Mueller may have broke law dealing with Manafort connected Russian oligarch while at fbi

a reply to: Grambler

In 2009, when Mueller ran the FBI, the bureau asked Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska to spend millions of his own dollars funding an FBI-supervised operation to rescue a retired FBI agent, Robert Levinson, captured in Iran while working for the CIA in 2007

My question why would FBI request funding from another source? Not like FBI couldn't afford it. Did this russian already owe a favor? Was it to cover US involvement?

a reply to: Grambler

I've come to the conclusion that Russia is like the town money-slut - everyones shagged her, no-one wants to admit it lest their wives (aka: the US citizens) find out.

'Colluded with Russia'..........should be the US governments' motto, unless Gorbachev came up with the ideas to relegate communism to the shelf all by his slutty self or the uranium one deal was done by non-US robots??

LOL - I think not - America loves money-sluts, even when they insist they didn't shag her (thats when you know they definitely shagged her)

a reply to: Grambler

There are those on ats and elsewhere that are insistent that connections to Deripaska proves some sort of incredible shadiness.

Well that's very nonspecific. Manafort doesn't just have "connections" to Deripaska. Rusal employs thousands of people, they all technically have "connections" to Deripaska.

- Deripaska paid Manafort millions of dollars a year to advance Putin's agenda.

- Deripaska invested millions in a fund controlled by Manafort and Gates and claimed in legal filings in 2015 and 2017 that the men ripped him off for millions.

- While he was running the Trump campaign, Manafort reached out to Deripaska, trying to find a way to leverage his position to square things with Deripaska. Specifically mentioned was an offer to give Deripaska private briefings.

The connections that Manafort had to Deripaska are themselves inherently shady.

Just another example in the ever growing list of double standards incompetence or corruption of these investigators

Or another sensationalized story from John Solomon that will go nowhere because it's bull#.

Assuming there's an actual conflict of interest, Mueller should step down for the sake of the investigation.

I am sure the very people insisting that Manafort schools connections to Deripaska were terrible will be calling muellers connections to him the same.

Yeah, exactly the same. The allegation is that the FBI may have done something improper to rescue a former FBI agent imprisoned in Iran. How is that anything like the relationship between Manafort and Deripaska?

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Grambler

it almost seems as if he should have recused himself. Although I'd rather have this charade finish on the crybabies terms to avoid two more years of crying and tantrums.

Even without his history in the FBI throwing up conflicts of interest, it's fairly obvious that James Comey's buddy should not have been chosen to lead a SC that was initiated because of ... James Comey's firing. I mean, come on.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Th head investigator into trump Russia collusion may have broken the law or at least had a relationship with the very Russian oligarch at the center of the investigation

Yes Deripaska sounds very shady. Strange mueller didn’t disclose his connections to him when he knew he was investigating Manaforts connections to him.

Strange Deripaska wasn’t mentioned in the indictments well, as you have mentioned in the past

As the article suggests, perhaps Manafort didn’t want his connections to Deripaska to come to light.

So yeah, I think this is a pretty big deal.

Just another in a long line of shadiness from these investigators

originally posted by: Grambler

thehill.com...

Great parts...

One agent who helped court Deripaska was Andrew McCabe, the recently fired FBI deputy director who played a seminal role starting the Trump-Russia case, multiple sources confirmed.

“Deripaska’s efforts came very close to success,” said David McGee, a former federal prosecutor who represents Levinson’s family. “We were told at one point that the terms of Levinson’s release had been agreed to by Iran and the U.S. and included a statement by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pointing a finger away from Iran. At the last minute, Secretary Clinton decided not to make the agreed-on statement.”

The State Department declined comment, and a spokesman for Clinton did not offer comment. Mueller’s spokesman, Peter Carr, declined to answer questions. As did McCabe.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: luthier

Possible, but I would remind you the United States' legal framework is built on proof of guilt being the responsibility of the investigation and prosecution. In other words, you can't throw the Americans who are positioned that no wrong doing took place based on the present lack of anything other than wild accusations and gross speculation into the same bucket as those who are ready to cast Trump out of office based on a huge pile of nothing.

We also live in a place where republicans led a charge to trample the 4th and where scouts has ruled federal prosecutors can bribe and lie to get witness testimony. Unfortunately trump's supporters are just waking up and thinking this is unprecedented and illegal.

And you have literally no idea what Mueller has. Nobody does. We know he has gates so gng like a canary.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: BlueMule
It’s pathetic how desperate Cult45 is to tarnish Mueller.

I see it a bit differently... I see the "resistance" desperately trying to polish a turd, then accusing those who aren't playing along of "tarnishing" the turd when, clearly, a turd is a turd is a turd.

What I see is the left and right desperately grasping at straws for an investigation they have .05 percent of the informatuon on.

you really aren't this dumb are you? This is information about Mueller and a Russian millionaire who helped him out by facilitating a rescue of a retired FBI agent. He spent his own money to help out, so to think that he isn't "owed" something wouldn't be out of the norm.

But the fact still remains that you lefties seem to fall apart every time you are shown just how crooked your people are. (all the while pointing to Trump and claiming he's the bad one)

Your ignorance is front and center displayed for all.

Yeah me and judge napolitano are real lefties. In fact unless you buy an msm narrative you are a lefty.

Mueller spent his own money? WTF are you talking about.

Do you have any idea how often black ops like this happen for search and rescues?

Jesus you folks buy anything.

Here in the article it states why he didn't charge mana fort and use the Russians name.

Mueller’s indictment of Manafort makes no mention of Deripaska, even though prosecutors have evidence that Manafort contemplated inviting his old Russian client for a 2016 Trump campaign briefing. Deripaska said he never got the invite and investigators have found no evidence it occurred. There’s no public evidence Deripaska had anything to do with election meddling.

Mueller is the one deciding how his case is put together.

There is not a single glee person other than his team that knows what his case entails.

For people who say the media is false it's amazing how when it fits their Co formation bias it's suddenly fact.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: BlueMule
It’s pathetic how desperate Cult45 is to tarnish Mueller.

I see it a bit differently... I see the "resistance" desperately trying to polish a turd, then accusing those who aren't playing along of "tarnishing" the turd when, clearly, a turd is a turd is a turd.

What I see is the left and right desperately grasping at straws for an investigation they have .05 percent of the informatuon on.

you really aren't this dumb are you? This is information about Mueller and a Russian millionaire who helped him out by facilitating a rescue of a retired FBI agent. He spent his own money to help out, so to think that he isn't "owed" something wouldn't be out of the norm.

But the fact still remains that you lefties seem to fall apart every time you are shown just how crooked your people are. (all the while pointing to Trump and claiming he's the bad one)

Your ignorance is front and center displayed for all.

Yeah me and judge napolitano are real lefties. In fact unless you buy an msm narrative you are a lefty.

Mueller spent his own money? WTF are you talking about.

Do you have any idea how often black ops like this happen for search and rescues?

Jesus you folks buy anything.

Here in the article it states why he didn't charge mana fort and use the Russians name.

Mueller’s indictment of Manafort makes no mention of Deripaska, even though prosecutors have evidence that Manafort contemplated inviting his old Russian client for a 2016 Trump campaign briefing. Deripaska said he never got the invite and investigators have found no evidence it occurred. There’s no public evidence Deripaska had anything to do with election meddling.

Mueller is the one deciding how his case is put together.

There is not a single glee person other than his team that knows what his case entails.

For people who say the media is false it's amazing how when it fits their Co formation bias it's suddenly fact.

Not Mueller's money, the Russian rich guy. And the fact that he worked with the same Russian rich guy who's involved in the investigation started by his good friend, means that it kind of appears, at lest from here, that perhaps he is a tiny bit too involved in this whole process.

a reply to: network dude

Well perhaps if you don't know what conflicts of interest are.

The Russian has not been proven to have done anything.

He was the fbi director when this situation occurred he was briefed about it but was not a planner or a contact. The article seems to imply he would try and persuade the state dept if necessary to extract a colleague...

I haven't seen any illegal material about this but go ahead and educate me. I could be wrong.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Grambler

it almost seems as if he should have recused himself. Although I'd rather have this charade finish on the crybabies terms to avoid two more years of crying and tantrums.

Even without his history in the FBI throwing up conflicts of interest, it's fairly obvious that James Comey's buddy should not have been chosen to lead a SC that was initiated because of ... James Comey's firing. I mean, come on.

Is there evidence that comey and Mueller are friends?

Maybe some pics of campING trips?

Were Clinton and Trump friends?

a reply to: Grambler

I went back and read the NYT article. Basically what appears to have happened here is that Deripaska made efforts to find and secure the release of Bob Levinson in the belief that doing so would get him a US visa (and the FBI did in fact give him a "parole visa." Deripaska has spent many many millions trying to make this happen so that's no surprising.

Bob Levinson is of course still missing. I would presume he's dead by this point since the last known photo of him was from 2011 and he looked emaciated.

There's essentially two issues addressed in the article with quotes. The second of these is whether or not the FBI accepting Deripaska's assistance constituted a violation of the Antideficiency Act because he presumably paid up to many millions for people to work toward this goal in cooperation with the FBI.

I doubt anything will come from that. The Antideficiency Act is second only to the Logan Act in terms of lack of enforcement. Nobody has ever been convicted under it in its 120 years of existence. If you want to go to extremes with this, the government violated the act when Jimmy Carter went to NK and obtained the release of a hostage in 2010 — unless the State Department paid him for his time.

The other is the potential conflict of interest.

I'll have to mull this over some more. There's a lot of ironic assumption being made here. For one, that Deripaska not being named (so far) in any indictments is suspicious. What a strange line to walk. You've got people who are going to jump all over this because they think it undermines Mueller but the argument here is literally that it's suspicious that Deripaska isn't named which implies that he should be. The irony is that the same people will be in other threads espousing their belief that Manafort should walk. You'd think that those would be incompatible beliefs.

I'm actually concerned by the possibility that Derispaska isn't named and there are crimes Manafort isn't being charged with but I don't think that him not being named in the indictments is enough to draw too many conclusions.

There are a lot of possibilities here. It could be that there's no case they could make for crimes to charge Manafort with that Deripaska would be a witness to. In that scenario, there's no conflict of interest. It could be that there are and they haven't sought indictments for them yet. It could be that Deripaska will be sought as a witness in the prosecution of Manafort and Mueller doesn't see a conflict with the FBI's previous dealings with Deripaska.

I'm still mulling this over but as far the court goes, the only way I could see even a potential conflict of interest is if Deripaska is a witness for the prosecution. If he's not called as a witness, there's a possibility that Manafort is skating because they're avoiding this potential conflict of interest but not being charged for other crimes isn't really doing much for Manafort's defense against prosecution for what he's charged with, is it?

This is all pretty hazy because the circumstances are so unique. There may not be any precedent. Furthermore, there might not be any actual legal ramifications if Deripaska doesn't end up a witness for the prosecution regardless of how a judge might rule because it would never come up in the proceedings.

For me though, the biggest takeaway is that Mueller might be pulling punches on Manafort to steer clear of potential conflicts of interest with having Deripaska as a witness.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: network dude

Well perhaps if you don't know what conflicts of interest are.

The Russian has not been proven to have done anything.

He was the fbi director when this situation occurred he was briefed about it but was not a planner or a contact. The article seems to imply he would try and persuade the state dept if necessary to extract a colleague...

I haven't seen any illegal material about this but go ahead and educate me. I could be wrong.

this is one of those times, you have to look at things from a neutral perspective. Doing so makes his being in charge a questionable thing. And it looks like nobody is allowed to question it. Don't you see that as a potential issue going forward?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: network dude

Well perhaps if you don't know what conflicts of interest are.

The Russian has not been proven to have done anything.

He was the fbi director when this situation occurred he was briefed about it but was not a planner or a contact. The article seems to imply he would try and persuade the state dept if necessary to extract a colleague...

I haven't seen any illegal material about this but go ahead and educate me. I could be wrong.

this is one of those times, you have to look at things from a neutral perspective. Doing so makes his being in charge a questionable thing. And it looks like nobody is allowed to question it. Don't you see that as a potential issue going forward?

From what two articles.

No everytime I read something I don't jump to my confirmation bias..

So I highly doubt you are being neutral. You want to prove Mueller is not on the level.

I say well why does a guy like trey gowdy support mueller?

Do you sincerely believe that these search and rescue events don't happen? My lord.

Did he sell weapons to release hostages?

Now if that is the case arrest this man.

Do we know this Russian is not an asset?

No we don't.


If this is truly illegal I hope to god the doj does something.

But again it's the Democrats fault trump picked sessions, wray, and ronstein.

a reply to: network dude

you really aren't this dumb are you?

Hold that thought for a second.

But the fact still remains that you lefties seem to fall apart every time you are shown just how crooked your people are.

Which of "our people" are you referring to? You aren't really dumb enough to believe that Mueller is a "lefty" are you? He's a lifelong Republican who was appointed by George W. Bush and served as head of the FBI for both of his terms. Also, try to get at least some of the facts straight:

- There was no rescue of Bob Levinson. The man is still missing.
- Deripaska is a billionaire.
- again, Mueller isn't a "lefty" just because of your feelings.

Your ignorance is front and center displayed for all.

Oh Wow. Did I wake up in a alternate reality where you know #?

The allegation here is basically that the absence of any mention of Deripaska in the indictment could indicate that Mueller is avoiding Deripaska... in relation to crimes with which Manafort is charged with or could be. The obvious implication is that the Mueller team is pulling their punches with Manafort to avoid involving Deripaska. You get that right?

a reply to: theantediluvian

I think Mueller is Anti/Never Trump. What term best describes those of you who want nothing more than to see Trump fail? We can go with whatever label you like.

originally posted by: BlueMule
It’s pathetic how desperate Cult45 is to tarnish Mueller.

It's pathetic that you can't see that it has nothing to do with Trump supporters and everything to do with how much of a corrupt scumbah Mueller is.

Seriously the information is all there for you to read if you were so inclined.

The funny thing is Democrats and people like you have been saying the SAME things about Mueller for 20+ years but now that he is SC the leftist clowns are trying to hold this scumbag up as some sort of untouchable saint.

It's the same insanity and lack of critical thinking that allows people that have hated John McCain for his entire career to hold him up as some sort of virtuous truth teller.

It's so pathetic. It just goes to show hat no matter what the issue is you guys will side with whoever is against Trump.

McCain, Mueller, China, Cuba, and North Korea are just some of the scum you guys have sided with cause....Trump.

The North Korea one is by far the funniest logicpretzelive seen you guys/gals make.

Pathetic is a very fine word to describe the leftist mindset these days.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: xuenchen


But CNN and MSNBC say that Mueller is a man of IMPECCABLE CHARACTER.

Now. Prior to the SC they strongly disliked that corrupt Republican. Now he's a saint.

McCain same thing.

Praise North Korea to attack Trump? No problem.

Hopefully Trump comes out in favor of Oxygen and all the Leftist maggots stop breathing that evil Trump oxygen in protest.