It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Analysis: Who Is Mueller Working For?

page: 1
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 12:44 PM
link   
I thought I'd post a little thought exercise I went through this morning. I like to keep myself grounded in reality and not delve too deep into conspiracies, but when there is not a lot of information available one has to make logical leaps or assumptions to get a clearer picture of what is going on.

It's easy to get caught up in the conspiracies surrounding Mueller. I'm going to lay out the events that have happened and and filter them through the two majority view points: Mueller is working for the swamp against Trump vs. Mueller is working for Trump against the swamp.

The first theory, Mueller working for the swamp, goes something like this: Mueller was hired to find/uncover crimes and present a case for the impeachment of the president, because he's an outsider and the swamp protects itself from outsiders.

The second theory, Mueller is working for Trump, goes something like this: Trump is using Mueller to take down the crime syndicate that is Washington DC.

The key points/facts, in no particular order:

1) Trump fires comey
2) Trump met with Mueller just days before he was appointed as SC
3) Sessions recuses from campaign related events
4) Rosenstein appoints Mueller with basically unlimited scope
5) Mueller indicts Manafort
6) Sessions ignores calls to appoint SC for uranium one and dossier
7) Mueller hire's a bunch of democratic leaning lawyers

So, through the lens of Mueller working for Trump here are the reasons for the fact pattern
1) Comey was not credible and had over-politicized his position
2) Trump was explaining the corruption to Mueller and telling him he would be SC, assured Mueller of pardons for his crimes
3) Draining the swamp needs to be seen as something other than rep v. dem
4) Would have to do this to move beyond investigating the Russian narrative
5) Manafort is a swamp creature
6) There's no need for them, as Mueller is actually investigating these things
7) Mueller's team needs to be trusted by dems in order to take down the corruption. They must believe Mueller is on their side.

Problems with these explanations:
1) completely plausible
2) No evidence
3) Makes sense
4) Plausible and backed up by Manafort indictment
5) He is a swamp creature
6) Plausible but again, no evidence
7) Again, no evidence

Basically there is no way of knowing if this view point is accurate until the probe ends. It does explain points 1, 3, 4, and 5 better than the alternative theory but 4/7 isn't anything to write home about.

So through the lens of Mueller working for the swamp, here are the reasons for the fact pattern:
1) Trump fired Comey because he was getting close to uncovering ties to Russia
2) Trump was simply interviewing Mueller for his old job, that was the stated reason for the meeting after-all
3) Sessions is part of the swamp and making it nigh impossible for trump to fire the SC.
4) Trump may have hid his tracks well, so Mueller needs freedom to go anywhere to find the ties
5) Manafort has (or may have) dirt on trump and will squeal under pressure, common tactic
6) Sessions is part of the swamp
7) This team of prosecutors will find dirt on Trump

Problems with these explanations:
1) If he was close, there shouldn't have been this much left for Mueller to investigate.
2) Completely plausible
3) Sessions was the first senator to back trump. Just a bit odd that he'd turn swampy so quickly
4) This directly flies in the face of point number one, comey couldn't have been close AND Mueller needed to do major sleuthing
5) While it's a common tactic, Manafort has committed some serious crimes, I can't imagine a prosecutor dropping those for a little dirt. Manafort would have to have the mother-load. But it is certainly plausible.
6) See point 3
7) Completely plausible, but no evidence.

This theory explains points 2 and 7 well, but there are major flaws in the logic behind many of the explanations. Multiple facts make no sense through this lens or appear to be completely off base ( such as points 1 and 4).

Going into this, I actually thought that Mueller working for trump was going to look more like the conspiracy theory than Mueller working for the swamp. Neither theory actually looks great when examined logically. So now I'm going to compare each explanation and pick a winner, this can be subject to bias. If bias feels like it's playing a leading role, it will be divided into halves.

1) This is easy, one point for team trump. Comey was too political.
2) A little convoluted, but in the absence of evidence I have to give this point to team swamp, the interview timing was coincidental.
3) This is a bias question about sessions. .5 to each team.
4) Team trump easily wins this one as team swamp contradicts their first explanation.
5) This was a tough one, but another win for team trump. I'm very swayed by how easy it is to believe this is a common tactic but, as pointed out before, manafort would have to have the bomb shell and he only worked for Trump for a few months. If this was someone closer to trump I would give this one to team swamp, but manafort is just too far removed.
6) I don't believe sessions is a swamp creature but I don't think 'no need' is very compelling. .5 to each team
7) There's no evidence for either team and logic is only swayed by your view of the other points. .5 to each.

Raw Score = Trump 4.5 v Swamp 2.5

Now I'll adjust the score to see which team is currently winning. This adjustment will weight each item by importance to the respective theory. The scoring will go in increments of 0.5 on a scale of 1-4 (4 being most important). This score will be a multiplier and each point given will be multiplied by this score. The purpose of the multiplier is to clarify which side has more convincing arguments on their side. This will allow a theory that didn't have as many raw score points but whose points more solidly prove their argument to make up lost ground or further separate it from the dull theory.

Swamp multiplier:
1) 3
2) 2
3) 2.5
4) 1.5
5) 3.5
6) 1
7) 4

Swamp score: 5.75

Trump multiplier
1) 2
2) 4
3) 1.5
4) 3.5
5) 3
6) 2.5
7) 1

Trump score: 11

Even after all of this analysis I'm skeptical of Mueller working for Trump. I think both theories remain solidly in conspiracy land, meaning neither one is necessarily true. At this point it looks like if one is going to be true, it's going to be Mueller working for trump. Only time will tell. It's going to be an interesting few months coming up as we learn m ore answers.




posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 01:21 PM
link   
It could be simply that Mueller is just doing is job, apolitically.

After all, he has a reputation of 'head down, going to work'

Let's all hope this is the case!

Time will tell.

S&F for the OP



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Mueller is working for We the People...



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Lawyers don't lean left or right because that's not the way the laws are written. There are no republican laws any more than there are democrat laws
This is an excuse for why Mueller has indicted trump associates and a chant that it's just not fair. Kick the floor. Not fair....



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Mueller is working for himself. In politics that is nearly an inviolable law.

It's why when selecting any actor in due process it is essential to chose only those who embody impartiality in both fact and in deed.

Mueller was simply a bad choice (purposeful or not). You can't have someone investigating a sequence of events when they were a principle actor in those very events.

In the end, very few will be satisfied with his results- whatever they might be.




edit on 31-10-2017 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Mueller already has been granted immunity....sssshhhhhh....



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Are you growing senile in your age or would you really have us believe lawyers don't have a political leaning...like are they not human or natural...because the rest of us humans sure do...even if we don't mean to. Its kinda human nature...



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Lawyers don't lean left or right because that's not the way the laws are written. There are no republican laws any more than there are democrat laws
This is an excuse for why Mueller has indicted trump associates and a chant that it's just not fair. Kick the floor. Not fair....


That's like saying journalists don't lean left or right because that's not how facts in a story work, but we all know that's not the case.

If lawyers were the totally impartial arbiters of the law, there would be no need at all to have 9 justices on the SCOTUS because one would be the perfect arbiter of each case every single time because, as you say, laws aren't written with any bias.

Also, you absolutely love the rulings that Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas make every. single. time and think they are spot on ... just like I know that Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan are the best judges EVAR!
edit on 31-10-2017 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
5) manafort would have to have the bomb shell and he only worked for Trump for a few months. If this was someone closer to trump I would give this one to team swamp, but manafort is just too far removed.


Manafort was not a stranger to Trump, they had dealings as far back as the 80's, while seemingly not much more contact recently, but then if you are talking about tax evasion and money laundering, being chummy is not something they would broadcast daily on.
In the election Manafort wanted the campaign manager job, and worked it through a friend of a friend until it was actually Trump's team who contacted Manafort.
You could guess why Manafort wanted somebody like Trump, if Manafort was still in the tax evasion and money laundering game, especially if that game involved Russian Oligarchs/Mafia Interests in the US...Trump would be the conduit, but at the top of the tree, and by also being a deal crooked in the same areas, very vulnerable himself.
There you have it, the President of the USA being compliant to the Russian Oligarchs/government.

This is what Mueller is working for, and he probably has enough material to keep him going for a millennium, which of course is impossible, what he does with it, is anybody's guess, while he knows that 'the swamp' on both political sides will know a deal of what he he knows and he will have to answer to them as well as the public perception.
The big trouble is, Trump is too close to the Trump Corp, and if they are found to have been in the business of tax evasion and money laundering, and that being associated with the boys in the Kremlin, then Trump himself will be bugjiggered as well.
In fact, all that Trump can actually do is just what he's doing right now....shouting 'Fake News' on a daily basis, that's hardly likely to put Mueller off, and I don't think Mueller would want to go through another episode like he did after 9/11.



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 02:31 PM
link   
He's working for THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Duh.

Part of me wonders what country some on HERE work for...



Chai, anyone?



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 02:42 PM
link   
It's hard to really know. The ball keeps moving.

Mueller was FBI director during the Uranium One deal and supposedly failed or neglected (doubtful) to inform the cabinet members that signed off on it that there was an investigation going on. hmmmmm. Blind eye?....or something else.

But, then...

Nancy Pelosi is now screaming for yet another Special Counsel to investigate Russia meddling. Does she suspect Mueller is getting too close to the swampy Democrat creatures that actually DID collude with the Russians?



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords

Nancy Pelosi is now screaming for yet another Special Counsel to investigate Russia meddling. Does she suspect Mueller is getting too close to the swampy Democrat creatures that actually DID collude with the Russians?


Bingo !!




posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Lawyers don't lean left or right because that's not the way the laws are written. There are no republican laws any more than there are democrat laws
This is an excuse for why Mueller has indicted trump associates and a chant that it's just not fair. Kick the floor. Not fair....


That is total BS. Laws are interpreted based on the persons political preference. To pretend otherwise is to pretend people are free of bias or that they are even capable of that (they are not).

If I am wrong why are Supreme Court Justice appointments such a big thing - and why do they tend to vote based on which side appointed them.



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Lawyers don't lean left or right because that's not the way the laws are written.


Quoting again, because seeing is believing.

I take it you don't know many lawyers.




edit on 31-10-2017 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

It was LOOKED AT by several regulatory agencies and NOTHING was deemed wrong at the time.



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: six67seven
It could be simply that Mueller is just doing is job, apolitically.

After all, he has a reputation of 'head down, going to work'

Let's all hope this is the case!

Time will tell.

S&F for the OP


You can take your Occam's razor and go straight to hell! This is ATS for gods sake!



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme




Lawyers don't lean left or right because that's not the way the laws are written.

Well now that is a completely ridiculous thing to post here.
The United States Senate voted by a margin of 54 to 45. If "lawyers" don't lean left or right why would anyone oppose a nominee to the SCOTUS?
Once again you are full of crap.



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanteGaland
a reply to: queenofswords

It was LOOKED AT by several regulatory agencies and NOTHING was deemed wrong at the time.


You do realize there was an ongoing fbi investigation into this at the time and none of the relevant regulatory agencies were notified?



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanteGaland
a reply to: queenofswords

It was LOOKED AT by several regulatory agencies and NOTHING was deemed wrong at the time.



Wrong.



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Just as a couple quick things..

A) Comey is likely political but it’s IMPOSSIBLE to make the case he is political in favor of hillary..

Trump and Hillary were both involved in investigations, but he only announced Hillary’s pre-election.


I’m not sure trump wins if he announces both investigations.. one that is concluding, one that is just getting started(trumps).

B) Manafort may be a swamp creature, but he is trump’s swamp creature... he was trumps first choice to run his campaign.

He was in the meeting with Russian agents to set up the deal to drop the counter intelligence against hillary..

Manafort is very tied to trump and no other American political faction really.

Still reading but excellent work on layout and such!



new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join