Thread: Mueller's Russian Interference investigation

my understanding is that mueller's only requirement is to turn submit his report to the deputy AG, rod rosenstein.

what rosenstein does with it...well...

notable names mueller hasn't interviewed yet:


roger stone

donald trump jr.

brad parscale




they've all been called to testify before congress, but not the special counsel.


some would argue it is because they are targets of mueller's investigation.

^interviewing jr should make for some good comedy relief

a scathing new article on jr

https://www.gq.com/story/real-story-of-donald-trump-jr

An interesting read from The Spectator

What does the British government know about Trump and Russia?

Many trails in the Mueller inquiry lead straight to the UK

When the Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu visited London in 1978, the British government did some serious sucking up. Ceausescu was an egomaniac and possibly crazy. When he went hunting outside Bucharest, his body-guards shot game with machine guns so he could be photographed at the end of the day with a shoulder-high pile of dead animals. He was also said to be a germophobe, sterilising his hand with pure alcohol if it touched a door handle. The French president telephoned the Queen to warn her that when the Ceausescus came to the Élysée, lamps, vases, ashtrays and bathroom taps went missing from their rooms. But Ceausescu got a state visit to Britain, with a knighthood (later revoked) and a stay in Buckingham Palace.


Western governments are now trying to appease another germophobe with a reputation for narcissistic excess. The US is not Romania, the stories about Donald J. Trump focus on his cheating at golf, not hunting, and if the great developer removes any bathroom taps, it will be to replace them with something gold-plated. Even so, America’s allies worry that President Trump will get out of bed one morning and do something crazy: abolish Nato, declare war on Canada, give Alaska back to the Russians.


So how might Britain be sucking up to Trump? A Labour MP, Ben Bradshaw, thinks that the government has not always done all it can to assist the Mueller inquiry into whether Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia. Bradshaw was the minister in charge of the Secret Intelligence Service, known as MI6, and has doggedly pursued allegations about Russian meddling in other people’s elections. ‘I’m told that Mueller’s team were over here late last year and they weren’t happy with the level of cooperation they were getting,’ he said. Another source, with links to the ‘intelligence community’, said this was continuing, even after the Skripal poisoning.

MORE. https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/06/...mp-and-russia/

^So, what is that all about?

^ The writer has doubts the British government is fully cooperating with the Mueller investigation.

Some little tidbits there we’ve not heard before such as..



“Some — credible — reports say the head of GCHQ flew to the US to hand-deliver this incendiary material to the CIA director. Later, Steele’s dossier was passed, in its entirety, to Comey, thanks to a former British ambassador to Moscow, Sir Andrew Wood.”



“An American lawyer I know told me that he was approached by a Cambridge Analytica employee after the election. They had had the Clinton campaign emails more than a month before they were published by WikiLeaks



“Ministers have also been careful to say that so far there is no evidence of Russian interference in British politics. Steele and others believe evidence of this will emerge. The self-styled ‘bad boy of Brexit’ Arron Banks is being investigated by the Electoral Commission, which wants to know the source of £2.3 million given to Leave.EU, along with at least £6 million in loans to the organisation on ‘non-commercial terms’. This was the biggest single political donation in British history.”

I'm starting to think this investigation won't play out with any big results. Trump's halfway thru his term, Congress has accepted it as the new normal. Maybe Manafort and a few others get fined or a short jail term, trump will walkaway like HRC did with the emails and Benghazi.......ie he should of known better but norhing illegal.....

Originally Posted by uncle junior

I'm starting to think this investigation won't play out with any big results.

Originally Posted by uncle junior

I'm starting to think this investigation won't play out with any big results.

We will have to wait and see but I think the real criminal activity will be found when Micheal Cohen starts singing.

^ Only a hand full of Cohen’s seized files were deemed privileged. The courts now have access to the rest.

This...

South Korean defense company that paid Michael Cohen is poised to win part of a $16 billion Pentagon deal

• A South Korean defense company paid $150,000 to Essential Consultants, a firm set up by President Donald Trump's personal lawyer Michael Cohen.
• KAI partnered with Lockheed Martin to build the T-50A trainer jet in hopes of securing a U.S. Air Force contract worth roughly $16 billion.
• The T-X trainer program award is the Air Force's largest ongoing aircraft competition.

remainder of story
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/27/sout...poised-to.html

They should be investigating the FBI as they are the ones who influenced the election. I could do it. Just like they did to Clinton start investigating land deals and Hillary and end up impeaching bill for soiling a blue dress and lying about it. You get a bunch of people in a room and tell em if they don't give you dirt on Comey you will turn the IRS on them. Since everyone cheats on their taxes that always works.

Originally Posted by mark45y

They should be investigating the FBI as they are the ones who influenced the election.

More predictable right wing talking points. Why are you people incapable of forming you own opinions instead of regurgitating propaganda and talking points?

Investigating the FBI....been covered.....trump said the report exonerated him....even tho it wasn't about him or his collusion...put the bottle down

Originally Posted by uncle junior

Investigating the FBI....been covered.....trump said the report exonerated him....even tho it wasn't about him or his collusion...put the bottle down

I don't drink but Meuller's report is not done yet. He should call Comey to testify.

Originally Posted by mark45y

I don't drink but Meuller's report is not done yet. He should call Comey to testify.

LULZ!

The Right: 'The investigation's too wide in scope!'... 'Wait, let's include the FBI!'

Wasn't talking about Mueller's report. You gonna yabber on about current events, know what ur blathering about.....

Originally Posted by uncle junior

Wasn't talking about Mueller's report. You gonna yabber on about current events, know what ur blathering about.....

There has been a number of reports this thread is about Mueller's.

Originally Posted by mark45y

Meuller's report is not done yet. He should call Comey to testify.

comey was interviewed by the special counsel's office last year, mark.

Originally Posted by raycarey

comey was interviewed by the special counsel's office last year, mark.

In his testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee in June 2017, Comey said he had turned all his memos over to the special counsel. In the hearing, he also acknowledged leaking one of the memos to the press — in the explicit hope of sparking a special counsel investigation.

The interview, which lasted for several hours, focused heavily on a series of memos Comey wrote after each interaction with Trump. NBC News reported that the interview occurred in late 2017.

I meant he should be interviewed about colluding with whom to influence the Presidential election as it is obvious he had more influence on the outcome than the Russians did.

Originally Posted by mark45y

it is obvious he had more influence on the outcome than the Russians did.

why do you think that's obvious, mark?

I think it's obvious that Mark's a bit of a troll.

^ no doubt.

but he's not very well informed on the topic he's trolling, which makes it fun for me.

Originally Posted by mark45y

No factual evidence the Russians did anything.

how do you know that there is no 'factual evidence', mark?