reporter] David Ignatius between December 5, 2016, and February 24, 2017.
The government should be ordered to produce the documents listed in this motion and to preserve all documents including phones, texts, and emails of all Special Counsel team members [emphasis added];

There are 34 other pieces of evidence Judge Sullivan ordered to be turned over to Flynn's defense by October 14. Needless to say, if there were no wrongdoing by the DOJ, FBI, or Mueller team, there's nothing to worry about.

Which brings us to the show cause order why the Mueller team should not be held in contempt. The Mueller team will argue "national security", but given Judge Sullivan and the DOJ's record in Ted Stevens case, and Andrew Wiessmann's record on the DOJ's Enron Task Force, Judge Sullivan is unlikely to buy it. The question at this point, can the Flynn conviction be thrown out without holding Mueller in contempt? Much depends on what information emerges in the FISA abuse report, because of the overlap between what Judge Sullivan ordered Mueller to turn over to the defense and what the IG is investigating. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 18:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

None of this matters. Your speculating and continuing to ignore the obvious evidence to protect your fragile ego.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Wherein we discover that America is secretly Russia, and the plot curdles

(1) When Mifsud is exposed as a Western intelligence operative, the house of cards collapses; (2) these facts (Carter Page is UCE-1) were left out of both the FISA warrant and the Mueller report; (3) P-dop was set up by Western intelligence, and never had any contact with Russian agents. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 22:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The court ruled today the complete unredacted Comey diaries must be release. [1] This is a roadmap of Crossfire Hurricane, complete with unredacted names (Joseph Mifsud, for example) which will rewrite the entire narrative laid out in mainspace. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 00:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The only reason I'm responding to this is because I'm bored but this source is so far-right, their heads are just straight up Pat Buchanan's ass.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Wherein Rob goes completely insane.

Umm, the Senate has its own Democratic Caucus. [2] nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 15:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

But I didn't mention the Senate did I. The context of this paragraph is about the House, because they have to start the impeachment process with an inquiry, then draw up the articles. The Senate must convict. So it doesn't matter who supports it in the Senate because the process won't start without the House.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Duh, you need an impeachable offense for that to happen. Read the IG Comey report. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 18:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Lemme 'splain in simple language. You need valid reason to appoint a Special Counsel The IG Comey carve out report says Comey violated the law in leaking to the press for the purpose of getting SP appointed.

Secondly, you need a valid reason to investigate the Trump campaign for Russian connections; The IG FISA abuse report, Durham investigation, and Senate Judiciary will answer that question.

You're pissing up a rope here. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 18:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

What the fuck does that have to do with me removing Sanders name from the article. Also the report said Comey violated policy not the law. They also aren't pursuing legal action so it's definitely moot.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

All your doing is documenting Obama administration and the Democrats abuse of power.

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Comey carve out report (page 56-57):

Comey told the OIG that he made the decision to provide the contents of Memo 4, through Richman, to The New York Times so that the President's request of Comey to “let[] Flynn go” would be in “the public square.” At the time, as Comey knew from his work as FBI Director, the FBI had an ongoing investigation of Flynn that included examining Flynn's contacts with the Russian Ambassador.91 Comey said he believed disclosing the President's statement would “change the game” by creating “extraordinary pressure on the leadership of the Department of Justice, which [Comey did] not trust,” to appoint a Special Counsel, who would preserve any potential tapes of his conversations with the President. Comey said his view at the time was that “if the world knew there might be tapes of Donald Trump asking me to drop an investigation, there would be tremendous pressure for [the Deputy Attorney General] to hand it to an independent prosecutor.” Comey also said he believed that this was something he was “uniquely situated to do” as a private citizen, but that he chose to do this through an intermediary because he did not want to respond to questions from reporters. Comey violated FBI policy and the requirements of his FBI Employment Agreement when he chose this path. By disclosing the contents of Memo 4, through Richman, to The New York Times, Comey made public sensitive investigative information related to an ongoing FBI investigation, information he had properly declined to disclose while still FBI Director during his March 20, 2017 congressional testimony. Comey was not authorized to disclose the statements he attributed to President Trump in Memo 4, which Comey viewed as evidence of an alleged attempt to obstruct the Flynn investigation and which were relevant to the ongoing Flynn investigation.92 Comey clearly considered the contents of Memo 4 highly sensitive—in fact, as he stated in his June 8, 2017 congressional testimony, Comey and other senior leaders of the FBI had decided not to report the President’s statements to the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General, and to keep the President’s statements “very closely held,” so that the FBI leadership could “figure out what to do with it down the road as our investigation progressed.” Comey placed in the public domain evidence relevant to the investigation of Flynn, and what he clearly viewed as evidence of an attempt to obstruct justice by President Trump. Rather than continuing to safeguard such evidence, Comey unilaterally and without authorization disclosed it to all. By his own admission, Comey disclosed the contents of Memo 4 in an attempt to force the Department to take official investigative actions—to appoint a Special Counsel and preserve any tapes as evidence....Comey’s own, personal conception of what was necessary was not an appropriate basis for ignoring the policies and agreements governing the use of FBI records, especially given the other lawful and appropriate actions he could have taken to achieve his desired end.93 Members of Comey’s senior leadership team used the adjectives “surprised,” “stunned,” “ shocked,” and “disappointment” to describe their reactions to learning that Comey acted on his own to provide the contents of Memo 4, through Richman, to a reporter. The unauthorized disclosure of this information—information that Comey knew only by virtue of his position as FBI Director—violated the terms of his FBI Employment Agreement and the FBI's Prepublication Review Policy.94 93 For example, while the FBI Director is not a covered employee under the FBI Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), 5 U.S.C. § 2303, Comey could have legally disclosed the information that concerned him to the OIG, the Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility, the FBI Inspections Division, and Congress, in addition to the Acting FBI Director (who had been Comey’s Deputy Director and with whom Comey had previously shared, through Comey’s then-Chief of Staff, the contents of Memo 4). As noted above, a Department employee who was similarly concerned about the contents of the Memos provided copies of them to the OIG. Comey also was free to speak publicly, without disclosing law enforcement information, about his views of the trustworthiness of the Department’s leadership, his belief that there needed to be a Special Counsel appointed, and his belief that comments made to him by President Trump, combined with Comey’s removal as FBI Director, were an effort to obstruct justice. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 20:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Comey took and released these memo's during the Trump administration, Democrats had zero influence on his decision to release them to the public. And you didn't answer the question, what the fuck does ANY of this have to do with me removing the mention of Sanders?--RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

You still can't see the forest from the trees.

The Mueller investigation was founded on false pretenses.

Comey's actions were illegal with the intent to bring about the Mueller investigation. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 23:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

No. It. Wasn't. The investigation into Russian interactions and the Trump campaign began in October 2016. Mueller wasn't appointed as SCO until May 2017. The purpose of the SCO was to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential Election and efforts to obstruct said investigation by the Trump administration. Stop creating connections where they don't exist. Not everything is a conspiracy. None of the investigations is a coup plot to remove Trump. Every few weeks, you add a new reason why "The investigation was founded on false pretenses", after the last one you said is found to be utter bullshit. It's pathetic.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow. Peter Strzok signed the original papers to begin the Trump-Russia investigation on July 31, 2016 (need a link/links?). Durham is investigating the evidence that the FBI investigation began before that.

You shouldn't even be editing this page if you are that unknowledgeable. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 16:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

So you are referring to a counter-intelligence investigation, which while related, is not the same as the criminal investigation. Also you continue to just blurt out bullshit with literally no zero connection to everything else. Following your logic (which is so painful) Strzok wanted to investigate Trump, because reasons, Comey was intent to hurt Trump (even though his reopening the of HRC email investigation 11 days before the election likely cost her the election), then the FBI and ODNI statement released about election interference was false. Then, because all of this failed, they appoint Mueller to take down Trump. This is so incredibly delusional and easily (like obviously just from public statements, memorandum and Tweets) debunked, it is astounding how you could still entertain it. This is also now the fourth time you have attempted to derail the conversation about this article with bullshit that I'm honestly starting to believe that you think any of your ramblings will have one iota of an effect. Let me make this absolutely clear' nothing that you have to contribute is of any value. None of your ramblings will ever feature in this article. And the only reason you are tolerated at all, is that you are not a serious threat to anything on this site. You can take your bullshit to CP, write all the unhinged conspiracy theories you like, but you know no one finds value in any of your bullshit. Now kindly fuck off.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Q. What criminal investigation began in October 2016?
A. None (by law, FISA cannot be used in criminal investigations). nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 18:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Let me thumbnail it for you, again. Crossfire-Hurricane was a counterintelligence investigation. When Trump fired Comey, Comey alleged Trump was interfering in a counterintelligence investigation (i.e. obstruction of justice, a criminal offense). That allegation sparked the appointment of a Special Counsel. The IG just determined Comey violated the law by leaking classified information to the New York Times which Comey himself admitted to with the intent to spark a Special Counsel investigation. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 19:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

No it fucking didn't. The IG report said Comey violated policy, not the law. The report also said Comey's memo's had confidential information in them, but the specific one released to the NYT did not, and the others had confidential information redacted (also worth mentioning the information had the lowest classification of classified). Also, all of this is nonsensical gibberish, the criminal investigation started by the FBI began in October 2016, was confirmed by Comey to Congress in February, continued until May, when Comey was terminated and was continued again by the SCO. These are the facts, any other bullshit you want to have is unsubstantiated conjecture at best and a cynical ploy to muddle the results of an investigation at worse. Read the fucking report. You might actually learn something of substance.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Show me a link that says an FBI criminal investigation began in October 2016 (and by "link" I don't mean news report. Show a document, with the page number). nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 01:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Fuck off, my life doesn't revolve around this fucking website. I misspoke, this is on page 2 on Volume I

In late July 2016, soon after WikiLeaks's first release of stolen documents, a foreign government contacted the FBI about a May 2016 encounter with Trump Campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos. Papadopoulos had suggested to a representative of that foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. That information prompted the FBI on July 31, 2016, to open an investigation into whether individuals associated with the Trump Campaign were coordinating with the Russian government in its interference activities

And this is on page 7:

Fall 2016. On October 7, 2016, the media released video of candidate Trump speaking in graphic terms about women years earlier, which was considered damaging to his candidacy. Less than an hour later, WikiLeaks made its second release: thousands of John Podesta's emails that had been stolen by the GRU in late March 2016. The FBI and other U.S. government institutions were at the time continuing their investigation of suspected Russian government efforts to interfere in the presidential election. That same day, October 7, the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint public statement "that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations." Those "thefts" and the "disclosures" of the hacked materials through online platforms such as WikiLeaks, the statement continued, "are intended to interfere with the US election process."

So while I admittedly was off on the dates, your evidence is still bullshit.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so you do not understand the difference between a counterintelligence investigation and a criminal investigation. Again, you shouldn't be editing this page. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 02:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Let's recap the facts we know as of now:

Strzok officially initiated the Crossfire Hurricane counterintelligence investigation on July 31, 2016.
U.S. Attorney John Durham and Senate Judiciary chair Lindsey Graham are presently examining the events of March to July 2016.
Chief FISA judge Rosemary Collyer ruled FISA abuse (illegal manipulation of counterintelligence evidence) had been occurring since mid-2012, and particularity since late 2015 (when Mifsud and Popadopoulos began working together and Nellie Ohr was hired by FusionGPS).
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz is investigating FISA abuse since late 2015.
Acting FBI director Andrew McCabe opened a criminal investigation into President Trump on May 10, 2017, alleging that Comey's firing was possibly a criminal act to obstruct a "legitimate" counterintelligence investigation.
James Comey illegally leaked classified documents to the New York Times on May 15, 2017 hoping to create public suspicion that Trump had obstructed justice.
Rod Rosenstein appointed a Special Counsel on May 17, 2017, based on the illegal Comey leaks, to assume control of the criminal investigation. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 03:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

You keep sprinkling in some truth to cover mostly shit. Also go fuck yourself.

Strozk can't "initiate" investigations by himself, the FBI doesn't work like that
They're only doing this to be able to show Trump "Hey we're doing something" when their investigation will likely reveal squat
This entire point is gobbledygook, just because the Federal Gov't was abusing FISA (which I certainly don't doubt) doesn't mean that any FISA warrants were acquired illegally in this case, because if there was evidence to that fact, it would actually be news, rather than the pipe-dreams of various conservative websites who can't imagine that they might possible be the bad guys. Also Fusion GPS/Steele Dossier has nothing to do with the investigation, and people keep conveniently forgetting that information was initially requested by Republicans during the primary.
So what, there is no evidence that this abuse was targeted at the Trump campaign.
The Mueller report does not confirm this so it is irrelevant for this page.
This is false. The memorandum released to the NYT did not contain any classified information. Three other memorandum Comey shared with his lawyers may have contained classified information, but we classified as "Confidential", the lowest level of classification. Comey's actions which he testified under oath to were not to create public suspicions about obstruction of justice and were primarily a response to Trump threatening Comey
Try harder. This is on page 8 of the Mueller report:

"On March 20, 2017, in open-session testimony before HPSCI, Comey stated:

I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part

of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's efforts

to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, and that includes investigating the

nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and

the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the

campaign and Russia's efforts .... As with any counterintelligence investigation,

this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.

The investigation continued under then-Director Comey for the next seven weeks until May 9, 2017, when President Trump fired Comey as FBI Director-an action which is analyzed in Volume II of the report. On May 17, 2017, Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed the Special Counsel and authorized him to conduct the investigation that Comey had confirmed in his congressional testimony, as well as matters arising directly from the investigation, and any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a), which generally covers efforts to interfere with or obstruct the investigation.

Swing and a miss. Maybe try using sources who aren't conspiracy theorists.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Mueller report (cont)[edit]

Politico Aug 6, 2019: Strzok, the former FBI agent who opened the bureau’s Russia probe [3]
NYT Apr 10, 2019: Barr Asserts Intelligence Agencies Spied on the Trump Campaign. “The question is whether it was adequately predicated." [4]
RCL: "if there was evidence to that fact, it would actually be news." This is the focus of IG FISA abuse investigation. Joe diGenova, former United States Attorney for the District of Columbia when the FISA law took effect said "DOJ inspector general found all four Carter Page FISA warrants were illegally obtained." [5]
See #2
You make an interesting point; why did Mueller/Weissmann not specify what date the criminal investigation began? (it is surreptitiously alluded to on pages 89-90, ("On June 14, 2017, when the Washington Post reported that the Special Counsel was investigating the President for obstruction of justice, the President was facing what he had wanted to avoid: a criminal investigation into his own conduct..."). McCabe told 60 Minutes he authorized it "the next day" after Comey's firing. Comey awoke at 3:00 AM after his firing with the spark of an idea: if he leaked the memo where trump said, "I hope you can see your way clear to let this go", he believed he had evidence of a crime - obstruction of justice - which then a Special Counsel could be appointed. Sen. Grassley wrote Rosentein on May 17, 2018 [6] stating

The regulations authorizing the appointment of a special counsel state that the Attorney General (or Acting Attorney General) may appoint a special counsel “when he or she determinations that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted.”18 The Appointment Order proscribes the Special Counsel’s jurisdiction by citing specifically “the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017.”'19 In his March 20 testimony, former Director Comey referred to “the investigation” as a counterintelligence investigation—not a criminal investigation....

More specifically, section 600.1 states the Attorney General “will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted.” The omitted regulations do not authorize counterintelligence investigations.

So there is some question about the legality of Mueller's appointment from the git-go. Supposedly it was clarified in the August 2017 and October 2017 scope memos, which President Trump has ordered to be declassified and made public.

Comey IG report, pgs. 56-57
See Grassley letter, May 18, 2018, and August and October 2017 scope memos (there is some indication there may be more than two scope memos). nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 22:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

1, 2 and 4 are all out of context. For 3, diGenova is not a valid source considering he's a fan of conspiracy theories and was on the short-list to join Trump's legal team. Everything in 5 is conjecture based on nothing, plus a crime doesn't need to have been committed to investigate obstruction of justice. The legality of Mueller's appointment has been sorted in the courts several times [7] [8]. The scope memo's are in the Mueller report:

The Acting Attorney General further clarified the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigatory authority in two subsequent memoranda. A memorandum dated August 2, 2017, explained that the Appointment Order had been “worded categorically in order to permit its public release without confirming specific investigations involving specific individuals.” It then confirmed that the Special Counsel had been authorized since his appointment to investigate allegations that three Trump campaign officials—Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and George Papadopoulos—“committed a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials with respect to the Russian government’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.” The memorandum also confirmed the Special Counsel’s authority to investigate certain other matters, including two additional sets of allegations involving Manafort (crimes arising from payments he received from the Ukrainian government and crimes arising from his receipt of loans from a bank whose CEO was then seeking a position in the Trump Administration); allegations that Papadopoulos committed a crime or crimes by acting as an unregistered agent of the Israeli government; and four sets of allegations involving Michael Flynn, the former National Security Advisor to President Trump.

On October 20, 2017, the Acting Attorney General confirmed in a memorandum the Special Counsel’s investigative authority as to several individuals and entities. First, “as part of a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election,” the Special Counsel was authorized to investigate “the pertinent activities of Michael Cohen, Richard Gates, (DJT Jr.), Roger Stone, and (Jared Kushner)" Confirmation of the authorization to investigate such individuals,” the memorandum stressed, “does not suggest that the Special Counsel has made a determination that any of them has committed a crime.” Second, with respect to Michael Cohen, the memorandum recognized the Special Counsel’s authority to investigate “leads relate[d] to Cohen’s establishment and use of Essential Consultants LLC to, inter alia, receive funds from Russian-backed entities.” Third, the memorandum memorialized the Special Counsel’s authority to investigate individuals and entities who were possibly engaged in “jointly undertaken activity” with existing subjects of the investigation, including Paul Manafort. Finally, the memorandum described an FBI investigation opened before the Special Counsel’s appointment into “allegations that [then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions] made false statements to the United States Senate[,]” and confirmed the Special Counsel’s authority to investigate that matter.

Again this story you're trying to weave is way more complicated and convoluted than the actual facts.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Can we agree, the Crossfire Hurricane counterintelligence investigation officially began on July 31, 2016, and FBI criminal investigation of Donald Trump began after Comey's firing? nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 23:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The report states that a counter intelligence investigation began July 2016. And that an investigation that many believed would uncover criminal wrongdoing May 2017. But those facts are stated in the first 30 or so pages of the report. And these facts are also reflected on the page.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok good. I'm taking that as a "yes". Can we agree the criminal investigation into alleged obstruction of justice began in May, 2017 after Comey's firing? The Mueller report cites no other crimes that Donald Trump was investigated for. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 00:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Tentatively I'm going to agree. However I'm concerned how you plan on connecting this to conspiracy you've been attempting to weave for weeks on end. --RipCityLiberal (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

For that we'll have to wait for any actions by John Durham (which would occur after the IG FISA report, Barr declassification under Trump's Executive Orders, Judge Sullivan's rulings in the Flynn sentencing hearings, Judge Frederick's rulings in the Putin's chef case, CNN v. DOJ (declassification of the Comey Diaries), and even the Roger Stone case.

I think what you fail to recognize is the Book II of the Mueller report is not built on any solid evidence; it is built entirely upon press clippings (i.e. fake news reports, like Comey's illegal leaks).

What I'm trying to do is help you from compiling anymore damning evidence against Weissmann, Sally Yates, John Carlin, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Zaineb Ahmed and others.

You should step back and look at the larger picture. if there were any substance here in the Mueller report at all, Nadler would be using it. Instead, Nadler now is concocting a theory that "obstruction of justice" was to cover trump's affair with Stormy Daniels, not any connection involving the Russians. Nadler himself knows there is no path to impeachment there, he himself argued against using the Special Counsel report as a basis of impeachment as ranking Democrat in the Clinton impeachment hearings. (Citing Michael Cohen's conviction will backfire - it was the false allegations against Cohen, i.e., that Cohen had traveled to Prague - that exposed FISA abuse. The only way the Stormy Daniels case became public was through FISA abuse, and wp:Parallel construction a separate case was built against Cohen. They were looking for Russian connections by abusing the FISA database, and all they came up with was Stormy Daniels. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 15:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ IOW, the Mueller Report corroborates FISA abuse. Christopher Steele alleged that Michael Cohen had traveled to Prague to meet Russian agents. Another Michael Cohen with the same year of birth had traveled to Prague. That information came from an illegal FISA 702 "about query".

How did Christopher Steele and FusionGPS gain access to the FISA database after the NSA cutoff outside contractor access? nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 15:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

and there you go off the fucking rails. Volume II is built almost exclusively from interviews and tweets. Interviews from McGahn are the most damning because not only was he directed to remove the SCO, but then was asked to lie about it when it was discovered. Funny you should mention Cohen, considering he was sentenced to prison because he lied for and at the benefit of the President. He also has evidence of conversations about the payments to Daniels and checks getting paid for the pay off.

Also nothing in the investigation gives a shit about FusionGPS or the Steele Dossier, only loonies keep bringing it up. --RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Good. Focus on what the Horowitz FISA abuse investigation says about Cohen. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 00:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

literally it will not matter. --RipCityLiberal (talk) 07:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

NYT and WaPo both today say the info you put in yesterday is bullshit. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 18:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Funny cause WaPo seems to confirm CNN's reporting. The consensus seems to be that this process may have already started before the incident, but was accelerated or prioritized afterwards. This source is likely also a major contributor to Vol. I.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the extraction is related to Strzok's text to Lisa page, December 15, 2016: "our sisters [CIA] have begun leaking like mad." [9] The sister agencies, CIA & DNI, more specifically Brennan and Clapper, were writing the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) at the time, and seeding the media with Russia collusion stories. This of course put international media scrutiny on the intelligence community about what they knew and how they knew it. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 20:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh new conspiracy, also bullshit. Fuck outta here with that.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

You need to read the WaPo article closer. It shoots down CNN's bulshit, which has been discredited everywhere.

Admittedly, there is something interning going on at CNN; James Clapper testified under oath to HPSCI that he indeed did illegally leak to Jake Tapper of CNN on January 10, 2017, the fact Trump had been briefed by Comey on the salacious material, providing the news hook for CNN to report the golden shower stuff. Tapper now this past week has denied it. Which CNN flunky now is lying, Tapper or Clapper? If Clapper, should he be prosecuted? (and why would he have claimed to have violated the law if he didn't do it?) If Tapper, Why?

IOWs, this is the second bullshit story put out by CNN in a week as Durham gives Brennan and Clapper a colo-rectal exam. You'd do best to avoid CNN as any kind of source, outside the bullshit Andrew Weissmann cited in Volume II. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 00:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, no. CNN is a fine source, I would be much more concerned if all reporting was identical instead of different shades of the same general idea that the CIA is afraid Trump will expose assets and reveal classified information for shits and giggles and endanger sources and methods. You also continue to misunderstand the purpose of leaks and that they are not inherently illegal.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

See now you're admitting on the record to being a fake news source yourself rather than just being duped by fake news. Propaganda 101: Exaggerated and false statements generate sympathy for the intended victim and reflect negatively on the accuser. Examples:
*The Jews knocked down the World Trade Center.
*Bush stole the Florida Recount.
*Saddam has WMD.
*Obama was born in Kenya.
*Clinton should be impeached.
*The CIA killed Kennedy.
*The holocaust never happened.
In all these statements you see the boomerang effect - the source perpetuating the false statement is historically stigmatized and discredited, and the intended victim is exonerated. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 16:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

This is absolute bollocks. And considering you have peddled in many of these conspiracies, mildly hilarious. Fake news and propaganda are different tools, with similar goals. Fake News is primarily perpetrated by actors creating fictitious news sites filled with a combination of stories skewed to a certain (often right-wing) political persuasion and stories that are wholly fictitious, with fake quotes, fake journalists and fake sources. The purpose is to blur the line between what is true and what isn't with the intention to misinform. Propaganda is similar, but may simply exaggerate events or add details favorable to the party involved, often times with the purpose to inspire the public. Fake News is a primary tool of misinformation, mistrust and disinformation. Propaganda is a primary tool of nationalism.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Update on the Flynn case[edit]

Looks like the Mueller team is in a bit of trouble:

Flynn motion (page 9): The government should be ordered to produce the documents listed in this motion and to preserve all documents including phones, texts, and emails of all Special Counsel team members; that the government be ordered to show cause why the prosecutors in this matter should not be held in contempt for their failures to produce all information pursuant to this Court’s Standing Order of February 16, 2018; and that after hearing and full consideration of the facts and law, this Court find the prosecutors in contempt for their failure to respect and abide by this Court’s order...
Judge Sullivan (page 12): it is hereby ORDERED that said motion is GRANTED. The government is hereby ORDERED to show cause why it should not be held in contempt for its violations of this Court’s Standing Brady Order...The government is also ordered to take all steps necessary to preserve all forms of electronic communications, cell phones, and computers of all members of Special Counsel team and the Department of Justice or FBI who communicated with Lisa Page and/or Peter Strzok, whose devices were destroyed. The government is also ordered to preserve all documents that mention Mr. Flynn. [10] nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 02:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

This means jack shit. Just Flynn's defense team trying to create conflict.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

It's already been ordered. The Mueller team has to produce 40 items of evidence that have been suppressed. We're looking at serious prosecutorial misconduct if they comply. If they don't, we're looking at the Mueller Team held in contempt, the conviction thrown out, and case dismissed. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 04:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Tell ya wut, I'll thumbnail one of the big issues (among dozens): Go back to the week of December 5, 2017. Days after Flynn entered his guilty plea (a} the judge was recused; (b) Strzok-Page text messages made public; (c) Strzok, who Flynn allegedly lied to, was revealed to have been fired from the Mueller team for misconduct; (d) Bruce and Nellie Ohr bullshit made public; (e) a bunch of other evidence that was never given to the defense. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 04:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Dude none of this matters. There is a constant conflict in litigation about evidence and information sharing, and it's also a common tactic to delay proceedings by asking for access to documents. This could be something big, but more then likely it's nothing. Stop trying to create a conspiracy when the more likely answer is incompetence or obfuscation.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

So if Andy McCabe get's indicted, the guy who sent Strzok to interview Flynn, that has no bearing in the outcome of the Flynn case, the Durham investigation, or veracity of the Mueller report? More specifically, Andy McCabe, the guy who opened the criminal investigation on Trump, paving the way for appointment of a Special Prosecutor. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 02:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Proof reading[edit]

Wherein Rob bitches because the report contains too few wild flights of fancy

This language is awful:

the handling of the Clinton email investigation (which is rich considering Director Comey took the highly unusual step of announcing the conclusion of the investigation

The next sentence says, "The administration had asked the Justice Department to provide a rationale to fire Director Comey, which was written by Mr. Rosenstein" which specifically faulted Comey for taking "the highly unusual step of announcing the conclusion of the investigation". nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 06:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I misspoke in my edit summaries: it is Judge Dabney Friedrich. Sorry.

These may help correcting the serious errors surrounding Mueller's use of the term, "active measures" applied to Internet Research Agency (owned by Concord Management).

Mueller Tied to Double Deception: First in Court, Then Before Congress, By Paul Sperry, RealClearInvestigations, August 7, 2019.
U.S.A. vs. Concord Management, TRANSCRIPT OF MOTIONS HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, May 28, 2019.
U.S.A. vs. Concord Management, Memorandum, Opinion and Order, July 1, 2019.

Excerpted from the May 28 transcript:

“The government shall refrain from making or authorizing any public statement that links the alleged conspiracy in the indictment to the Russian government. Willful failure to do so in the future will result in the initiation of contempt proceedings.”

Excerpts from the Sperry article:

"The judge explained that Mueller’s report improperly referred to the defendants’ “social media operations” as one of “two principal interference operations in the 2016 U.S. presidential elections” carried out by the Russian government. She also pointed out that he also referred to their Internet trolling as “active measures” — a term of art that typically includes operations conducted by Russian intelligence to influence international affairs. She said this was a departure from the government’s original February 2018 indictment, which “does not link the defendants to the Russian government" and “alleges only private conduct by private actors."
"Friedrich further directed the prosecution to make clear that its allegations are simply that and “remain unproven.” She also admonished Mueller’s team from expressing "an opinion on the defendant’s guilt or innocence." nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 07:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

None of those sources are reputable and your "citation needed" bullshit is unnecessary because I cover all that shit later. Also read better. If you want me to dunk on you constantly I will, but it's getting embarrassing frankly. RipCityLiberal (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

A federal judge is not reputable? You are not acting in good faith and your work is crap. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 08:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

No because your first source is bullshit, and your second source has fucking nothing to do with this. You're trying to create a conspiracy, when I'm literally just reading the report.RipCityLiberal (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ In this sentence,

Large portions describing the Internet Research Agency have been redacted for "Harm to an Ongoing Matter" or "Investigative Technique", likely because the IRA and IRA assets have been indicted, and the indictment is sealed until they are in custody (Which more than likely will never ever happen) ..."..

it appears you have USA v. Concord (aka Internet Research Agency or "troll farm factory") confused with indictment of 12 Russian nationals (or GRU indictments). The "Harm to an Ongoing Matter" is USA v. Concord, nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 15:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

No I don't have anything confused, because it's FUCKING REDACTED. I don't know what that portion details, no one but the investigators and the AG do. You are trying to create connections where there aren't any. And again, read the fucking report, then maybe you'll actually understand.RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

More background:

Concord Management and the End of Russiagate?, By Daniel Lazare, Constriumnews, July 12, 2019.

"the only evidence that Mueller puts forth in the public version of his report is a New York Times article from February 2018 entitled “Yevgeny Prigozhin, Russian Oligarch Indicted by US, Is Known as ‘Putin’s Cook.’”

It’s a case of trial by press clip that should have been laughed out of court – and now, more or less, it is."

The IRA (Concord management)'s defense demanded more evidence in discovery. None was forthcoming. The Mueller team had been warned before, between February 2018 and May 2019 to stop linking IRA to the Russian government in public comments. The May 2019 threat of a contempt citation for poisoning the jury pool and denying the IRA the right to a fair trial was not the first.

 nobs^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 16:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much more clear I can make this. I am just taking the things in the Mueller report and summarizing it for layman. I didn't add anything. So unless it's in the report, I don't care. Stop trying to connect all this bullshit together, AND READ THE FUCKING REPORT. RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Okeedokey. We already got one federal judge saying the Mueller report is bullshit. We got Mueller himself walking back claims. USA v. Concord hasn't reached a verdict yet. We've yet to hear from Horowitz and Durham. And Barr has 10 days to comply with the President's declassification order.

I wouldn't put too much stock in Mueller report at this point; you'll end up walking it all back later.

And this will be a major 2020 election year issue. If Andrew Weissmann couldn't figure how to paper over all this government abuse, I doubt you have the ability to do so, either. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 21:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Processes[edit]

An understanding of processes might be helpful. I'll give three illustrations leading up to the fourth which is ongoing.

In the 1973 Saturday Night massacre (in which no one was killed, an example of fake news), the President ordered the AG to fire the Special Counsel; AG refused and resigned; the Deputy AG refused to carryout the Presidential Executive Order and resigned; the third in line, the Solicitor General finally executed the Order.
In 2018, the President ordered the AG to instruct the Special Counsel to wrap up the investigation. The AG was recused and resigned; the Acting AG assumed control over the investigation and instructed the Special Counsel to terminate the investigation and write a final report.
In January 2017 the President issued an Executive Order instructing the Acting Attorney General to implement a travel ban on visa holders from 7 countries. The Acting AG refused to carry out the order and was terminated.

In these examples the President was legally acting with Executive authority. When a department head refuses to carny out an executive instruction, the President simply keeps firing people until a person is found within the department or agency who carries out the order. This is how Executive power and authority is exercised. Which brings us to now.

Some 82 or 83 days ago the President issued an Executive Order placing the DNI for purposes of the Order beneath the AG. The AG is authorized to declassify documents within the intelligence community (mostly from FBI, DOJ, CIA, and State Department) related to Crossfire Hurricane and the Mueller Investigation within 90 daays. The DNI refused and resigned. The Deputy DNI refused and resigned. An Acting DNI, Adm. McGuire, appears ready to comply with the Executive Order. If he refuses in the next week, he'll be terminated until someone within the agency (ODNI) complies.

These documents are:

All versions of the Carter Page FISA applications (DOJ) (FBI) (ODNI).
~~All of the Bruce Ohr 302’s filled out by the FBI. (FBI) (ODNI)~~
All of Bruce Ohr’s emails (FBI) (DOJ) (CIA) (ODNI). All supportive documents and material provided by Bruce Ohr to the FBI. (FBI)
All relevant documents pertaining to the supportive material within the FISA application. (FBI) (DOJ-NSD ) (DoS) (CIA) (DNI) (NSA) (ODNI);
All intelligence documents that were presented to the Gang of Eight in 2016 that pertain to the FISA application used against U.S. person Carter Page; including all intelligence documents that may not have been presented to the FISA Court. (CIA) (FBI) (DOJ) (ODNI) (DoS) (NSA) Presumably this would include the recently revealed State Dept Kavalac email; and the FBI transcripts from wiretaps of George Papadopoulos (also listed in Carter Page FISA). [AKA ‘Bucket Five’]
All unredacted text messages and email content between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok on all devices. (FBI) (DOJ) (DOJ-NSD) (ODNI)
The originating CIA “EC” or two-page electronic communication from former CIA Director John Brennan to FBI Director James Comey that started Operation Crossfire Hurricane in July 2016. (CIA) (FBI) (ODNI)

Some of the documents relate to Russian interference which the Mueller investigation never fulfilled in its mandate. In the case of CNN vs. FBI, the government has yet to comply with a court order to release unredacted versions of Comey's memos, of which there are dozen's more than the 11 that are publicly known.

So the centipede has yet to drop about 500 more shoes which will squash the Mueller Report, and it will be removed from the non-fiction section over to the fiction section with Huckleberry Flynn and Tom Sawyer at the public library. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 16:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Before you get further invested in disinformation, lies, and bullshit, it should be noted Vice President Joseph Biden's IT guy is Guccifer 2.0. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 17:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Citations about Mifsud being a Russian intelligence asset are needed; all evidence points to Mifsud being a Western asset.

Evidence for a DNC hack by the GRU is needed; the Roger Stone case is producing evidence that this is not the case. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 20:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Flynn investigation[edit]

Wherein we find out Flynn is secretly a triple agent.

Michael Flynn came under investigation for a Foreign Agents Registration Act violation for publishing this article in The Hill, the day after the election. There is an editors note at the bottom saying Flynn was paid $530,000 by the Turkish government which was added months later in the Spring of 2017.

The FBI did not begin its investigation for his conversation with Kisylak, the Mueller Report makes this clear (page 26). nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 23:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Soooo....was Flynn an paid agent of a NATO ally or colluding with Russia? nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 02:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

you're reaching. The charges were for failing to register as a foreign agent. He first came under scrutiny for lying about his conversation with Ksylak. Also Turkey is a part of NATO but largely they've pitted the west and Russia against each other, hence purchasing a weapons system from Russia and getting booted from the F-35 program. --RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Try that again. You left out a few keywords or thoughts.

One thing is certain: Flynn did not first come under investigation because of his conversation with Kislyak.

Gotta love the next sentence: The Washington Post got a wiff of this story on January 12, 2017; never mind the fact that leaking classified information by yet unknown persons is a bigger crime (which Horowitz and Durham are investigating now) than Flynn lying to the FBI. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 22:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

If you bothered to read the report you would see that's bullshit. Also that Flynn lied about his contact with Kislyak leaking isn't a crime. It was a warning shot by someone who wanted to see Flynn sacked, so probably someone in the administration. --RipCityLiberal (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Leaking classified information is a serious crime. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 06:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Not sure this counts as "classified". There is a lot of over classification in the federal government. I seriously doubt the consequences would be much more than a reprimand or at worse termination.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

18 U.S.C. 798 states:

“Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates…to an unauthorized person, or publishes…any classified information obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 16:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah awesome you know how Google works. That statute wouldn't apply. The person leaking would have to know how the information was obtained, which would be hard to confirm. Also that includes the phrase classified information which is vague at best, because this might not have actually been classified, or perhaps it was classified at a level below where the DOJ would care. You're reaching again.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The person leaking is an authorized person who knows where the information came from. David Ignatius of WaPo is an unauthorized person. Dir. Rogers of the NSA has it narrowed down to 20 persons; Horowitz and Durham will locate the specific individual. There is a paper trail. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 17:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

This literally doesn't matter. It has nothing to do with the Mueller investigation, except within your weird conspiracy theory which isn't worth shit.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Let me get this straight now: Flynn was under investigation for illegal lobbying for a NATO ally, but fake news reports claimed he was a Russian agent, which this article uses as sources which are directly contradicted by the Mueller Report. I should bring a coop case for inserting False and libelous information in a Rationalwiki article. And it doesn't have be done maliciously. You've proven negligence already. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 18:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Jesus-tap dancing-Christ you are so thick it's a wonder you can use a computer. Let me explain this to you in the simplest way fucking possible:

Flynn calls Kislyak
Russia doesn't respond
Kislyak says call sent to the highest levels of Russian Gov't
Story comes out about Flynn call
Flynn denies call
FBI asks Flynn about call, lies to FBI
DOJ begins investigating Flynn
SCO continues DOJ investigation
Flynn breaks JDA, cooperates with SCO
Flynn pleads guilty to lying to FBI and unrelated failing to register as a foreign agent

Clear enough for you? -RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Nope. #1-#3 are job responsibilities of the National Security Advisor designee, defined by law in the transition phase. #4 was a crime done by an Obama administration official punishable by 10 years, twice that of #6 punishable by five years. #7 is contradicted by the Mueller Report.

Evidently you are unaware of the Horowitz and Durham investigations, as well as the now 18 month long sentencing phase of the Flynn trial. I'd withhold marrying yourself to any narrative at this point. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 18:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

And I'll answer you coop case question here to avoid dritying up the Coop page: Above you posted: I am just taking the things in the Mueller report and summarizing it for layman. I didn't add anything. So unless it's in the report, I don't care. Stop trying to connect all this bullshit together, AND READ THE FUCKING REPORT. You rejected RealClearInvestigations as valid source. I cited the Mueller Report and Bongolian overwrote it with more uncited libelous information impugning Gen. Flynn as a Russian agent. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 18:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

No, the incoming administration can't call a foreign government and tell them not to respond to actions taken by the current administration and promise they will be reversed in the upcoming administration. That is a violation of the Logan Act. Again your reaching for some grand conspiracy which isn't there. Tell me exactly where in the Mueller report the DOJ didn't begin examining Flynn. Because on page 26:

Members of the intelligence community were surprised by Russia's decision not to retaliate in response to the sanctions. When analyzing Russia's response, they became aware of Flynn's discussion of sanctions with Kislyak. Previously, the FBI had opened an investigation of Flynn based on his relationship with the Russian government. Flynn's contacts with Kislyak became a key component of that investigation.

Then he tries to cover his lie on page 29:

Flynn directed McFarland to call the Washington Post columnist and inform him that no discussion of sanctions had occurred. McFarland recalled that Flynn said words to the effect of, "I want to kill the story." McFarland made the call as Flynn had requested although she knew she was providing false information, and the Washington Post updated the column to reflect that a "Trump official" had denied that Flynn and Kislyak discussed sanctions.}}

Then page 30 is the coup de grace:

The public statements of incoming Administration officials denying that Flynn and Kislyak had discussed sanctions alarmed senior DOJ officials, who were aware that the statements were not true. Those officials were concerned that Flynn had lied to his colleagues-who in turn had unwittingly misled the American public-creating a compromise situation for Flynn because the Department of Justice assessed that the Russian government could prove Flynn lied. The FBI investigative team also believed that Flynn's calls with Kislyak and subsequent denials about discussing sanctions raised potential Logan Act issues and were relevant to the FBI's broader Russia investigation....

...On January 24, 2017, Flynn agreed to be interviewed by agents from the FBI. During the interview, which took place at the White House, Flynn falsely stated that he did not ask Kislyak to refrain from escalating the situation in response to the sanctions on Russia imposed by the Obama Administration. Flynn also falsely stated that he did not remember a follow-up conversation in which Kislyak stated that Russia had chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of Flynn's request.

Actually try to read the report before you try to talk shit.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

And yes Paul Sperry and any of his work is not a reliable source.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I already posted the link to the Mueller report, but somebody reverted it. Here it is again, page 26.

You've married yourself to a false narrative. I suggest taking a step back until (1) The IG Fisa abuse report is public; (2) Durham's actions and possible indictments; (3) Flynn's sentencing phase is completed (it's supposed to take 90 days; it is in its 21st month already).

Also (4) Trump's declassification Executive Order, which includes, I believe, a transcript of the Flynn/Kisylak conversation.

The National Security Advisor designee is required and protected by the Presidential Transition Act to have contact with foreign counterparts.

There is evidence Flynn may have been under surveillance prior to Nov. 8, 2019, when he engaged in unregistered lobbying for Turkey (This is the subject of the Horowitz FISA 702 abuse investigation). nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 19:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

That isn't a link to Mueller Report, this is the link: https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf . FISA, Durham are totally unrelated. Flynn's sentencing is taking longer because he continues to cooperate with the government, and we are never going to ever read the transcript of the Kislyak call (it would threaten sources and methods). Also the Presidential Transition Act of '63 and '88 mention nothing about communication with foreign govt's. Again you're full of shit.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Your out of the loop; Flynn ended his cooperation agreement with Mueller two months ago. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 20:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Flynn's case was never about Russia. It was always, and remains, about unregistered lobbying for a NATO ally. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 20:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Did I say the SCO? No I said cooperation with the Gov't. Especially considering his presiding judge isn't a big fan it'll probably be a while longer before he's sentenced.

No it wasn't. It only came about after investigating his Russia ties. Cause you know there is a picture of him with Putin.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll thumbnail the issue for you: Flynn was paid by Turkish front organization operating out of the Netherlands to write the Nov. 8, 2016 Hill article (actually, the article likely was written by them and Flynn just added his name to it). Flynn now argues he did not know the Turkish front group was connected to the Turkish government, hence the Foreign Agents Registration Act didn't apply. The DOJ knew the front group was connected to the Turkish government. How did the DOJ know the front group was connected to the Turkish government? Evidence suggests FISA abuse and illegal domestic spying. This is what Judge Sullivan is demanding an answer to. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 20:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

That was not why he was investigated. I remember when that article dropped thinking it was strange. But the reason, which is spelled out in the report, that the FBI and DOJ were investigating Flynn, were possible Russian connections, and his conversation with Kislyak (as well as his denial that he had the conversation at all). Any thing else unrelated to this is speculation at best or being knowingly deceitful at worse. Essentially your argument boils down to some investigation revealing a sinister cabal, which it won't, and that people have intentionally been targeting Flynn, rather than the more obvious answer that Flynn lied and got caught. Also I seem to recall a few months back you counted yourself among those that Bob Mueller would reveal real criminal wrongdoing by HRC (i.e. Q Anon). RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

the reason, which is spelled out in the report, that the FBI and DOJ were investigating Flynn, were possible Russian connections

We'll have to wait til the FISA abuse report to determine the truth or falsity of this statement. The Mueller Report specifically states Flynn was under investigation prior to the Kislyak conversation, which was not illegal.

You also seem to recall bullshit.

Then we have this gem inserted by Bongolian: If you think it's wrong for the incoming administration to be communicating policy with a foreign government, while another administration is in office, congratulations, you've identified a crime.

So, (a) John Kerry telling the Iranian government to wait out the Trump administration is a crime. Nice to know. (b) So would be anyone connected to a presidential candidate communicating with the government of China about the trade war. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 22:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ You still haven't answered the fundamental question: How is an unregistered agent of a NATO ally, who was forced by the DOJ to register, considered by the DOJ an agent of NATO's biggest rival? nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 23:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

John Kerry didn't use his authority as an official representative of any administration, big fucking difference. Also I wrote that, I wrote 95% of this so keep @Bongolian's name out of your mouth. No one gives a shit about that question Rob because it doesn't fucking matter. Manafort was also an unregistered foreign agent of Ukraine, also a US ally. Your constant misunderstanding of diplomacy and statecraft must be a reason to why could support anything close to the Trump administrations foreign policy.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Judge Sullivan gives a shit - that's why sentencing has been delayed for nearly two years. And Manafort's cohort, Obama White House General Counsel Greg Craig, currently is standing trial for the same offense - unregistered lobbying with Manafort in 2014 prior to Obama appointing Craig General Counsel. What did Obama know and when did he know it? nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 23:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

My god your conspiracy is so outlandish. The judge is delaying because Flynn is still cooperating, Greg Craig was White House Counsel for one year leaving in 2010. And I'm cool with him being charged as foreign agent, he actually went to trial, Manafort pled guilty cause the evidence against him was overwhelming. Focus on the facts, not the conjecture and speculation.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

You're out of the loop. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 00:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

You're a fucking idiot.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

So blunt smh. Again,

. — Oxyaena ^Harass 15:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Politico Aug 6, 2019: Strzok, the former FBI agent who opened the bureau’s Russia probe
NYT Apr 10, 2019: Barr Asserts Intelligence Agencies Spied on the Trump Campaign. “The question is whether it was adequately predicated."
RCL: "if there was evidence to that fact, it would actually be news." This is the focus of IG FISA abuse investigation. Joe diGenova, former United States Attorney for the District of Columbia when the FISA law took effect said "DOJ inspector general found all four Carter Page FISA warrants were illegally obtained." [11]
See #2
You make an interesting point; why did Mueller/Weissmann not specify what date the criminal investigation began? (it is surreptitiously alluded to on pages 89-90, "On June 14, 2017, when the Washington Post reported that the Special Counsel was investigating the President for obstruction of justice, the President was facing what he had wanted to avoid: a criminal investigation into his own conduct..."). McCabe told 60 Minutes he authorized it "the next day" after Comey's firing. Comey awoke at 3:00 AM after his firing with the spark of an idea: if he leaked the memo where trump said, "I hope you can see your way clear to let this go", he believed he had evidence of a crime - obstruction of justice - which then a Special Counsel could investigate. Sen. Grassley wrote Rosentein on May 17, 2018 [12] stating

The regulations authorizing the appointment of a special counsel state that the Attorney General (or Acting Attorney General) may appoint a special counsel “when he or she determinations that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted.”18 The Appointment Order proscribes the Special Counsel’s jurisdiction by citing specifically “the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017.”19 In his March 20 testimony, former Director Comey referred to “the investigation” as a counterintelligence investigation—not a criminal investigation.

Comey IG report, pgs. 56-57

See Grassley letter, May 18, 2018, and August and October 2017 scope memos (there is some indication there may be more scope memos).

Proof reading[edit]

Wherein Rob bitches because the report contains too few wild flights of fancy

This language is awful:

the handling of the Clinton email investigation (which is rich considering Director Comey took the highly unusual step of announcing the conclusion of the investigation

I misspoke in my edit summaries: it is Judge Dabney Friedrich. Sorry.

These may help correcting the serious errors surrounding Mueller's use of the term, "active measures" applied to Internet Research Agency (owned by Concord Management).

Mueller Tied to Double Deception: First in Court, Then Before Congress, By Paul Sperry, RealClearInvestigations, August 7, 2019.
U.S.A. vs. Concord Management, TRANSCRIPT OF MOTIONS HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, May 28, 2019.
U.S.A. vs. Concord Management, Memorandum, Opinion and Order, July 1, 2019.

Excerpted from the May 28 transcript:

“The government shall refrain from making or authorizing any public statement that links the alleged conspiracy in the indictment to the Russian government. Willful failure to do so in the future will result in the initiation of contempt proceedings.”

Excerpts from the Sperry article:

"The judge explained that Mueller’s report improperly referred to the defendants’ “social media operations” as one of “two principal interference operations in the 2016 U.S. presidential elections” carried out by the Russian government. She also pointed out that he also referred to their Internet trolling as “active measures” — a term of art that typically includes operations conducted by Russian intelligence to influence international affairs. She said this was a departure from the government’s original February 2018 indictment, which “does not link the defendants to the Russian government" and “alleges only private conduct by private actors."
"Friedrich further directed the prosecution to make clear that its allegations are simply that and “remain unproven.” She also admonished Mueller’s team from expressing "an opinion on the defendant’s guilt or innocence." nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 07:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

A federal judge is not reputable? You are not acting in good faith and your work is crap. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 08:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Large portions describing the Internet Research Agency have been redacted for "Harm to an Ongoing Matter" or "Investigative Technique", likely because the IRA and IRA assets have been indicted, and the indictment is sealed until they are in custody (Which more than likely will never ever happen) ..."..

More background:

Concord Management and the End of Russiagate?, By Daniel Lazare, Constriumnews, July 12, 2019.

It’s a case of trial by press clip that should have been laughed out of court – and now, more or less, it is."

 nobs^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 16:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't put too much stock in Mueller report at this point; you'll end up walking it all back later.

Processes[edit]

An understanding of processes might be helpful. I'll give three illustrations leading up to the fourth which is ongoing.

In the 1973 Saturday Night massacre (in which no one was killed, an example of fake news), the President ordered the AG to fire the Special Counsel; AG refused and resigned; the Deputy AG refused to carryout the Presidential Executive Order and resigned; the third in line, the Solicitor General finally executed the Order.
In 2018, the President ordered the AG to instruct the Special Counsel to wrap up the investigation. The AG was recused and resigned; the Acting AG assumed control over the investigation and instructed the Special Counsel to terminate the investigation and write a final report.
In January 2017 the President issued an Executive Order instructing the Acting Attorney General to implement a travel ban on visa holders from 7 countries. The Acting AG refused to carry out the order and was terminated.

These documents are:

All versions of the Carter Page FISA applications (DOJ) (FBI) (ODNI).
~~All of the Bruce Ohr 302’s filled out by the FBI. (FBI) (ODNI)~~
All of Bruce Ohr’s emails (FBI) (DOJ) (CIA) (ODNI). All supportive documents and material provided by Bruce Ohr to the FBI. (FBI)
All relevant documents pertaining to the supportive material within the FISA application. (FBI) (DOJ-NSD ) (DoS) (CIA) (DNI) (NSA) (ODNI);
All intelligence documents that were presented to the Gang of Eight in 2016 that pertain to the FISA application used against U.S. person Carter Page; including all intelligence documents that may not have been presented to the FISA Court. (CIA) (FBI) (DOJ) (ODNI) (DoS) (NSA) Presumably this would include the recently revealed State Dept Kavalac email; and the FBI transcripts from wiretaps of George Papadopoulos (also listed in Carter Page FISA). [AKA ‘Bucket Five’]
All unredacted text messages and email content between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok on all devices. (FBI) (DOJ) (DOJ-NSD) (ODNI)
The originating CIA “EC” or two-page electronic communication from former CIA Director John Brennan to FBI Director James Comey that started Operation Crossfire Hurricane in July 2016. (CIA) (FBI) (ODNI)

Evidence for a DNC hack by the GRU is needed; the Roger Stone case is producing evidence that this is not the case. nobs ^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 20:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Mueller investigation/Archive1

Contents

A start[edit]

If You're Here to Help[edit]

Mueller report (cont)[edit]

Update on the Flynn case[edit]

Proof reading[edit]

Processes[edit]

Flynn investigation[edit]

Proof reading[edit]

Processes[edit]

Navigation menu

Search