Mueller Investigation Part 2: Release The Report

[fraurosena]

No doubt, this will be contested right up to the Supreme Court.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Mueller has broken his silence. This is being published in the WaPo: "Robert Mueller: Roger Stone remains a convicted felon, and rightly so"

Spoiler

Robert S. Mueller III served as special counsel for the Justice Department from 2017 to 2019.

The work of the special counsel’s office — its report, indictments, guilty pleas and convictions — should speak for itself. But I feel compelled to respond both to broad claims that our investigation was illegitimate and our motives were improper, and to specific claims that Roger Stone was a victim of our office. The Russia investigation was of paramount importance. Stone was prosecuted and convicted because he committed federal crimes. He remains a convicted felon, and rightly so.

Russia’s actions were a threat to America’s democracy. It was critical that they be investigated and understood. By late 2016, the FBI had evidence that the Russians had signaled to a Trump campaign adviser that they could assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to the Democratic candidate. And the FBI knew that the Russians had done just that: Beginning in July 2016, WikiLeaks released emails stolen by Russian military intelligence officers from the Clinton campaign. Other online personas using false names — fronts for Russian military intelligence — also released Clinton campaign emails.

Following FBI Director James B. Comey’s termination in May 2017, the acting attorney general named me as special counsel and directed the special counsel’s office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. The order specified lines of investigation for us to pursue, including any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign. One of our cases involved Stone, an official on the campaign until mid-2015 and a supporter of the campaign throughout 2016. Stone became a central figure in our investigation for two key reasons: He communicated in 2016 with individuals known to us to be Russian intelligence officers, and he claimed advance knowledge of WikiLeaks’ release of emails stolen by those Russian intelligence officers.

We now have a detailed picture of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election. The special counsel’s office identified two principal operations directed at our election: hacking and dumping Clinton campaign emails, and an online social media campaign to disparage the Democratic candidate. We also identified numerous links between the Russian government and Trump campaign personnel — Stone among them. We did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its activities. The investigation did, however, establish that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome. It also established that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.

Uncovering and tracing Russian outreach and interference activities was a complex task. The investigation to understand these activities took two years and substantial effort. Based on our work, eight individuals pleaded guilty or were convicted at trial, and more than two dozen Russian individuals and entities, including senior Russian intelligence officers, were charged with federal crimes.

Congress also investigated and sought information from Stone. A jury later determined he lied repeatedly to members of Congress. He lied about the identity of his intermediary to WikiLeaks. He lied about the existence of written communications with his intermediary. He lied by denying he had communicated with the Trump campaign about the timing of WikiLeaks’ releases. He in fact updated senior campaign officials repeatedly about WikiLeaks. And he tampered with a witness, imploring him to stonewall Congress.

The jury ultimately convicted Stone of obstruction of a congressional investigation, five counts of making false statements to Congress and tampering with a witness. Because his sentence has been commuted, he will not go to prison. But his conviction stands.

Russian efforts to interfere in our political system, and the essential question of whether those efforts involved the Trump campaign, required investigation. In that investigation, it was critical for us (and, before us, the FBI) to obtain full and accurate information. Likewise, it was critical for Congress to obtain accurate information from its witnesses. When a subject lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s efforts to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable. It may ultimately impede those efforts.

We made every decision in Stone’s case, as in all our cases, based solely on the facts and the law and in accordance with the rule of law. The women and men who conducted these investigations and prosecutions acted with the highest integrity. Claims to the contrary are false.

 

[fraurosena]

16 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Mueller has broken his silence. This is being published in the WaPo: "Robert Mueller: Roger Stone remains a convicted felon, and rightly so"

  Hide contents

Robert S. Mueller III served as special counsel for the Justice Department from 2017 to 2019.

The work of the special counsel’s office — its report, indictments, guilty pleas and convictions — should speak for itself. But I feel compelled to respond both to broad claims that our investigation was illegitimate and our motives were improper, and to specific claims that Roger Stone was a victim of our office. The Russia investigation was of paramount importance. Stone was prosecuted and convicted because he committed federal crimes. He remains a convicted felon, and rightly so.

Russia’s actions were a threat to America’s democracy. It was critical that they be investigated and understood. By late 2016, the FBI had evidence that the Russians had signaled to a Trump campaign adviser that they could assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to the Democratic candidate. And the FBI knew that the Russians had done just that: Beginning in July 2016, WikiLeaks released emails stolen by Russian military intelligence officers from the Clinton campaign. Other online personas using false names — fronts for Russian military intelligence — also released Clinton campaign emails.

Following FBI Director James B. Comey’s termination in May 2017, the acting attorney general named me as special counsel and directed the special counsel’s office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. The order specified lines of investigation for us to pursue, including any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign. One of our cases involved Stone, an official on the campaign until mid-2015 and a supporter of the campaign throughout 2016. Stone became a central figure in our investigation for two key reasons: He communicated in 2016 with individuals known to us to be Russian intelligence officers, and he claimed advance knowledge of WikiLeaks’ release of emails stolen by those Russian intelligence officers.

We now have a detailed picture of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election. The special counsel’s office identified two principal operations directed at our election: hacking and dumping Clinton campaign emails, and an online social media campaign to disparage the Democratic candidate. We also identified numerous links between the Russian government and Trump campaign personnel — Stone among them. We did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its activities. The investigation did, however, establish that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome. It also established that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.

Uncovering and tracing Russian outreach and interference activities was a complex task. The investigation to understand these activities took two years and substantial effort. Based on our work, eight individuals pleaded guilty or were convicted at trial, and more than two dozen Russian individuals and entities, including senior Russian intelligence officers, were charged with federal crimes.

Congress also investigated and sought information from Stone. A jury later determined he lied repeatedly to members of Congress. He lied about the identity of his intermediary to WikiLeaks. He lied about the existence of written communications with his intermediary. He lied by denying he had communicated with the Trump campaign about the timing of WikiLeaks’ releases. He in fact updated senior campaign officials repeatedly about WikiLeaks. And he tampered with a witness, imploring him to stonewall Congress.

The jury ultimately convicted Stone of obstruction of a congressional investigation, five counts of making false statements to Congress and tampering with a witness. Because his sentence has been commuted, he will not go to prison. But his conviction stands.

Russian efforts to interfere in our political system, and the essential question of whether those efforts involved the Trump campaign, required investigation. In that investigation, it was critical for us (and, before us, the FBI) to obtain full and accurate information. Likewise, it was critical for Congress to obtain accurate information from its witnesses. When a subject lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s efforts to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable. It may ultimately impede those efforts.

We made every decision in Stone’s case, as in all our cases, based solely on the facts and the law and in accordance with the rule of law. The women and men who conducted these investigations and prosecutions acted with the highest integrity. Claims to the contrary are false.

 

It's such a pity that he waited for so long before finally speaking out. This message would have been so much better had it been given during his testimony to Congress last year after his report was made public, or maybe even during the impeachment process, but now?

Now it's too late to have any real effect on public opinion one way or the other. 

[GreyhoundFan]

5 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Now it's too late to have any real effect on public opinion one way or the other. 

Hmm, it looks like Lindsey read the op-ed: :Sen. Graham says Mueller may be invited to testify in wake of op-ed on Trump’s commutation of Stone sentence:

Spoiler

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) suggested Sunday that former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III may be invited to testify before his panel, although Graham did not give any details on the timing of any potential invitation.

Graham’s statement came one day after Mueller defended his office’s prosecution of Roger Stone, President Trump’s longtime friend and political adviser, in a Washington Post op-ed.

Trump commuted Stone’s 40-month prison sentence on Friday, using his presidential authority to undermine the unanimous finding by a jury that Stone broke the law multiple times by lying to Congress and obstructing justice.

In his statement Sunday, Graham suggested that he had reconsidered his position on allowing Mueller to testify in light of the former special counsel’s op-ed.

“Apparently Mr. Mueller is willing — and also capable — of defending the Mueller investigation through an oped in the Washington Post,” Graham said. “Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have previously requested Mr. Mueller appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify about his investigation. That request will be granted.”

Taylor Reidy, a Graham spokeswoman, said a formal invitation to Mueller is in the works but did not provide details on the timing of any potential testimony. There are only about three dozen legislative days remaining for the Senate before the November election.

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment on Graham’s statement. A spokesman for Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Mueller testified before two House committees last year, answering questions about his investigation of Trump and Russian interference in the 2016 election. At the time, some Republicans criticized Mueller’s performance, seizing on his halting replies to some questions and his at-times confused demeanor.

Trump’s commutation of Stone’s sentence has triggered a flood of criticism, with Democrats — and a handful of Republicans — in recent days arguing that the move amounted to an abuse of presidential power and an effort to undermine the justice system.

On Sunday, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) said that “anyone who cares about the rule of law in this country” should be “nauseated” by Trump’s actions in the Stone case.

“The president through this commutation is basically saying, ‘If you lie for me, if you cover up for me, if you have my back, then I will make sure that you get a get-out-of-jail-free card,’ ” Schiff said in an interview on ABC News’s “This Week.” “Other Americans, different standards. Friends of the president’s, accomplices of this president, they get off scot-free.”

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) also criticized Trump’s commutation of Stone’s sentence, calling it a “problem.”

“The president does have the right, by law, to take the action he took,” Hogan said on NBC News’s “Meet the Press.” “That doesn’t mean he should have.”

For Trump to commute the sentence “a couple of months before an election … is certainly going to hurt politically,” Hogan added.

Trump fired back at two of the Republicans who have criticized him — Sens. Mitt Romney (Utah) and Patrick J. Toomey (Pa.) — in a tweet on Saturday night in which he called them “RINO’S,” an acronym that stands for “Republicans in Name Only.”

Trump campaign lawyer Jenna Ellis rebuked Mueller for writing the op-ed, arguing Sunday in an interview on Fox News Channel that “as a prosecutor, he should be completely disinterested.”

“He should have just remained quiet and allowed the commutation to proceed,” Ellis said of Mueller.

 

[fraurosena]

6 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Hmm, it looks like Lindsey read the op-ed: :Sen. Graham says Mueller may be invited to testify in wake of op-ed on Trump’s commutation of Stone sentence:

  Hide contents

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) suggested Sunday that former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III may be invited to testify before his panel, although Graham did not give any details on the timing of any potential invitation.

Graham’s statement came one day after Mueller defended his office’s prosecution of Roger Stone, President Trump’s longtime friend and political adviser, in a Washington Post op-ed.

Trump commuted Stone’s 40-month prison sentence on Friday, using his presidential authority to undermine the unanimous finding by a jury that Stone broke the law multiple times by lying to Congress and obstructing justice.

In his statement Sunday, Graham suggested that he had reconsidered his position on allowing Mueller to testify in light of the former special counsel’s op-ed.

“Apparently Mr. Mueller is willing — and also capable — of defending the Mueller investigation through an oped in the Washington Post,” Graham said. “Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have previously requested Mr. Mueller appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify about his investigation. That request will be granted.”

Taylor Reidy, a Graham spokeswoman, said a formal invitation to Mueller is in the works but did not provide details on the timing of any potential testimony. There are only about three dozen legislative days remaining for the Senate before the November election.

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment on Graham’s statement. A spokesman for Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Mueller testified before two House committees last year, answering questions about his investigation of Trump and Russian interference in the 2016 election. At the time, some Republicans criticized Mueller’s performance, seizing on his halting replies to some questions and his at-times confused demeanor.

Trump’s commutation of Stone’s sentence has triggered a flood of criticism, with Democrats — and a handful of Republicans — in recent days arguing that the move amounted to an abuse of presidential power and an effort to undermine the justice system.

On Sunday, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) said that “anyone who cares about the rule of law in this country” should be “nauseated” by Trump’s actions in the Stone case.

“The president through this commutation is basically saying, ‘If you lie for me, if you cover up for me, if you have my back, then I will make sure that you get a get-out-of-jail-free card,’ ” Schiff said in an interview on ABC News’s “This Week.” “Other Americans, different standards. Friends of the president’s, accomplices of this president, they get off scot-free.”

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) also criticized Trump’s commutation of Stone’s sentence, calling it a “problem.”

“The president does have the right, by law, to take the action he took,” Hogan said on NBC News’s “Meet the Press.” “That doesn’t mean he should have.”

For Trump to commute the sentence “a couple of months before an election … is certainly going to hurt politically,” Hogan added.

Trump fired back at two of the Republicans who have criticized him — Sens. Mitt Romney (Utah) and Patrick J. Toomey (Pa.) — in a tweet on Saturday night in which he called them “RINO’S,” an acronym that stands for “Republicans in Name Only.”

Trump campaign lawyer Jenna Ellis rebuked Mueller for writing the op-ed, arguing Sunday in an interview on Fox News Channel that “as a prosecutor, he should be completely disinterested.”

“He should have just remained quiet and allowed the commutation to proceed,” Ellis said of Mueller.

 

If he’s being serious, the only reason Lindsey is willing to have Mueller testify now is because he and the other Senate trumplicans will have the opportunity to attack and smear him and the Russia investigation; a little gift to Trump’s re-election campaign— or so he thinks.