Major Questions So-Far Unanswered By The Mueller Investigation

As news slowly dribbles out from the very tight-lipped Mueller investigation, in the forms of indictments, plea agreements and today's sentencing memorandum regarding Michael Flynn, many pieces of the puzzle are falling into place.  We can triangulate from what has been made public a little bit about what's happening privately behind closed doors in Mueller's offices.

For instance:

• We know, from Flynn's memorandum tonight and from Michael Cohen's plea agreement last Friday, that the Russia collusion investigation has borne indictable fruit, that evidence is substantial, and that the HEART of Mueller's SOC has found impeachable, indictable or even possibly election-nullifying evidence of election tampering by the Russian government
  
  
• We know, from Flynn's memorandum tonight and from Mueller's referral of several matters to the NY State attorney general's office, that Mueller has credible, actionable evidence of Trump organization financial crimes unrelated to the Russia collusion probe; specifically tax evasion, Russian money-laundering, and possibly illegal business practices related to his foreign real estate deals
  
  
• We know that members of Trump's immediate family, including Don Jr., his daughter Ivanka and her husband Jared Kushner, are likely to be indicted under criminal statutes of such seriousness that substantial jail time is indicated -- whether or not Donald Trump HIMSELF is determined to be indictable as a sitting president.  This has never been tested before, so there is absolutely no precedent on whether a sitting president can go to jail
  
  
• We know that many, dare I say even most of Trump's cabinet and advisors are under active investigation and may face individual charges in connection with -- or even unrelated to -- the central charges previously mentioned
  

Okay, so that's what is KNOWN .

What's UNKNOWN -- so far as I can determine -- are two very central issues in this whole affair.  Correct me if I'm wrong -- because Fox News blathers on about these issues as if they're entirely settled -- but I do not believe we have heard the truth about either of these two issues.

1. The Steele dossier, which was central to the beginning of the collusion investigation, alleged all sorts of salacious details about Trump (including paying prostitutes to pee in the bed Obama slept in, in the Moscow Ritz Carlton; and Russia has tapes of this and is blackmailing Trump with them) IN ADDITION to the allegations of collusion between officials of the Kremlin and officials of the Trump campaign and transition team.  The latter allegations sound like they've been (or are being) proved accurate.  Does this mean the FORMER allegations are also factual?  Fox News is fond of saying Clinton paid for the Steele dossier as made-up opposition research, but according to this link, it was actually paid for by the campaign of Marco Rubio?  What's the truth here?  Both in the origin of the dossier, and its veracity.
   
   
2. What's the deal with the DNC's stolen e-mails?  The ones that Russian agents supposedly hacked and gave to Wikileaks, in order to throw the election to Trump?  What, exactly, was supposed to be in these leaks that was serious enough to sway an election?  I don't remember anything coming out that was more than slightly embarrassing to Hillary (Chelsea's wedding details...) and certainly I don't remember anything rising to the level of evidence of criminal wrongdoing.  Or did I miss that in all the flak?  I guess I need to dig back into this.  It seems to me that Fox has fixated on something with absolutely no value.
   

But I could be wrong.

Regarding #2, I'm not talking about Clinton's use of a private e-mail server during her time as Sec't of State.  As she stated, this was entirely in line with what her predecessors had done, and anyway nothing was found on the server which warranted any prosecution (1st time OR 2nd time).  The retroactive classification of 2,093 emails as "classified" is simply dirty tricks by Republicans.  (This is where the discussion of Chelsea's wedding came up; I misspoke above.)

No, I'm talking about the hacked DNC e-mails released by Wikileaks.

Wikipedia wrote:

Quote :

The leaked contents, which suggested the party's leadership had worked to sabotage Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign, prompted the resignation of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz before the Democratic National Convention.[5] After the convention, DNC CEO Amy Dacey, CFO Brad Marshall, and Communications Director Luis Miranda also resigned in the wake of the controversy.

How is this in any way detrimental to Clinton?  We knew all along that the DNC was working against Bernie Sanders.  *HE* knew it and said so at the time.

This is a bombshell?

Talk about triangulation:

I think if you look at evidence A: Mueller seems to have proof that Russians tried to influence the election in Trump's favor....

And evidence B: The DNC stolen e-mails don't mean shit to the election...

I'm forced to conclude that there is yet-unrevealed Russian interference in the election which is A LOT MORE SERIOUS than the DNC e-mails.

• Is it tampering with the voting machines?
  
  
• Is it throwing the election by invalidating ballots?
  
  
• Is it manipulation of the vote tabulating equipment?

Regarding number 1, the Steele dossier is actually pretty much a non-issue except for conspiracy theorists. They have tried to argue that the Mueller investigation basically arises from the Steele dossier, but that is simply untrue.

The Steele dossier, explained

That was true ten months ago, when that article was written.  I'm not so sure it's true today.

More and more of the allegations in the Steele dossier are being proven accurate, and it remains to be seen if the rest of it will be too.  Christopher Steele is a respected intelligence agent, having run the Russia desk for MI6 between 2006-2009.  It's not like a professional foreign intelligence agent to include salacious details without some corroborating evidence.

But put that aside for the moment.  Can you imagine what it would do to this country, to our democracy if it was proven that Donald Trump didn't win the election?

• The 2016 election would have to be nullified.  Donald Trump would have to be removed from office, and from history as the 45th president.
  
  
• Would the Supreme Court install Hillary Clinton?  Bear in mind, two justices of the Supreme Court would have to recuse themselves... or possibly even give up their positions?
  
  
• Would a new election be called for, outside of the 4-year election cycle?  Would the old candidates be allowed to run?  Would they even want to?
  
  
• All of Trump's Executive Orders would have to be rescinded.  All of his judicial appointments.  Any treaty he signed or didn't sign.  His foreign policy directives.  His immigration policy.
  
  
• How do you unwind two years of a presidency?
  

On Friday Rachel Maddow pulled together two threads of the Mueller investigation and connected them, making the case that not only are the two related, they're intimately tied to each other.



One thread is the Trump organization's desire to put their name on a tower to be built in Moscow, financed by a Russian bank currently under sanctions by the US.  Manafort and Cohen have both pleaded guilty to involvement in this plan with a prohibited bank, and it came out Friday that this deal was still actively being pursued as late as June 2016 despite sworn testimony (by everybody) to the contrary -- smack dab in the middle of the election campaign.  This of course colors Trump's foreign policy decisions, and the RNC's decision in July (under Trump pressure) to put a plank in the convention platform recommending lifting Russian sanctions, and Michael Flynn's illegal contacts with the Russians before the inauguration telling them not to react to Obama's post-election sanctions over 2016 election tampering because Trump will reverse them, and the watering down of US language about the annexation of Crimea and intervention in Ukraine.  There are undoubtedly other considerations I'm forgetting here.

Two is the REASON Russia wanted Trump to win the election.  Obviously the Obama-Clinton continuum would have kept, or even strengthened, the sanctions.  Trump was "their guy" in getting the sanctions lifted -- and in order to sweeten the pot -- and insure his cooperation -- and compromise him as a candidate -- Trump had a personal stake, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, in getting Trump Tower Moscow built.

This explanation for election interference, and the Russian investment in Trump, fits in perfectly with both the Russian government's history of compromising people by involving them in deals in which they'll personally profit by benefiting the Kremlin, AND it fits in perfectly with Trump's history of "the art of the deal" where nothing else matters when there's money to be made.

I believe Rachel may have uncovered the beating heart of the upcoming Mueller report.

The core of the matter -- that Russia helped Trump win in order to get sanctions lifted -- is NOWHERE NEAR as scary as the "how" this might have happened (see two posts above).  If the election was not just influenced by bad publicity -- as I've stated above, this seems unlikely, given the ho-hum nature of the DNC e-mails -- but rather the possibility that the election was falsified by tampering with the vote counting -- now THAT would be a disaster of almost unthinkable proportions.

On one point you're 100% correct though.  The Steele dossier's contention that the Russians have videotape of Trump witnessing golden showers in the Ritz Carlton would have absolutely no blackmail value against Trump.

The man is incapable of shame.

NoCoPilot wrote:

I'm forced to conclude that there is yet-unrevealed Russian interference in the election which is A LOT MORE SERIOUS than the DNC e-mails.

Jeffrey Toobin says the interference was in the form of posts to social media in favor of Donald Trump and against Hillary Clinton.  Although this is undoubtedly part of it, again I don't think that would have been enough to predictably throw the election.  It seems unusually lukewarm for Russian tactics.

Besides, I remember several Trump operatives as well as Trump himself stating unequivocally before the election that they would win -- despite universal polling suggesting otherwise.  It was almost as if they'd been assured by somebody that the votes cast in the election would not be the deciding factor.

The Republicans have been fixing (or attempting to fix) presidential elections at least as far back as 2004, and maybe further (in my opinion). The Russian intervention may have been mostly marketing, but the straight-up vote-swapping is home-grown. The reason the Republicans don't want the Russian intervention thoroughly investigated is because their own corruption may get exposed.

You mean like what's been exposed in North Carolina?

Today’s sentencing memos prove Rachel’s theory was spot-on.

If Congress doesn’t impeach Trump by year’s end, it WILL happen after January 20.

And as a separate issue, if he CAN be indicted for federal crimes, he WILL be.

And if prosecutors aren’t sure, this likely to be tested.

And if it’s determined a sitting president cannot be indicted, he’ll see the indictment as soon as he’s impeached.

Huh, even Faux News is admitting Trump’s goose is cooked.