First charges filed in U.S. special counsel's Russia investigation

[rooster59]

First charges filed in U.S. special counsel's Russia investigation

 

FILE PHOTO - FBI Director Robert Mueller pauses after making an opening statement at the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, U.S. on June 19, 2013. REUTERS/Larry Downing/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal grand jury on Friday approved the first charges in the investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, a source briefed on the matter told Reuters.

 

The indictment was sealed under orders from a federal judge so it was not clear what the charges were or who the target was, the source said, adding that the indictment could be unsealed as early as Monday.

 

The filing of charges by the grand jury in Washington was first reported earlier on Friday by CNN, which said the target could be taken into custody as soon as Monday.

 

U.S. intelligence agencies concluded in January that Russia interfered in the election to try to help President Donald Trump defeat Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton through a campaign of hacking and releasing embarrassing emails, and disseminating propaganda via social media to discredit her campaign.

 

Special counsel Robert Mueller, a former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, is investigating whether Trump campaign officials colluded with those Russian efforts.

 

"If the Special Counsel finds it necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters," Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said in a May 17 letter appointing Mueller.

 

Sources familiar with Mueller’s investigation said he has used that broad authority to investigate links between Trump aides and foreign governments as well as possible money laundering, tax evasion and other financial crimes.

 

Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mueller, declined to comment to Reuters on Friday.

 

Trump, a Republican who was elected president last November, has denied allegations that his campaign colluded with Russians and condemned investigations into the matter as a witch hunt.

 

The Kremlin has denied the allegations.

 

The special counsel's investigation also includes an effort to determine whether the president or any of his aides tried to obstruct justice.

 

Mueller's team has conducted extensive interviews with former White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, former spokesman Sean Spicer and other current and former White House officials.

 

In July, FBI agents raided the Virginia home of Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort, whose financial and real estate dealings and prior work for a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine are being investigated by Mueller's team.

 

Mueller was appointed by the Justice Department to lead the investigation a week after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, who was leading a federal investigation into possible collusion with Russia.

 

Trump initially said he fired Comey because his leadership of the FBI was inadequate and hurt morale, but in a later interview with NBC he cited "this Russia thing" as his reason.

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-10-28

[Samui Bodoh]

And so it begins...

 

I think that the filing of charges today will be the beginning of a long process with many charges to come. Whether you are a Trump supporter or a Trump foe, you have to admit that there were sooooooo many strange contacts, meetings, coincidences, etc between the campaign and the Russians and that not all of them could be benign.

 

My guess is that it'll be Manafort to begin with, Flynn soon after, Jared, Don jr. to come down the road. and then all the poor saps who went along for the ride thinking that it would end well.

 

For political purposes, I doubt that Trump personally will be charged as that opens many questions as to whether you can indict a sitting President or not. Instead, I would expect a report to Congress in the future recommending Impeachment. That's when the fun will really begin; do the Republican members of Congress have any 'nads?

 

Interesting times... 

 

Interesting times indeed!

 

Edited October 28, 2017 by Samui Bodoh

[FreddieRoyle]

Incredible to think, that all the debates, all the campaigning, all the strategies, the millions and millions of dollars spent trying to secure an electoral victory, it was all for nothing. All that was needed to swing an election the "wrong way" was a few facebook ads by Russian trolls. It is so unbelievable that I'm just going to have to call it BS. Clinton lost, now stop whining and grow up.

[Samui Bodoh]

28 minutes ago, FreddieRoyle said:

Incredible to think, that all the debates, all the campaigning, all the strategies, the millions and millions of dollars spent trying to secure an electoral victory, it was all for nothing. All that was needed to swing an election the "wrong way" was a few facebook ads by Russian trolls. It is so unbelievable that I'm just going to have to call it BS. Clinton lost, now stop whining and grow up.

Respectfully, not that many people needed to be influenced. I do believe that it was possible as the number required wasn't really that big. 

 

However, I take issue that the reason that I (and I strongly believe, many others) are unhappy with this is that Clinton lost. Personally, I think she is a conniving, sleazy, possibly criminal, piece of scum. I would be a LOT more graphic in my language, but my post would be removed. To sum up, she is scum, scum scum, and I am pleased that she is NOT President.

 

The reason that I care about this is that I don't want the Russians messing about with other people's elections. Period. 

 

Edited October 28, 2017 by Samui Bodoh

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

It doesn't matter, legally speaking at this point, whether or not Clinton lost the election, which she obviously did.

 

What matters is whether Trump and his associates anywhere along the way broke federal laws in their election campaign, including thru possible illegal collusion with a foreign government or its agents to try to influence the election.

 

And then pile on top of that another matter unrelated to the outcome of the presidential election, and that's whether Trump, the AG, the deputy AG, etc,, once in office, engaged in illegal obstruction of justice by firing FBI Director Comey in a self-admitted attempt to shut down the bureau's then ongoing Russian election hacking investigation.

 

Maybe you're OK with foreign governments illegally interfering in U.S. presidential elections, and candidates and later elected officials colluding with them and trying to quash investigations into that wrongdoing. But most people are not.

 

 

 

[Andaman Al]

I assume Mueller has some pretty amazingly talented lawyers and that this will be structured to ensure that there is maximum payback on Trump. One way would be to press some reasonably major, (but not the most severe) charges on one of the key players - Manafort or Flynn for example  (or even Don J) - maybe Stone would be a good place to start because of the dirt he has on Trump. Trump is likely to head straight for a pardon. If he pardons the individual concerned, then that individual is no longer permitted to plead the 5th or they will go to jail anyway, and then the circus will begin. I cannot believe that Mueller and team have not thought this through and will place all these charges against specific people in a specified order, to ensure that the FBI and Intel services get the maximum payback they want on Trump. Worse than doing a JFK on Trump will be to totally destroy him and end the dreamt of Trump Dynasty for good.

 

The world is watching and Justice will be seen to be done. Trump could do one of four things. 1) Nothing - just watch and let the judicial process take it's course. 2) Intervene and pardon.  3) Fire Mueller 4) Start a war with Korea or Iran - and yes he is bat s**t crazy enough to do that.

 

Hurry the shelves are running out of popcorn!

[HappyinNE]

I don't think that there is a law on the books that criminalizes a foreign nation attempting to influence an American election.  This practice is used by many countries on many countries all over the world.  In fact I would guess that the US Government is by far the leader in this endeavor.

 

It will be interesting to see if when the US Congress passes a law outlawing this if they will outlaw the US Government doing it.

[JusticeGB]

Will be interesting to watch Trump's response almost certainly a special counsel appointment to investigate the Clintons. 

[attrayant]

4 minutes ago, JusticeGB said:

Will be interesting to watch Trump's response almost certainly a special counsel appointment to investigate the Clintons. 

 

You're three days late.  Congress has already done that for him.  Congressional GOPers try desperately to take focus off Trump

 

Quote

 

For months, Congressional Republicans have watched in a combination of wonderment and terror as President Donald Trump has swerved all over the political world -- picking fights, fueling controversies and, generally speaking, making a mess of things.

 

On Tuesday, Republicans finally took some action -- doing one of the only things left to them: They launched investigations of the past Democratic administration and the last Democratic presidential nominee!

 

 

[attrayant]

1 hour ago, FreddieRoyle said:

All that was needed to swing an election the "wrong way" was a few facebook ads by Russian trolls.

 

 

A few?  That's some excellent work making a mole hill out of a mountain. 

 

From Facebook:

 

 

Quote

Facebook will release over 3,000 ads bought by a Russian entity to interfere in U.S. politics and the 2016 presidential election with congressional investigators

 

From Twitter:

 

 

Quote

Based on our findings thus far, RT spent $274,100 in U.S. ads in 2016.  In that year, the @RT_com, @RT_America, and @ActualidadRT accounts promoted 1,823 Tweets that definitely or potentially targeted the U.S. market. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 28, 2017 by attrayant
cleaned up formatting

[HappyinNE]

17 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Quite a few legal experts say you're wrong about that:

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/12/what-is-collusion-215366

 

 

 

 

Thanks!

[Wake Up]

A real life Game of Thrones. 

[Thakkar]

There were so many shady characters involved in Trump’s campaign that nobody can say with any confidence who Mueller will charge on Monday.

 

Just let that sink in.

[connda]

Welcome to McCarthyism 2.0.  We're one year into a decade of witch hunts no doubt.

Edited October 28, 2017 by connda

[ilostmypassword]

12 minutes ago, connda said:

Welcome to McCarthyism 2.0.  We're one year into a decade of witch hunts no doubt.

Just one year? I've got a one word answer to that: Benghazi!

[Meljames]

Niger.

[farcanell]

8 hours ago, FreddieRoyle said:

 Clinton lost, now stop whining and grow up.

I think most people are past complains about Clinton loosing, and are now simply complaining about trumps incompetence.

[boomerangutang]

27 minutes ago, connda said:

Welcome to McCarthyism 2.0.  We're one year into a decade of witch hunts no doubt.

McCarthyism was bad. Working with Russian agents to skew a US election is bad - but in different ways. 

 

You're right, though, about it being a giant can of worms.  News commentators are surprised that Mueller's team is already filing charges.  I think it's good, and that Meuller's team is doing a good job.  I also think we, the general public, have heard less than 50% of what's in store, ....even those of us who have been following this closely, including the bit about a mysterious internet server in PA (connected to Trump Tower) which only handled data from a Russian bank in Moscow whose boss is a bosom buddy of Putin's.  .....and a secret meeting at the Seychelles between Arab financiers, Russian agents and Blackwater's boss (Betsy DeVos' brother) and a big fan/close associate of Trump.   ....and Trump's laundering Russian oligarchs' money, .....on and on and on.....

 

  

[Scott]

Posts violating Fair Use Policy have been removed.   You may not quote more than the headline and 3 sentences.   Attempting to circumvent this by adding more quote boxes will earn a warning.  

[csabo]

13 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Respectfully, not that many people needed to be influenced. I do believe that it was possible as the number required wasn't really that big. 

 

However, I take issue that the reason that I (and I strongly believe, many others) are unhappy with this is that Clinton lost. Personally, I think she is a conniving, sleazy, possibly criminal, piece of scum. I would be a LOT more graphic in my language, but my post would be removed. To sum up, she is scum, scum scum, and I am pleased that she is NOT President.

 

The reason that I care about this is that I don't want the Russians messing about with other people's elections. Period. 

 

"Possibly criminal"? POSSIBLY?! 

[manarak]

13 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Maybe you're OK with foreign governments illegally interfering in U.S. presidential elections, and candidates and later elected officials colluding with them and trying to quash investigations into that wrongdoing. But most people are not.

does that mean that when the US influence democratic elections in foreign countries, that is illegal too and should there be indictments for that?

 

I know the answer to that of course.

It's 100% hypocrisy and the law of the strongest.

 

Edited October 28, 2017 by manarak

[lannarebirth]

14 hours ago, FreddieRoyle said:

Incredible to think, that all the debates, all the campaigning, all the strategies, the millions and millions of dollars spent trying to secure an electoral victory, it was all for nothing. All that was needed to swing an election the "wrong way" was a few facebook ads by Russian trolls. It is so unbelievable that I'm just going to have to call it BS. Clinton lost, now stop whining and grow up.

Does anyone even look at internet ads? Whatever Adblocker doesn't catch my eyes seem to automatically screen out. And isn't Facebook primarily populated with a demographic too young to even vote?

Edited October 28, 2017 by lannarebirth

[jcsmith]

4 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

Does anyone even look at internet ads? Whatever Adblocker doesn't catch my eyes seem to automatically screen out. And isn't Facebook primarily populated with a demographic too young to even vote?

This is wrong on pretty much every point. Yes many people do look at internet ads, in fact the number of people who get their news from social media has skyrocketed in recent years. The news that gets shared here is sharing articles from fictitious groups, people simply share it, and much of that is not blockable. And just about everyone is on Facebook of all ages these days. 

[lannarebirth]

38 minutes ago, jcsmith said:

This is wrong on pretty much every point. Yes many people do look at internet ads, in fact the number of people who get their news from social media has skyrocketed in recent years. The news that gets shared here is sharing articles from fictitious groups, people simply share it, and much of that is not blockable. And just about everyone is on Facebook of all ages these days. 

 

I'll take your word for it though none of that aligns with my personal experience.

 

I've got a few comments/questions about all this.

 

1) I get that it is illegal, and should be, for a political campaign to collude with a foreign government in an attempt to sway an election. But doesn't the swaying come in the voting booth and in the counting of votes?  I mean we've all been exposed to really one sided ads from both parties. You hardly ever know who produced it. How could the ad itself sway an election?

 

2) Whether collusion is proven or not proven can Facebook be charged for accepting money to place these ads?

 

3) If there is no collusion proved, what are the consequences for the foreign entity that created them?

 

edit:  When you say many people get their news from social media, do you mean from sources on the internet or are you being specific about chat rooms such as the one we are on now?

Edited October 28, 2017 by lannarebirth

[FreddieRoyle]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

Does anyone even look at internet ads? Whatever Adblocker doesn't catch my eyes seem to automatically screen out. And isn't Facebook primarily populated with a demographic too young to even vote?

Yes, absolutely correct on all points. The Russian facebook ads (if they even exist at all!?) had no bearing on the election result. It's all just pure laziness tinged with arrogance on behalf of the swamp dwellers to blame their humiliation at the polls on something other than their incompetence and total unelectability. Mr. Assange has been weighing in with lots of relevant info, although CNN and "approved" news sources have been avoiding the doses of reality as regards the whole situation. 

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, FreddieRoyle said:

Yes, absolutely correct on all points. The Russian facebook ads (if they even exist at all!?) had no bearing on the election result. It's all just pure laziness tinged with arrogance on behalf of the swamp dwellers to blame their humiliation at the polls on something other than their incompetence and total unelectability. Mr. Assange has been weighing in with lots of relevant info, although CNN and "approved" news sources have been avoiding the doses of reality as regards the whole situation. 

If they exist?  Good gosh, even Zuckerberg admitted it and handed over the ads.  He's the CEO, he out to know. LOL. 

 

You completely miss the point.  This isn't about who won or lost.  It's about the integrity of the electoral process.  Luckily, those in power realize this.

 

Twitter seems to have done the right thing.

http://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-is-banning-all-ads-from-russian-news-agencies-rt-and-sputnik-2017-10

Quote

Twitter is banning all ads from Russian news agencies RT and Sputnik effective immediately

 

 

[FreddieRoyle]

22 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

If they exist?  Good gosh, even Zuckerberg admitted it and handed over the ads.  He's the CEO, he out to know. LOL. 

 

You completely miss the point.  This isn't about who won or lost.  It's about the integrity of the electoral process.  Luckily, those in power realize this.

 

Twitter seems to have done the right thing.

http://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-is-banning-all-ads-from-russian-news-agencies-rt-and-sputnik-2017-10

 

 

Citing Zuckerberg as proof of some leftist conspiracy, is up there with quoting Anders Breivig for matters of the right.

 

 Having said that, I believe Zuckerberg himself admitted that the main political parties spent almost a billion dollars on internet adverts for the election, and he claimed certain Russian linked entities had spent $50,000. A billion vs 50,000. It is a total irrelevance(other than as a very lame excuse). 

[amvet]

The Wall Street Journal and others are calling for Mueller to recuse himself.  

As of publication, every other media outlet reporting the story is sourcing it back to CNN. 

CNN itself reported tonight that typically the subjects of grand jury charges are notified immediately, but in this case neither any subjects, nor their attorneys, have been notified. 

CNN, meanwhile, did not disclose who affiliated with the Muller probe offered these updates. The network's report began with a reference to "sources briefed on the matter" but never shed any light on who the sources are.

 

https://news.grabien.com/story-mueller-probes-first-act-leak-cnn

[craigt3365]

11 minutes ago, FreddieRoyle said:

Citing Zuckerberg as proof of some leftist conspiracy, is up there with quoting Anders Breivig for matters of the right.

 

 Having said that, I believe Zuckerberg himself admitted that the main political parties spent almost a billion dollars on internet adverts for the election, and he claimed certain Russian linked entities had spent $50,000. A billion vs 50,000. It is a total irrelevance(other than as a very lame excuse). 

Where did I say it was a conspiracy?  It's a fact.  Unless you don't want to believe it. 

 

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/21/media/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-russian-ads/index.html

Facebook says it will hand Russian ads over to Congress

[craigt3365]

5 minutes ago, amvet said:

The Wall Street Journal and others are calling for Mueller to recuse himself.  

As of publication, every other media outlet reporting the story is sourcing it back to CNN. 

CNN itself reported tonight that typically the subjects of grand jury charges are notified immediately, but in this case neither any subjects, nor their attorneys, have been notified. 

CNN, meanwhile, did not disclose who affiliated with the Muller probe offered these updates. The network's report began with a reference to "sources briefed on the matter" but never shed any light on who the sources are.

 

https://news.grabien.com/story-mueller-probes-first-act-leak-cnn

They should press charges against Comey also.  What he did was absolutely terrible and hopefully, he'll be held accountable for that.