IN one week the "explosive" report by Mueller will be out . So Do we really care what's in it? SO FAR as I can speculate the report "evidence" is basically what we already have known about Trump and Russians . The investigation and two years of FBI investigation, the prosecutor still lacks evidence of a crime. (1.1)>>Even though there have been incitements of Manafort , Stone , Flynn [ to name a few]. Finding a crime , putting it together in a nutshell with 500 to 1000 pages of "details" of what, when and where is going to make the American audience sleepy . Yet Mueller seeks to probe the chief executive’s motives and thought processes regarding exercises of presidential power that were lawful, regardless of one’s view of their wisdom. You have to thank our (1.2)>>American News media for that last 2 years they have been leaking information as part of their news segments on Trump . [ Thank CNN , MSNBC , FOX , CBS, ABC and NBC ] So we all got a peek at Mueller's report . So IS THERE any Credible evidence of collusion ? Ans: PROBABLY YES , that depends on your point of view . I can only get my Crystal ball and tune in future CNN's BREAKING NEWS . And here is the headline " DONALD TRUMP MUELLER RUSSIAN COLLUSION !" The whole entire news segment{s} will penetrate a whole week of story morbid twists . JUST LIKE THE JUSSIE SMOLETT HOAX . This is going to test the gullibility of the American people . I am asking Americans reading this , DO YOU BELIEVE that the INVESTIGATION EVIDENCE ? If its EVER presented to the public? We may have to read it on Wiki leaks for the matter . FOR US The public, they will say, we shouldn’t expect a comprehensive and presidency-wrecking account of Kremlin meddling and alleged obstruction of justice by Trump — not to mention an explanation of the myriad subplots that have bedeviled lawmakers, journalists and amateur Mueller sleuths. Perhaps most unsatisfying: Mueller’s findings may never even see the light of day. SO what will the Mueller report contain ? This is again speculation on my part , so I had to search online [ Google] Donald Trump Russia Business Dealings . The BIGGEST LIST I FOUND was from [ guess with a cackle ] (2)>>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . I don't want to copy everything in that Wikipedia post , I am vary sure that MUELLER did not use Wikipedia to list all of Trump's past dealings with Russia . YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER TOO that the Whole investigation was started on the theory that Russia meddled in our election , that was the reason that Hillary Clinton lost . The word Collusion was taped over the word meddling replacing it into two years into the investigation . But government investigation experts are waving a giant yellow caution flag now to warn that Mueller’s no-comment mantra is unlikely to give way to a tell-all final report and an accompanying blitz of media interviews and public testimony on Capitol Hill. What is even stranger is that everyone associated with so called prosecuting Trump are either associated with [ have been associated ] Trump , or where connected with investigating Hillary Clinton and her email server . So this council is not exactly an independent from any kind of bias . (3)>>Think FBI Comey for example [ the Mueller investigation is tanted with a close net of people who in fact have known each other for decades : see shorturl.at/ayAVX ] and have somehow been tangled up with Bushes , Clinton's in the past . It’s too not at all obvious that the attorney general (whether it’s current acting attorney general Matthew Whitaker or Trump’s new attorney general pick, William Barr), will want to share the full report more broadly, and President Trump’s attorneys might even try to block its release. Government officials will first get a chance to scrub the special counsel’s findings for classified details [ yea sure the media for 2 years leaked it out ] , though, involving everything from foreign intelligence sources to information gleaned during grand jury testimony that the law forbids the government from disclosing. To be clear, we don’t actually know for sure if Mueller’s strategy is to use court documents to present his findings to the public. But if we consider the sum of the (4)>>information that Mueller has already released publicly [ leaked again] as a kind of “report” to Congress and the electorate, what have we learned? [exactly what the Media already has reported ] NOW what is vary embarrassing about the Mueller report is that contents were somehow leaked to the vary people that he's been the investigating . Last year,Evidence gathered by Robert Mueller, the special counsel, was obtained by Russians and leaked online in an attempt to discredit his inquiry into Moscow’s interference in US politics . What how this came about was not so reported in our mainstream news media. It seems that attorneys from Mueller's side met with Russian attorneys regarding the 13 indictments of alleged Russian hackers , it seems that the State Department was trying to extradite these Russians to face trial in the United States [ never going to happen , but anyway] the Mueller team somehow compromised the evidence to the Russians which erodes the evidence that he has already gathered . SO When Mueller is finished, he must turn in a “confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions” — essentially why he chose to bring charges against some people but not others. His reasoning, according to veterans of such investigations, could be as simple as “there wasn’t enough evidence” to support a winning court case.
NOTES AND COMMENTS:
(1)>>American News media for that last 2 years they have been leaking information as part of their news segments on Trump . For the most part the Mueller investigation lacks "confidentiality" status . Look at Politico article here [ shorturl.at/QWZ68 ] for example most of these indictments are contained in Mueller's report . So the evidence was already leaked to the media . (1.1)>>Even though there have been incitements of Manafort , Stone , Flynn. As for the second purported basis for Mueller’s appointment, the crime of obstruction, it cannot be established by lawful exercises of executive prerogatives. A president, of course, may not subvert an investigation by unlawful actions — e.g., by conspiring to suborn perjury or bribe witnesses (cf. Clinton, Nixon). Illegal acts could amount to actionable obstruction. But the president’s dismissal of subordinate executive officials (such as the FBI director), and his exercise of prosecutorial discretion (by merely weighing in on whether a person — here, Flynn — deserves to be investigated), are constitutional acts that are not judicially reviewable. Executive prerogatives that are not subject to judicial review may not be subjected to judicial review by indirection, under the guise of a prosecution. (2)>>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . see [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_projects_of_Donald_Trump_in_Russia] Trump has a long history of trying to do business in Russia, but despite many efforts and plenty of boasting and angling, he hasn’t managed to land a single major real estate deal there.But that’s only part of the picture. He has partnered with Russian financiers on major projects elsewhere around the world. Russian investors have been instrumental in helping him cope with all the credit problems he has thanks to his serial bankruptcies. And a number of Trump’s former and current advisers have had financial ties to Russia. Trump’s history with Russia dates back to the Soviet era. In 1986, he and Soviet ambassador Yuri Dubinin got to talking about building hotels in Moscow. “One thing led to another, and now I’m talking about building a large luxury hotel across the street from the Kremlin in partnership with the Soviet government,” Trump wrote in in his book Trump: The Art of the Deal. The next year, Dubinin invited Trump to Moscow, where he talked with the Soviet tourist agency about hotel projects. The hotels never came to fruition, but Trump’s interest in Russia has remained ever since. (3)>>Think FBI Comey for example . Just over a week after President Donald Trump fired James Comey as FBI director, the Department of Justice appointed Comey's predecessor, former FBI Director Robert Mueller, as special counsel for the investigation into Russian attempts to influence the 2016 election.The two former FBI chiefs have a unique relationship, stemming in large part from working side by side during a major confrontation with the Bush administration.By sheer coincidence, this week marked 10 years since Comey gave his bombshell testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the showdown with President George W. Bush's White House. It began in 2004, when Comey refused to reauthorize an NSA spying program. Former FBI Director James Comey may also have lied to Congress when he testified that he had not written his report on the Hillary Clinton email scandal before interviewing Clinton. Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan lied under oath to Congress on matters related to surveillance.If so, then the DOJ will have to look at Comey himself and DOJ officials who obstructed a federal court. On at least four occasions, they were not honest about the deeply flawed Christopher Steele dossier being the source of information used in applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Comey also has said that he predicated the nature of the Clinton email investigation on his assumptions about her chances of winning the presidency — another investigatory abuse.The Mueller team is reportedly still looking into the possibility of election-cycle collusion with Russia by Trump officials.That track will require Mueller's DOJ counterparts to look carefully at the Clinton campaign, which paid opposition researcher Steele, a British subject, for dirt on Trump that was produced through collusion with Russian sources. (4)>>information that Mueller has already released publicly . The twist came as prosecutors and lawyers for Concord spar over whether people who work for the Russian company should be allowed to see some of the evidence the government has gathered against the firm. Prosecutors urged U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich not to force sharing sensitive documents with the defense team because sending sensitive documents "to the Russian Federation unreasonably risks national security interests of the United States." that documents special counsel Robert Mueller provided to the company's lawyers had been "altered and disseminated as part of a disinformation campaign," this time aimed at discrediting the investigation of Russian election interference. That led the FBI to investigate a disinformation campaign about the investigation of the Russian disinformation campaign. Mueller's office said in a court filing that the FBI had determined their computers had not been hacked. Instead, they said documents posted illegitimately on the web had been provided to one of the defendants in the case, Concord Management and Consulting, LLC.
No comments:
Post a Comment