Mueller's team questioning Russian oligarchs

I laughed... If Putin is the murderous despot he is portrayed as (for the record would not surprise me) not a single Russian billionaire will flip (if they have anything to flip on) because they know Putin will be able to get them no matter where they hide.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Xcathdra

AKA....farce.

The entire DOJ needs razed

This is what makes it impossible to take you credibly.

One post you cheer "Let the evidence lead wherever it leads".

The next it is: Unless it leads to Trump..then it is secret orders and the DOJ is a farce!

Im sorry you want to discuss my credibility outside the topic of this thread. But if you read my reply to Xcath you should have some insight into what im saying.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

Mueller claims Trump isnt the considered for criminal charges. The OP here says Trump isnt even being investigated.

Looks like the narrative is falling apart

Mueller never claimed Trump isn't being considered for Criminal charges?
EVERYONE is considered for criminal charges if the evidence demands it?

Mueller said Trump was not the "Target" of the investigation.
"Target" means that prosecutors are actively building a case against an individual.

Mueller said Trump was the "subject" of (part of) the investigation.
That means they are exploring whether anything he personally did was criminal or unlawful or otherwise related to other criminal activities and individuals that are targets.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
The OP here says Trump isnt even being investigated.

I never said that.

Russian interference or collusion and any associated potential criminal activity is being investigated.

If that involves the President, then it involves the President.

If it doesn't, it doesn't.

They are not "targeting" the President, but if he is caught up in the investigation, they are certainly going to determine if he crossed any lines.

To put it another way.

Investigators investigate a bank robbery to determine who was involved. They gather evidence and run down leads.
Some of the people they interview will be guilty, some will be guilty of robbing other banks, some will be just witnesses, some will lie to cover for friends that might have been involved and some will not be involved and just associated with the bank robbers in some way.

They investigate everyone. Everyone is a "Witness", a "Subject" or a "Target"..or a nobody.

A "Target" is someone that they are 95% sure was one of the bank robbers and they are building a case for an iron-clad indictment.

A "Subject" is someone that the evidence says might or might not be involved and they have open questions they want to clear up.

Trump's a "Subject" of the investigation, not a target.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Yeah, too much parsing of words for me...sounds more like magic than logic.

This reminds me of the ridiculous "what is the meaning of wiretap" fiasco from Jan 16. Like people only use specific words when discussing things with other people. Outside in the real world, conversation doesn't tend to give enough time to carefully script words, unless those words are prescripted.

Nonetheless...im not interested in procedural drama.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
I laughed... If Putin is the murderous despot he is portrayed as (for the record would not surprise me) not a single Russian billionaire will flip (if they have anything to flip on) because they know Putin will be able to get them no matter where they hide.

Good point.

Part of this strategy is catching them off-guard without time to prepare or lawyers with them.

Even whilst denying things answers they fumble or handle badly can tell investigators a lot.

And investigators would share items they already know to rattle them.

At the end of the day, the only thing they could offer an Oligarch would be a threat to take away their toys.

Most Russian Oligarchs hide their money in US assets (still the best economy in the world for ROI).

It would be interesting to understand the strategy they employed to try and get these guys to talk.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: soberbacchus

Yeah, too much parsing of words for me...sounds more like magic than logic.

This reminds me of the ridiculous "what is the meaning of wiretap" fiasco from Jan 16. Like people only use specific words when discussing things with other people.

Uh...Yes, in the legal world, words have specific meanings.

It is not "Magic".

Your selective willingness to "think" is fascinating.

When a Federal Prosecutor says "Subject" or "Target" it has meaning.

Here you go from a non-political source unrelated to Trump, Mueller et al:

The first status you have to worry about is being a target. A target is the person the prosecutor is gunning for, that's the target of investigation. It's the person who the prosecutor believes has committed a crime and their trying to figure out what the crime was and how to build a case against them.

A witness, on the other hand, is somebody who has really got very little exposure. The prosecutor believes that the person hasn't done it wrong, they simply have information, they were there, they saw something, they have documents that relate to something. They're not caught up in it.

The last status is in-between the two, you’re a subject. And so if you're subject in an investigation what that means is that you're not a target, so they're not gunning for you, but the prosecutor thinks that there is good reason to believe you may have done something wrong. You may have committed a crime or been a part of a criminal activity or part of a conspiracy.

www.whitecollarcrimeresources.com...

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Stop. You want to continue falling back on that childish response go argue with someone else.
I get it you don't think he's guilty but we both know what charges they are looking at so just stop.

and yet there are no charges...

Because there is no crime involving trump.

?????

So Manafort didn't launder money until Mueller charged him with laundering money?

How does that thinking work?

originally posted by: sunShines

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: sunShines

originally posted by: CB328
Good hopefuly they are getting evidence of Trump laundering Russian money.

Putin can shove billions of dollars into Trump's pocket and it wouldn't be money laundering. I looked it up. Money laundering occurs only if illegal dealings are done, such as selling drugs or illegal weapons trade, like what Al Capone did.

It would be a violation of FEC laws. Foreign entities are forbidden from donating money / volunteers / etc to a candidate running for elected office.

If Putin sends Trump billions for his campaign it is a law violation - by both. Putin for sending it in violation of FEC laws and for Trump if he accepts it.

For a rundown on that just research the Clintons over the years in addition to ADFA (from Arkansas days) and the times Clintons were fined for violating campaign finance laws.

Not if the money is not used for campaigning. It's just money from one friend to another. Has nothing to do with election.

If that is the talking point from St. Petersburg, then I suspect something is about to hit the fan.

Just a gift to an American friend running a Trump PAC? That is going to be the spin?

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Stop. You want to continue falling back on that childish response go argue with someone else.
I get it you don't think he's guilty but we both know what charges they are looking at so just stop.

and yet there are no charges...

Because there is no crime involving trump.

?????

So Manafort didn't launder money until Mueller charged him with laundering money?

How does that thinking work?

Mueller can charge Manafort over anything he wants, including murder. Doesn't mean he can prove it.

originally posted by: sunShines

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Stop. You want to continue falling back on that childish response go argue with someone else.
I get it you don't think he's guilty but we both know what charges they are looking at so just stop.

and yet there are no charges...

Because there is no crime involving trump.

?????

So Manafort didn't launder money until Mueller charged him with laundering money?

How does that thinking work?

Mueller can charge Manafort over anything he wants, including murder. Doesn't mean he can prove it.

I was commenting on the failed argument that a crime did not happen because charges have not been filed yet.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: soberbacchus

Yeah, too much parsing of words for me...sounds more like magic than logic.

This reminds me of the ridiculous "what is the meaning of wiretap" fiasco from Jan 16. Like people only use specific words when discussing things with other people.

Uh...Yes, in the legal world, words have specific meanings.

Neither you/I, nor the author of the article in the OP, are in court or are acting under a state bar (that i am aware of). So i fail to see how this matters.

It is not "Magic".

Its the very essence of magic: words that create action. And lawyers are the modern day priest class.

Your selective willingness to "think" is fascinating.

Thanks for the ad hom. Its appreciated.

When a Federal Prosecutor says "Subject" or "Target" it has meaning.

Here you go from a non-political source unrelated to Trump, Mueller et al:

The first status you have to worry about is being a target. A target is the person the prosecutor is gunning for, that's the target of investigation. It's the person who the prosecutor believes has committed a crime and their trying to figure out what the crime was and how to build a case against them.

A witness, on the other hand, is somebody who has really got very little exposure. The prosecutor believes that the person hasn't done it wrong, they simply have information, they were there, they saw something, they have documents that relate to something. They're not caught up in it.

The last status is in-between the two, you’re a subject. And so if you're subject in an investigation what that means is that you're not a target, so they're not gunning for you, but the prosecutor thinks that there is good reason to believe you may have done something wrong. You may have committed a crime or been a part of a criminal activity or part of a conspiracy.

www.whitecollarcrimeresources.com...

Yeah, like i said...if i have to parse words to understand something, then im not interested. Thats called "studying", and I already have a full time job.

a reply to: soberbacchus

I have zero proof never been to Russia have no experience with the culture, but from what I have read the default setting for Russians when being questioned is say nothing.

But time will tell... S&*( will smell... and water will seek its own level.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: soberbacchus

Special counsel Robert Mueller's team has taken the unusual step of questioning Russian oligarchs who traveled into the US, stopping at least one and searching his electronic devices when his private jet landed at a New York area airport, according to multiple sources familiar with the inquiry.

A second Russian oligarch was stopped during a recent trip to the US, although it is not clear if he was searched, according to a person briefed on the matter.

Mueller's team has also made an informal voluntary document and interview request to a third Russian oligarch who has not traveled to the US recently.

The situations have one thing in common: Investigators are asking whether wealthy Russians illegally funneled cash donations directly or indirectly into Donald Trump's presidential campaign and inauguration.

www.cnn.com...

You have to have some compelling evidence to stop, question and search Billionaires as well as seize their electronics at the airport.

Interesting.

Or you are still fishing.

He's going to be interviewing Greys next, and indicting elves.

Honestly?

To date, Mueller hasn't made a move without already knowing the outcome.

That is why so many have flipped or been prosecuted.

He already knew the answers via other evidence when he searched their homes, electronics, and questioned them.

He doesn't fish, he hunts, and I haven't seen him miss yet.

Star for that. The FBI isn't going to ask you a question unless they already know the answer.

AMEND THAT. unless they railroad you like 4 men in whitey bolger case. fabricating evidence.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: rickymouse


There is nothing here, no evidence that any money even came from Russians or Russian businessmen has been found.

Unless you are Robert Mueller or on the SC Team, that claim seems to be without foundation?

The article does not say they have found anything. The article just states they are questioning these people to determine if there was any money being slipped into Trump's campaign. No records were subpoenaed. They just looked at a few phones.

This kind of stuff happens all the time in any investigation. Maybe something might turn up, who knows. It is information of events that are being glorified and twisted to make it look like Trump is bad. I think people who twist people's perception like this in media should have their license to do business revoked. Insinuating something going on without any real evidence us something I would think would be in the national enquirer. A tabloid.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: soberbacchus

Special counsel Robert Mueller's team has taken the unusual step of questioning Russian oligarchs who traveled into the US, stopping at least one and searching his electronic devices when his private jet landed at a New York area airport, according to multiple sources familiar with the inquiry.

A second Russian oligarch was stopped during a recent trip to the US, although it is not clear if he was searched, according to a person briefed on the matter.

Mueller's team has also made an informal voluntary document and interview request to a third Russian oligarch who has not traveled to the US recently.

The situations have one thing in common: Investigators are asking whether wealthy Russians illegally funneled cash donations directly or indirectly into Donald Trump's presidential campaign and inauguration.

www.cnn.com...

You have to have some compelling evidence to stop, question and search Billionaires as well as seize their electronics at the airport.

Interesting.

Or you are still fishing.

He's going to be interviewing Greys next, and indicting elves.

Honestly?

To date, Mueller hasn't made a move without already knowing the outcome.

That is why so many have flipped or been prosecuted.

He already knew the answers via other evidence when he searched their homes, electronics, and questioned them.

He doesn't fish, he hunts, and I haven't seen him miss yet.

Star for that. The FBI isn't going to ask you a question unless they already know the answer.

AMEND THAT. unless they railroad you like 4 men in whitey bolger case. fabricating evidence.

Mueller was the one that rooted out and prosecuted FBI Agents that had been cultivated and corrupted by Whitey Bolger.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: soberbacchus

Special counsel Robert Mueller's team has taken the unusual step of questioning Russian oligarchs who traveled into the US, stopping at least one and searching his electronic devices when his private jet landed at a New York area airport, according to multiple sources familiar with the inquiry.

A second Russian oligarch was stopped during a recent trip to the US, although it is not clear if he was searched, according to a person briefed on the matter.

Mueller's team has also made an informal voluntary document and interview request to a third Russian oligarch who has not traveled to the US recently.

The situations have one thing in common: Investigators are asking whether wealthy Russians illegally funneled cash donations directly or indirectly into Donald Trump's presidential campaign and inauguration.

www.cnn.com...

You have to have some compelling evidence to stop, question and search Billionaires as well as seize their electronics at the airport.

Interesting.

Or you are still fishing.

He's going to be interviewing Greys next, and indicting elves.

Honestly?

To date, Mueller hasn't made a move without already knowing the outcome.

That is why so many have flipped or been prosecuted.

He already knew the answers via other evidence when he searched their homes, electronics, and questioned them.

He doesn't fish, he hunts, and I haven't seen him miss yet.

Star for that. The FBI isn't going to ask you a question unless they already know the answer.

AMEND THAT. unless they railroad you like 4 men in whitey bolger case. fabricating evidence.

Mueller was the one that rooted out and prosecuted FBI Agents that had been cultivated and corrupted by Whitey Bolger.

And eh was responsible for 4 innocent men being railroaded as well. 2 of who died in jail. They had to pay these men a million dollars a piece after their convictions were thrown out. Mueller withheld evidence.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: drewlander
a reply to: soberbacchus

False. They don't need any evidence to question someone.

They do need evidence to obtain a warrant and search them and seize/search electronic devices.

Unless its ICE/BP who do not need a warrant.

However from what I am seeing it looks like a warrant was in fact obtained for both Russians.

originally posted by: yuppa
Mueller withheld evidence.

Wouldnt be the first time. Several of Muellers prosecutors also have a history of doing that. In some of those cases the suspect/defendant had their convictions tossed and the prosecutor admonished by the judge.

If I remember correctly Weismann is one of those with overturned / vacated rulings for Brady violations.

a reply to: Xcathdra

No you have the whole thing wrong. And no amount of you posting it will ever make it true. I'm done arguing with you. You're wrong.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yes there's is and yes there will be. Putting your fingers in your ears and going nah nah nah isn't going to work. We're not in fourth grade.