Mueller Indictments for 13 Russian Nationals in US Election Meddling

a reply to: Sillyolme

Sealed indictments are just that - sealed. I would like to know who leaked the info from the indictment in terms of who it targets and what the charge is.

The other issue with these prosecutions is they are outside the scope of the special counsel mandate (and again the special counsel currently is violating the special counsel law requirements to even exist).

With that said if they broke the law then they should be held accountable - everyone regardless of political affiliation. However it must be done in compliance with the statutory laws and the US Constitution / due process. If the judge in the Flynn case is any indication of where Mueller stands legally then he is in trouble. To have a judge order disclosure of exculpatory evidence after the target plead guilty is significant.

All it is going to t6ake is one ruling against an indictment for technical reasons the charges against other people become suspect.

As for the additional indictment you are correct that it is not unheard of. However the reasoning behind it can mean different things. Either they developed new information based on their investigation, they flipped someone or they added the indictment to put pressure on the target to plead guilty to the current charges instead of facing those charges plus additional charges on top of it.

Indictments do not equal guilt nor do they have to be prosecuted.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Sillyolme

Sealed indictments are just that - sealed. I would like to know who leaked the info from the indictment in terms of who it targets and what the charge is.

It has a criminal case file number that is public.
That case file is associated with the Manafort Indictment.
No leak involved.

But did you hear that the entire GOP staff of the House intelligence Committee is under investigation for Leaking?

Rooney said one reason for the tension is an erosion of trust, exacerbated by an ongoing ethics investigation into the "entire Republican staff," including "the woman up front that answers the phone" for alleged leaks.

www.cbsnews.com...

The other issue with these prosecutions is they are outside the scope of the special counsel mandate (and again the special counsel currently is violating the special counsel law requirements to even exist).

That is a weird lie.

A) How do you know this is unrelated to the Russian Interference Campaign and Potential Collusion with Team Trump?
B) "The Special Counsel is authorized to Prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation"
www.nytimes.com...

That is the way investigations and the justice system work.

If the judge in the Flynn case is any indication of where Mueller stands legally then he is in trouble. To have a judge order disclosure of exculpatory evidence after the target plead guilty is significant.

Not at all. It is in preparation for sentencing. The judge wants to be able to weigh the full case before handing down a sentence.

If Flynn's attorney's thought there was anything there that would help Flynn's case then THEY would have filed the request for exculpatory evidence.

Instead the Judge did at his own volition.

Sullivan’s order did not come due to any known request from the defense team and he did not explain his rationale for releasing it. Instead, he said only that the order was issued “sua sponte,” in other words, at his own volition.

www.courthousenews.com...

“It’s not unexpected coming from him,” said Jack Sharman, a lawyer at Lightfoot, Franklin & White and former Whitewater special counsel. “I think it would probably be an over-read to make a conclusion about the defect in the plea just based on this order.”

Sullivan issued the order “sua sponte”—or at his own volition, unprovoked by Flynn’s defense team. He filed a nearly identical order in mid-December, after taking over the case.

There are no details in the filing that are specific to the case.

“It’s just a way to have in the record a judge’s reminder to the prosecutors about their Brady obligations,” said Randall Eliason, a George Washington University law professor and former U.S. attorney. “It’s just a generic, boilerplate [order] you could file in any case.”

thehill.com...

You are welcome to divert from reality though and pin your hopes on it though. I would be kind of surprised if you didn't at this stage.

As for the additional indictment you are correct that it is not unheard of. However the reasoning behind it can mean different things. Either they developed new information based on their investigation, they flipped someone or they added the indictment to put pressure on the target to plead guilty to the current charges instead of facing those charges plus additional charges on top of it.

.

Correct there.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The other issue with these prosecutions is they are outside the scope of the special counsel mandate (and again the special counsel currently is violating the special counsel law requirements to even exist).

This issue has much in common with the old "birther" issue that plagued Obama for so long... it's been over a year. At some point, there's just no putting the Genie back in the bottle... it is what it is. Mueller's investigation is likely just fleshing out the last leads, so I'm content to let it play out rather than demand blood in the water because someone messed up so long ago.

In the end, there's a lot of smoke circling over Manafort's head. I believe he should be subjected to a full trial and he can either prove his innocence or he can have a nice, little cell with his name on the (locked) door. These are some pretty serious charges, if the information is anywhere close to accurate, and should be taken very seriously. With Mueller's name on the line as a thorough, intensive investigator, I seriously doubt he is going to send out actual indictments without strong evidence to support them.

I will freely admit that when Manafort's name first appeared in the news feeds, I was suspicious that an innocent man was being framed "because Trump." But as time has gone on, those fears have not been realized. If Manafort is guilty of the crimes he is accused of, so be it: prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law. If Trump is guilty of crimes against the United States, so be it: prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law. If Clinton is guilty of crimes against the United States, so be it: prosecute her to the fullest extent of the law. And you can add as many names to that list as you want.

I want justice done for all.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
You attempted to shut down anything from me by accusing me of collusion and treason. That is a McCarthy tactic.

No, it is not. I do not make those kinds of accusations. And I do base it off of facts as they are presented to me. And I verify that information. And I draw what the logical conclusion would draw on such.

Just because a person is in the government, would you not agree, as long as they are a citizen, that they have the same rights as everyone else? How can we find someone who is fair and balanced, when everyone has a political opinion? I can not just be all the republicans, cause members of congress have shown that they are willing to go to any length to protect the president at any cost. That in itself is a problem.

No investigator is going to admit or state that there is an active investigation at any time. Not even to a congressional committee.

So private calls,meetings , and handing of classified information is antagonistic towards Russia? And a policy of keeping such meetings private and hidden, only for the public to know is when it comes out fo the Russian news. And even then, we do not know what all is discussed, the nature of said talks, or what all is agreed on or not. And especially if there are no US state department persons present, or even a translator from the US to verify what the president is being told. The actions do not match the rhetoric.

The reality is that one cannot merely go into Russia and do any business without Putin knowing about it, and or approving it, and this would be true if it were say broadcast to the world. Even one of Trump’s son’s stated that they were doing business with the Russians, and that would require some acknowledgement from Putin. Even the Secretary of State, had done business directly with Putin, in the energy sector, before the plug was pulled on that. There are ties to Russia, however, there does need to be an investigation on such.

So how many years does it take to convict a person for anything? The Clintons have been under investigation since 1993. Don’t think you that if something could have been proven and a conviction given, it would have? Don’t you agree that there is a bit of bias, towards Clinton, with false accusations that are presented.
So I am looking to even the playing field, and that means Trump should be investigated, any members found to have broken the law, should be prosecuted.

And I am not the one trying to stop political discourse.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

I do not make those kinds of accusations.

You have been posting little barbs all through this thread, insinuating that Trump is guilty of Russian collusion in the election... or is it obstruction of justice today? I forget... despite not one scintilla of evidence.

That is my sole beef with you. If Mueller finds evidence showing Trump guilty of a crime, and if that evidence appears solid, I will join you in condemning Trump. Until such time as that evidence appears, however, I will defend him as I will defend anyone under similar circumstances. That is political discourse. I am not preventing you from posting; I cannot prevent you from posting. You are as free to state your political positions as I am.

The difference is, I am pointing out the flaws in your position; you are twisting words to try and protect your position.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Xcathdra

No one leaked it. They are speculating by a few things.
One the case number . The courthouse is public domain. The sealed indictment still has to be logged. Journalists obtained the info.
Two, who goes in and out of Muellers office. It's,called investigative journalism. They watch the filings Mueller makes. They know he's looking into mortgages that were obtained by Manafort. That's on his credit report. They then see requests for information made to the bank. Who Mueller has subpoenaed for records.
It doesn't take a leaker.
Three: We know from the original indictment about company a and company b. Deductive reasoning and speculation based on other known facts suggests the indictment may be about those. The chief office of the Chicago bank was part of trumps team during the campaign through January 2017 though he never did get a cabinet position.
The bank claims no such deals were made and state they are cooperating fully with Muellers investigation. They have interviewed Stephen Calk he was named as a member of candidate trumps economic counsel.
Mueller alleges that Manafort obtained loans by providing fraudulent information to the bank.
I think they have now gotten new information from Rick Gates.

a reply to: TheRedneck

To be honest we're all just stating our opinion and personal interpretations of what we have been provided. Some see the evidence so far as condemning and some see it as exculpatory. Depending on what tribe we belong to.
All of us have a seat in the audience no one has a back stage pass.

a reply to: Sillyolme

That's true, and what I was trying to convey to soberbaccus. Everyone has an opinion and everyone can post it.

My opinion on the constant anti-Trump insinuations is that they are more collusive with Russian attempts to interfere with our elections than anything Trump himself has thought of doing.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: sdcigarpig

I do not make those kinds of accusations.

You have been posting little barbs all through this thread, insinuating that Trump is guilty of Russian collusion in the election... or is it obstruction of justice today? I forget... despite not one scintilla of evidence.

There is a MOUNTAIN of evidence that Trump and team is guilty of Colluding with the Russian Government and Obstructing Justice including Don Jr's meeting with Russian Agents for the express purpose of " part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump " and several guilty pleas for lying to the FBI.

Whether Mueller comes to the conclusion that the evidence he has gathered is sufficient to indict is another question.

The claim that there is "not one scintilla of evidence" is a flat earth position at this stage from what is known publicly.

a reply to: theantediluvian

And now this.

Note this NOT the sealed indictment that landed earlier this week.

These are simply additional counts.

Which frankly makes me very interested in the sealed indictment that was tagged onto the Gates/Manafort file.

Obviously they are aggressive in publicly charging anything regarding Money Laundering?
What is different and warrants that one indictment to remain sealed?

Special counsel Robert Mueller is turning up the heat on Paul Manafort and Rick Gates even higher.

On Thursday, a Virginia grand jury indicted Manafort and Gates on a combined 32 counts, alleging a dizzying array of tax, financial, and bank fraud crimes, some of which took place as recently as last year. Mueller alleges that Manafort laundered more than $30 million with Gates’s help.

These new charges will be considered in a separate venue from the combined 12 counts of conspiracy, money laundering, financial, and false statements charges Mueller filed against the two men through a Washington, DC, grand jury last October.

www.vox.com...

It’s notable that Nixon, a Republican, faced impeachment in a Congress controlled by Democrats, and Clinton was impeached by a Republican-controlled Congress. For Trump to be impeached, members of his own party would have to turn on him.

That’s why Republican base approval of Trump is so important. If Republican voters do not abandon the president, Republican members of Congress are not likely to.

www.theguardian.com...

^answer: "of course not"

a reply to: soberbacchus


The sealed indictment is easy...

That in March 2016, Manafort and Gates gave a document to a different lender overstating their income by more than $2 million — and worked with a “conspirator” working at the lending company to get an approval

The left is keeping their fingers crossed that sealed indictment is Trump. It isn't. The very same documents also exonerate Trump from any conspiracy (specifically, by saying he had no knowledge - a key and required element of conspiracy)

www.msn.com...’s-new-indictment-of-paul-manafort-and-rick-gates-explained/ar-BBJtFvt ^^source

(URL is broken because the brain-trust at MSN decided to put a special character in the path)
search: Robert Mueller’s new indictment of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, explained

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: sdcigarpig

I do not make those kinds of accusations.

You have been posting little barbs all through this thread, insinuating that Trump is guilty of Russian collusion in the election... or is it obstruction of justice today? I forget... despite not one scintilla of evidence.

There is a MOUNTAIN of evidence that Trump and team is guilty of Colluding with the Russian Government and Obstructing Justice including Don Jr's meeting with Russian Agents for the express purpose of " part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump " and several guilty pleas for lying to the FBI.

Whether Mueller comes to the conclusion that the evidence he has gathered is sufficient to indict is another question.

The claim that there is "not one scintilla of evidence" is a flat earth position at this stage from what is known publicly.

Those were the words of a tabloid writer. Most likely fake. Russia government support Trump. For what? To kill Russians in Syria?

a reply to: dawnofvictory


They must not realize what is legal vs. illegal. Or that Mueller already cleared Trump of any potential conspiracy charges by writing "had no knowledge," therefore he's no longer the target of this investigation. The recent rapid-fire indictments demonstrate that, as well as his renewed focus on those fraudulent scheme (from 2004 onward) clowns: Manafort/Gates.

They should also read up on federal conspiracy instructions. Knowledge is a key requirement, and specifically says that "merely supporting or knowing that a conspiracy exists" still obviously doesn't make you a conspirator. He would've had to KNOWINGLY engage in some action to further the conspiracy to commit some actual crime.

Lock them up. Well done Mueller.

If the Russia government were to support a candidate, the most logical choice would have been Gary Johnson. Libertarians don't care what other countries do. Putin can bomb millions in Syria without nagging from America like Nikki Haley does every single day.

So it seems this Russia Trump story is fake.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: soberbacchus


The sealed indictment is easy...

No. Those crimes are included in the charges levied yesterday.
The sealed indictment remains sealed.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: dawnofvictory


Or that Mueller already cleared Trump of any potential conspiracy charges by writing "had no knowledge," therefore he's no longer the target of this investigation.

Where did that happen?

originally posted by: dawnofvictory

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: sdcigarpig

I do not make those kinds of accusations.

You have been posting little barbs all through this thread, insinuating that Trump is guilty of Russian collusion in the election... or is it obstruction of justice today? I forget... despite not one scintilla of evidence.

There is a MOUNTAIN of evidence that Trump and team is guilty of Colluding with the Russian Government and Obstructing Justice including Don Jr's meeting with Russian Agents for the express purpose of " part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump " and several guilty pleas for lying to the FBI.

Whether Mueller comes to the conclusion that the evidence he has gathered is sufficient to indict is another question.

The claim that there is "not one scintilla of evidence" is a flat earth position at this stage from what is known publicly.

Russia government support Trump. For what? To kill Russians in Syria?

We didn't know there were Russians embedded in the forces that attacked a US advised post when we bombed the hell out of them.

That incident is fascinating in itself.

It wasn't "Russian Troops" it was "Russian Mercenaries" and being run by the guy Mueller indicted, "Putin's Chef".

The guy has his own private army!

Putin’s Chef Ordered Russian Mercenaries to Attack U.S. Troops in Syria, Report Claims
www.newsweek.com...

a reply to: soberbacchus

If they did attack they would have had air defense backup, at least Buks. So it seems like a fake story.

Just curious.

You just joined ATS this AM and have three posts?

Fake, fake, fake?

originally posted by: dawnofvictory


Most likely fake. Russia government support Trump. For what?

originally posted by: dawnofvictory


So it seems this Russia Trump story is fake.

originally posted by: dawnofvictory
a reply to: soberbacchus

If they did attack they would have had air defense backup, at least Buks. So it seems like a fake story.

What brings you to ATS?

First time here?