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."

11 of 606 comments (clear)

  1. Keep in mind by burtosis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We didn't know the extent of the Nixon atrocities until more than a year after the break in. It's quite likely lots of evidence exists, but is being used in an ongoing investigation and will not be disclosed publically anytime soon. If trump asked Comey to back of Flynn, and we know he admitted to firing Comey over Russia issues, that is likely enough on its own. Not to mention the overwhelming list that grows by the day. If we see Paul Ryan buckle, it's all over.

    1. Re:Keep in mind by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who's the real crazy conspiracy nut here?

      Given the fact that Flynn and Manafort are officially named as subjects of a criminal investigation into illegal foreign influence and grand jury subpoenas have been issued for their records?

      You.

      --
      FSB hits! FSB hits! Your democracy dies. Do you want your possessions identified?
  2. Re:All smoke and mirrors by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whatever the Democrats may be screaming, it's irrelevant to this. The Republicans control Congress. It's in their hands, and thus far every attempt they've made to support Trump has been thrown back in their face by his inability to keep his mouth shut. For chrissakes, the man is such an arrogant blowhard he was showing off to the fucking Russians in the Oval Office with a Russian journalist in the room. Whether he let slip any classified data or not, the fact is not only has he once again, within the space of a few days, made himself look like a big mouthed ass, he's now pissing off Israel, which means Israel and other allies, not to mention the State Department itself, are going to start holding crucial intelligence closer to their chests lest the Braggart-in-chief decide to show off to any other foreign powers.

    Don't you see that it is Trump himself that is going to be forcing Republican lawmakers' hands? The opposing minority party always makes frequent demands for removals and impeachments and judicial proceedings. Christ, that's been the way Washington has worked since the day after George Washington walked off into the sunset. The difference here is that this is a man who seems bound and determined to make his supporters and allies look like idiots, and seems to want to hand his opponents, both Democrat AND Republican (because he has no lack of critics in the GOP) all the ammunition they could ever need.

    At this point you even have some Democratic strategists hoping he doesn't get impeached and removed, because the longer he's in the White House, the worse the Republicans look.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  3. Re: Winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "...politically correct suppression of free speech..."

    So, who's trying to kill net neutrality again?

  4. Re:Done, done, done by peragrin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Have you been watching Fox News? They have been commiting slander, libel and other things against the dnc staffer yet haven't said a peep against the fact that trump is leaking secrets to Russia. Fox and republicans don't care that trump is commiting treason. They are such hypocrites that if Hillary did half of what trump has done they would be hanging her.

    But if one of their own does it ? It isn't a big deal. Republicans. Hypocrites to the core. Do as they say not as do.

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  5. And yet there keep being issues with Russia by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would agree it was just Democrats shouting in the dark... if there didn't keep being problems. See here's the thing: The issue isn't with the e-mail leaks. That's not what is being talked about, it is if any of Trump's associates had illegal ties to the Russians and more importantly if Trump tried to cover it up.

    Trump was told that Flynn was likely compromised and he shouldn't hire him. Had he not, well that story would end there. But he did hire him. He then pressured the FBI director to drop the investigation in to Flynn, and only fired Flynn when it leaked that he had this conflict of interest. He then implied the problem, and the reason he fired Flynn, was the leak not the compromise. Then he later fired the FBI director which his people claimed was related to the e-mails but he came out and said was because of the Russia investigation.

    Guess what? That shit starts to look a lot like obstruction of justice. That's why this thing continues to have legs.

    Oh an impeachment of a president? That's not "corrupt politicians" "overthrow[ing] of an elected President," it is constitutional, and is what is supposed to happen if the president breaks the law. Article one section 1 states that "The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment." Article two section four states "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

    So ya, if it turns out he obstructed justice, which you'd need an investigation to determine (and that is what is going on), accepted bribes, or other illegal acts then the House would be within its constitutional power to impeach him and the Senate to try him. That's not some covert scheme to subvert the Constitution, it is written right in the original text.

  6. Re: Winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Most real world issues are subtle, nuanced and lack mainstream interest. Reducing arguments to simple black and white soundbites might "win the votes" of casual spectators, but reality is still there, and doesn't care a jot about any of that.

  7. Re:Excellent. by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At least one significant member of Trump's administration had to resign almost as soon as he was appointed because he was found to be working with the Russians, and he's being investigated. I'm not sure where you're getting it from that anyone independent at all in a position to know has suggested there's no links between the Trump campaign and Russia - if that were known, there wouldn't have been multiple FBI investigations to begin with.

    And if there weren't multiple FBI investigations into Trump's team's connections with Russia, Comey would still have a job.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  8. Re:Winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or some sort of couple hundred year old piece of paper standing in the way.

  9. Re: Winning by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I support net neutrality, but I don't think it's a speech issue, rather it's more an issue of economics. At least, we haven't seen any evidence of somebody's speech being squelched as a result of a lack of net neutrality.

    Political correctness on the other hand does very often squelch somebody's speech, and in fact we see it happen at US universities often.

  10. Re: Winning by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > Reducing arguments to simple black and white soundbites

    This is precisely why the US so desperately needs a real third party. It reduces but sadly does not eliminate, the tendency to make every binary decision into a political position, and every political issue into a binary decision.