Slashdot Mirror
Justice Department Appoints Former FBI Director Robert Mueller As Special Counsel For Russia Investigation (thehill.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Hill: The Justice Department has appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate Russia's involvement in the U.S. election. Mueller, a former prosecutor who served a 12-year term at the helm of the bureau, has accepted the position, according to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. "In my capacity as acting attorney general I determined that it is in the public interest for me to exercise my authority and appoint a special counsel to assume responsibility for the matter," Rosenstein said in a statement. "My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination. What I have determined is that based upon the unique circumstances, the public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree of independence from the normal chain of command." UPDATE: President Trump has released a statement: "As I have stated many times, a thorough investigation will confirm what we already know -- there was no collusion between my campaign and any foreign entity. I look forward to this matter concluding quickly. In the meantime, I will never stop fighting for the people and the issues that matter most to the future of our country."
You're misinformed:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
He was chosen as G.W.B.'s attorney general on 09/04/2001, so he has a hot week in office before the WTC fell.
Director Mueller, along with Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey, threatened to resign from office in March 2004 if the White House overruled a Department of Justice finding that domestic wiretapping without a court warrant was unconstitutional.
Obama kept him on for two years after he was elected, and Comey was not only his assistant, but his successor.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
it could be worse, it could be Hillary
Really? Worse? Really? She'd have allowed the massive amounts of pollution that the Liar-in-Chief already has via executive orders? She would've embarrassed all of us with brains? You're out of your fucking mind or dumb as a brick if you really think this.
I don't respond to AC's.
So you will ignore what the CIA says quite explicitly in their report:
"Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression
of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these
activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort
compared to previous operations.
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US
presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process,
denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess
Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We
have high confidence in these judgments."
From https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
If you are willing to put your head in the sand and ignore this by coming up with excuses like "it is being controlled by the liberals" or something of the same manner then you are unfit to argue politics.
even though there's no evidence that Russia had any influence in the way it turned out.
That's a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I don't respond to AC's.
Per Order No. 3915-2017 (pdf), Mueller has been authorized to prosecute federal crimes, and given a fairly broad scope of investigation - any links between the Trump campaign and the Russians, and any matters arising from these investigations (such as obstruction of justice).
Forget power to investigate, this guy has powers to prosecute. He's going out loaded for bear.
Also remember, Obama spied on Trump campaign
False, based on all evidence save Trump's Twitter feed. No physical evidence has been produced - and you'd think there would be tons of evidence, since the whole purpose of spying is to gather information. The claims have been directly contradicted by members of the intelligence community. Barring a sudden release of proof, I can safely label this as a lie.
got Comey to drop charges against Hillary
False. She was never charged, and Obama did not influence Comey's decision to end the investigation with no charges. As proof, I point out that, once the Republicans took office, Comey would have been able to re-open the investigation and file charges with political support. He made no attempts to do so. Instead, he got fired, *supposedly* for his excessive pursuit of Clinton - in other words, Trump, the biggest Hillary-hater of them all, is claiming Comey was too tough on her.
Bill Clinton talked to Lynch days before FBI decided to drop charges
Non sequitur. I also ate a sandwich days before the FBI dropped the investigation.
Seth Rich was shot in DC and he was the one that gave the emails to Wikileaks not Russia.
Only the first six words of that are true. If you dig into that story, you find circles - Fox News claiming a private investigator uncovered evidence of a Wikileaks connection, and then when CNN calls that PI, he claims he never found evidence of it, but heard of the possibility of evidence from a Fox News report. It's literally made up - in other words, lies.
when mueller finds there is no crime or collusion (as is obvious to anyone with a brain, who has looked in vain for actual verifiable evidence for any of that),
Really? So Trump ADMITTING on camera that he fired the FBI director to stop the investigation into his possible collusion with Russia isn't "evidence"?
Trump explained openly how he committed obstruction of justice. We all heard it. How is that not evidence of wrongdoing? If that was you or me we'd already be in handcuffs, and you fucking know it. Your blind partisanship is mind boggling and disgusting in the extreme.
Trump could rape and murder a 5 year-old boy on live TV and people like you would argue that "the kid had it coming".
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Nope, sorry, Bartles, but what argued was that they don't have to prove anything about the order, Trump's own words moved the burden onto him to prove he wasn't trying to do what he said he wanted to do, which would make his intentions illegal, forever tainting his actions.
The rule that applies to Trump is that you get judged by your words and your deeds. Any number of lawyers and political consultants could have spotted the problem. Yet he kept proclaiming he was going to do it, and thus the courts will take him at his word.
I keep reading articles how the Russians hacked this or that and then a few paragraphs down; "we have no evidence the Russians are involved.".
If you can't discern fact from fiction, then read primary sources and quit listening to biased news. Here is a link to the report released by the intelligence agencies:
https://www.dni.gov/files/docu...
Here's a spoiler:
We assess with high confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election, the consistent goals of which were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.
Enigma
What the hell are you talking about? Name one thing that couldn't be said or written while net neutrality is active? Companies may not be allowed to implement a business plan that amounts to "shove a large rod up our customers' rear ends" under net neutrality, but they could still write it if they wanted with or without net neutrality.
Maybe you should try again with the 2nd or maybe the 18th amendment? I mean you're not even bothering to justify that claim never mind doing so in any sort of logical sense, so why not insist that net neutrality is inhibiting the sale of alcohol? It makes just as much sense.
ISP could make access slashdot extremely slow to impossible to access if they didn't like its content without neutrality. Same goes for the FCC comment section on net nutrality. They could fastlane Britbart and FoxNews and basically cripple access to liberal sites. Or, perhaps more to your horror, they could do the reverse. Net neutrality stops free speech by curtailing access to a tiny rotting pipe if the ISP so chooses.
In the United States most of the areas that have access to high-speed internet have one choice, sometimes two, for internet service. So if you have no alternatives, the company that provides your internet service could choose to reduce access to sites that don't cater to the regulatory environment that they prefer, or they can use poor access to their customers as a method of extorting money from content providers, or use it to privilege competing services that they own. The last two aren't hypothetical, American ISPs have already done both.
Fanatically anti-fanatical