A Thread for the Mueller Investigation Results and Outcomes (Part 1)

[Aspenglow]

@ThelmaLou

BEEP

Reference to thump “learning a lesson” – does not compute. Sorry, no soup for you!

Yeah, I meant “learn” in the sense of finding out, rather than that he would actually ever learn anything. My bad. He is incapable of actual learning and wouldn’t admit it even if he had. Which he can’t.

[ThelmaLou]

@Aspenglow

Yeah, I meant “learn” in the sense of finding out, rather than that he would actually ever learn anything. My bad. He is incapable of actual learning and wouldn’t admit it even if he had. Which he can’t.

Okay. *<**ThelmaLou *erases black mark next to your name> You meant kind of like he would learn about gravity if a sandbag fell on his head. Got it.

[RickJay]

@Northern_Piper

As AK84 commented, it depends on the exact wording of the offence. While ignorance of the law isn’t a defence, some offences are drafted to require specific knowledge by the individual. If the offence uses words like “wilfully” or “knowingly”, that means that the prosecutor must prove that the accused did in fact know that he was committing the offence.

Of course the accused must know they were committing the crime. They do not need to know it was a crime. Even regarding errors in campaign finance laws, the distinction is not “Bill knew/did not know hiding the payments was a crime.” The distinction is whether or not Bill acted deliberately to do something that was against the law.

To use an example, structuring - deliberately making financial transactions to avoid triggering transaction reporting law - is a crime. If I am unaware structuring is against the law, but I make deposits intending to avoid reporting requirements, I have committed an offense; the fact I didn’t know it was a crime is irrelevant. Howqever, if I make a number of deposits that are essentially identical to structuring deposits, but did so with no intention of avoiding reporting requirements - let’s suppose I just had a series of lucky days at the casino - I am not guilty of an offense.

[Rick_Kitchen]

Jerome Corsi has filed a lawsuit against Mueller for attempting to blackmail him into lying.
BTW, Larry Klayman is one of his lawyers.
Conspiracy theorist sues Mueller alleging illegal leaks and surveillance - POLITICO?

[Fiveyearlurker]

Well this gun seems kinda smoky:
*
“Unrelated to specific presidential campaigns,” Erickson wrote in an October 2016 email to an acquaintance that was later obtained by the FBI, “I’ve been involved in securing a VERY private line of communication between the Kremlin and key [unnamed political party] leaders through, of all conduits, the [unnamed gun-rights organization].” *

I wonder what’s behind those entirely mysterious redactions.

[Sage_Rat]

@Fiveyearlurker

Well this gun seems kinda smoky:
*
“Unrelated to specific presidential campaigns,” Erickson wrote in an October 2016 email to an acquaintance that was later obtained by the FBI, “I’ve been involved in securing a VERY private line of communication between the Kremlin and key [unnamed political party] leaders through, of all conduits, the [unnamed gun-rights organization].” *

I wonder what’s behind those entirely mysterious redactions.

Well…fuck.

That is, clearly, the largest piece in that article but I also want to draw attention to this:

she drafted a proposal called “Description of the Diplomacy Project” in March of 2015 which was later sent to the Russian Official, in which she said that she had already “laid the groundwork for an unofficial channel of communication with the next U.S. administration” and requested $125,000 from a Russian billionaire to attend conferences and meetings to further develop those ties.

[Fiveyearlurker]

No word on whether they keep this information in a file marked “Collusion evidence - don’t look here!”

[Aspenglow]

I hear Republican sphincters slamming shut throughout the Congress.

[Sage_Rat]

@Aspenglow

I hear Republican sphincters slamming shut throughout the Congress.

Someone should set up a stand outside Congress selling Soap on a Rope. Special discount for Republicans.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

So might this actually hasten the departure of Captain Cheeto Von Fuckstick ?
Because at this point, I have become accustomed to this.

[Aspenglow]

Things are happening fast now.

The best thing is, much of this current action is SDNY-driven – although I’m quite sure Mueller had a big hand it getting these satellite investigations underway. But Mueller is only just beginning to show his hand.

[Sage_Rat]

@Aspenglow

Things are happening fast now.

The best thing is, much of this current action is SDNY-driven – although I’m quite sure Mueller had a big hand it getting these satellite investigations underway. But Mueller is only just beginning to show his hand.

I think that Butina’s case is a different group in the FBI, unrelated to either Mueller or the SDNY.

Granted, I think that Butina’s case will be folded back into Mueller’s stuff at some point. It’s curious that it left to begin with. Maybe Mueller thought it needed a team that was being watched less closely than him to work on it? Or, possibly more likely, the FBI already had a group pretty deeply investigating Butina and Torshin already, separate from the one that was investigating Manafort and Gates. The Manafort case required less access to anti-intelligence / sensitive materials, so he decided to take that one over, figuring that it was best to keep the super-secrety stuff to the real FBI.

[Northern_Piper]

@Aspenglow

I hear Republican sphincters slamming shut throughout the Congress.

Especially since if the [unnamed gun organisation] made campaign contributions, using money from [unnamed Russian Official], to [unnamed congressional candidates] in [unnamed states], then [unnamed US Attorneys] in those [unnamed states] will have jurisdiction to prosecute independently of [unnamed Special Counsel-1]. Firing [unnamed Special Counsel-1] will not deprive [unnamed US Attorneys] in [unnamed states] of their jurisdiction to prosecute [unnamed congressional candidates] and [unnamed officials] of the [unnamed gun organisation] in their local [unnamed] Federal District Courts.

[jasg]

@Northern_Piper

Especially since if the [unnamed gun organisation] made campaign contributions, using money from [unnamed Russian Official], to [unnamed congressional candidates] in [unnamed states], then [unnamed US Attorneys] in those [unnamed states] will have jurisdiction to prosecute independently of [unnamed Special Counsel-1]. Firing [unnamed Special Counsel-1] will not deprive [unnamed US Attorneys] in [unnamed states] of their jurisdiction to prosecute [unnamed congressional candidates] and [unnamed officials] of the [unnamed gun organisation] in their local [unnamed] Federal District Courts.

Well done!

[Aspenglow]

Mueller has been careful, astute and masterful in passing off cases. By doing so, he does several things:

He protects his investigation by spreading the joy far and wide. Even if Trump fires him, there are other agencies to take up the effort.

He “pardon-proofs” his indictments. If, say, Manafort receives a pardon for federal crimes, all it will do is trigger the State of New York or other agencies to move in with charges of their own. Manafort won’t see a day of liberty. I’d bet there are even sealed pending charges that have a hold on him should he be suddenly released due to a pardon.

He uses other agencies as a force multiplier to expand his own comparatively small operation. You can bet that Butina’s case is part of Mueller’s stuff, since his core mission is to learn the extent to which the Trump campaign conspired with Russia. We are now learning how the NRA coordinated its campaign efforts/messages with the Trump campaign, and it’s beginning to look a lot like Russians were behind both those alliances and the funding.

You’re correct that the Butina matter is not being handled directly by Mueller. It is being handled out of the DC US Attorney’s office. I mistakenly thought SDNY had taken the lead on this one, but that’s incorrect.

[Aspenglow]

@Northern_Piper

Especially since if the [unnamed gun organisation] made campaign contributions, using money from [unnamed Russian Official], to [unnamed congressional candidates] in [unnamed states], then [unnamed US Attorneys] in those [unnamed states] will have jurisdiction to prosecute independently of [unnamed Special Counsel-1]. Firing [unnamed Special Counsel-1] will not deprive [unnamed US Attorneys] in [unnamed states] of their jurisdiction to prosecute [unnamed congressional candidates] and [unnamed officials] of the [unnamed gun organisation] in their local [unnamed] Federal District Courts.

Perfectly said, and fabulous!!!

[Northern_Piper]

From the same article about the Butina prosecution linked to by fiveyearlurker:

And during an FBI raid of Erickson’s South Dakota home, investigators discovered a handwritten note suggesting Erickson may have been aware of a possible job offer from Russian intelligence services: “How to respond to FSB offer of employment?” Erickson scratched, an apparent reference to the Russian equivalent of the CIA.

How should a patriotic American respond?

1. Burn all correspondence and have no further dealings with Russkis; or,

2. Alert the FBI and voluntarily turn over all information about potential Russian infiltration of the US political system; or,

3. Profit!
   Decisions, decisions…

[Northern_Piper]

and from the same article:

Most notably, Butina’s Russian gun rights group “Right to Bear Arms” hosted a delegation of former NRA presidents, board members and major donors in Moscow in 2015, where she appears to have succeeded in arranging a meeting between NRA insiders and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, raising the prospect of a discussion between conservative political operatives and a powerful member of Russian President Putin’s inner circle in the midst of a presidential campaign.

After that now infamous meeting, the agreement said, Butina sent the Russian Official a message, which was translated as saying “We should let them express their gratitude now, we will put pressure on them quietly later.”

Kompromat at its finest.

[Aspenglow]

Maddow did a great show tonight outlining the connections and the importance of the NRA involvement. This is going to become a very significant facet of the investigations.

This is the piece that explains the Republicans’ reluctance to protect Mueller and why they have turned a blind eye to Trump’s many, many high crimes and misdemeanors carried out while he sits in the Oval Office.

I’m trying to remember all the Republicans who ran on anti-gun control issues in the 2016 election. I’ll bet someone has a list. And he’s checking it twice.

[Sage_Rat]

@Aspenglow

Maddow did a great show tonight outlining the connections and the importance of the NRA involvement. This is going to become a very significant facet of the investigations.

This is the piece that explains the Republicans’ reluctance to protect Mueller and why they have turned a blind eye to Trump’s many, many high crimes and misdemeanors carried out while he sits in the Oval Office.

I’m trying to remember all the Republicans who ran on anti-gun control issues in the 2016 election. I’ll bet someone has a list. And he’s checking it twice.

Maddow and the press should drop the “She was just playing Erickson for a fool” angle. True or not, Butina doesn’t like that story.

Rat want Butina happy. Rat want Butina cooperating. Let’s not make Butina angry.