Talk:Trump-Russia connection/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 15 May 2019. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

It's not a criminal investigation[edit]

Before anybody gets angry, I'd like to clarify that the Mueller probe is not a criminal investigation, but a counterintelligence investigation. And I'd also like to say that a counterintelligence investigation is much more serious. Mueller's mandate is not to discover criminal activity on part of Trump himself, but to discover whether and how Russia colluded with Trump's entire campaign in 2016.

You may think I'm being pedantic or parsing words, but this is actually a serious distinction. Mueller's counterintelligence mandate gives him a much broader powers to discover how far Russia penetrated our election. This isn't just about uncovering Trump's wrongdoing; this is about counteracting espionage from a hostile foreign power. The scope of the probe can be seen in the fact that there have been around 20 arrests already, along with several indictments against Russian citizens. This is so much bigger than a simple criminal investigation that referring to it as such actually serves to minimize the scope of what's going on.

I'm going to edit the page to reflect this fact in about a day or so unless someone gives me a good reason not to. DuceMoosoliniForum Romanum 18:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Indeedy. But surely the specific part of the investigation that is looking at Trump is not counterintelligence? I mean yes sure looking at the Russia election interference is counterintelligence, but is looking at the Russia-Trump buddy format also counterintelligence, or is that bit criminal? I should know this, but my brain cannot be asked to figure out how the FBI works. Dysklyver (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@Dysklyver The investigation is only relevant to Trump in that he may have been involved in collusion. Mueller's task is to root out anyone and everyone who may have been taking orders from Putin to attack our election. I don't think of it's a criminal investigation, because the primary goal is not to bring charges against Trump. The goal is to counter Russian espionage. A potential impeachment-->indictment against Trump would only be a one result of a successful investigation, not the whole point. And that's how freaking big this is, because the POTUS and his possible crimes are just one piece of the puzzle. DuceMoosoliniForum Romanum 20:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Big stuff then, thanks for clarifying. I think it is probably important to keep focused on Trump (it is a Trump article after all), but some clarity and accuracy would be awesome. And countering Russian espionage is always a good line. Dysklyver (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
It's true the that investigation was started as a counterintelligence operation, but Mueller's mandate is very wide-ranging, and includes any incidental criminal activity that turns up, for example the guilty plea by Richard Pinedo for identity fraud. Bongolian (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, counterintelligence investigations tend to lead to prosecutions against people found to be guilty of espionage. That doesn't change the nature of the beast. DuceMoosoliniForum Romanum 20:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thank you, @DuceMoosolini for this piece of factual information. I support your planned clarification. Nerd (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

It is done. I actually didn't have to change that much; the page is very good as is. DuceMoosoliniForum Romanum 19:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
There's no statutory provision or DOJ regulation providing for a "Special Counsel counterintelligence investigation." Obstruction of Justice is a criminal matter. The FISA Act specifically cannot be used for criminal investigations. Counterintelligence investigations can be open ended; the Venona ProjectWikipedia for example went on for 38 years. nobs piss in my ear 06:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and the only time criminal charges are brought as the result of a counterintelligence investigation is when a counterintelligence investigation fails. The object of a counterintelligence investigation is to disrupt the enemies activity, not to bring prosecution. No one wants to disclose sources and methods in open court to gain a conviction, so they have to frame people up on other bullshit. And since the object of counterintelligence is to discover a network of operators, once an arrest is made, that alerts the whole network they've been exposed. Arrests are the result of a compromised investigation. nobs piss in my ear 07:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Rosenstein Order and Lawfareblog[edit]

Ben Wittes Lawfareblog, you know, the guy who invented the term "insurance policy," published an article that states:

The order appointing Mueller (what I’ll call the “Rosenstein Order”) invokes—and commentators have naturally focused on—the regulations contained in 28 C.F.R. Part 600 (what I’ll call the “Part 600 regulations”), because they expressly authorize the appointment of a Special Counsel. But as I explain below, these regulations do not contemplate the delegation of a counterintelligence investigation to a Special Counsel; they focus on criminal investigations. ... (The Order also authorizes an investigation of matters “that arose or may arise directly from the investigation” or “other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).”) At the same time, the Order declares “applicable” the provisions in the Part 600 regulations, specifically “[s]ections 600.4 through 600.10 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations.”....Part 600 regulations authorize the Attorney General to delegate a criminal investigation—and not a counterintelligence investigation—to a Special Counsel.

It gets into specifics; a Special Counsel has all the authority of a US Attorney, however

Unlike the FBI, however, U.S. Attorneys do not have authority over counterintelligence investigations. A U.S. Attorney, for example, would not seek authorization for counterintelligence surveillance under FISA, but would rather request that a member of the U.S. intelligence community conduct such surveillance...

In summary,

the regulations focus on criminal prosecution. They anticipate a delegation of criminal investigative authority to the Special Counsel (§ 600.1); grant the Special Counsel the powers of a U.S. Attorney to pursue that investigation (§ 600.6); carve out of the grant of power the civil functions of a U.S. Attorney (§ 600.4); and repeatedly refer to the Department’s criminal jurisdiction and authorities as the touchstone for the scope of any investigation (§§ 600.4, 600.8, 600.9). They do not authorize, nor provide the appropriate tools to conduct, a counterintelligence investigation.

Now, Peter Strzok had all the high level FISA clearances and authority to issue National Security Letters (a Patriot Act action allowing police-state warrants without going to court, usually served on third parties like Verizon or Facebook), but when Strzok was fired, Rosenstein's FISA security clearance was suspended as well.. Rosenstein came under IG investigation for FISA abuse. Without Strzok or Rosenstein to look at FISA data, the counterintelligence investigation came to an end, and Mueller brought criminal charges against Papadopolous. nobs piss in my ear 07:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Michael Cohen[edit]

Michael Cohen is not part of the Mueller investigation, and for good reason. Fix it, or risk being called fake news. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 02:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

He is. He was Trump's personal lawyer till very recently, remember? Nerd (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
No it isn't. Cohen is being investigated by the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, not Mueller. Cohen has nothing to do with Trump-Russia. Mueller will not touch the case, and for good reason. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 02:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
This comment aged well. Pilcrowman (talk)
It is possible for an individual to be a subject of multiple different investigations. Read more here. Nerd (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I think we should be clearer that this page is not strictly limited to the Special Prosecutor investigation. For example Maria Butina was charged today with "conspiracy to act as an agent of the Russian Federation, and was ordered held without bond."[1] The charge was not part of the Mueller investigation but by a different branch of the FBI. The complaint states that she was trying "establish a ‘back channel’ communication for representatives of the Government of Russia." Butin has had ties to members of the Trump campaign as well as the NRA. Bongolian (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@Bongolian A new and separate section in the article, perhaps? DuceMoosoliniNovus Forum Romanum 20:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@DuceMoosolini That's fine, but also a clarification in the lead paragraph I think. Bongolian (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@Bongolian @DuceMoosolini Thank you, guys! Please update the page accordingly. Nerd (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)