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."

36 of 606 comments (clear)

  1. Winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    So

    Much

    Winning

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

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

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

    2. 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.

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

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

    4. Re:Winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      when mueller finds there is no crime or collusion

      My guess is it goes something like this. Trump absolutely colluded with Russia, but never in a formal way. He noticed, or more likely someone on his staff noticed that Hillary had made an enemy, and that Putin if given the opportunity might help him out. So he opportunistically developed pro Russian positions and titled towards their side, in the hope of getting some help. The one time he publicly asked for help arguably titled that to formal collusion, but that is for a jury to decide. Now there is a lot of crap going on, so it may be that they can prove formal collusion for at least one or more of his advisors. There has got to be some reason that Trump is bending himself in pretzels to defend Flyn (sp?). It is even possible that Trump himself did so, though I doubt he intentionally broke laws. He shows too great a track record of staying just inside the lines, or close enough not to get in trouble anyway. Personally, I still find him guilty of treason, since he as a leading politician welcomed and praised a foreign attack from a state enemy on the integrity of our political process. Unfortunately that is not the definition the constitution uses....

      As far as actual crimes, obstruction of justice is where it is at..
      1. Firing Comey.
      2. Suggesting that Comey should be loyal to him and not the law.
      3. Suggesting that Comey end the Flynn investigation.
      4. Trying to halt the investigation by basically calling everyone liars, and that every voice that doesn't support trump is fake news.
      5. Supporting the above by promoting actual fake news.
      6. Threatening comey over twitter

      Other disturbing actions that attack directly the separations of powers and our government at its core.
      1. Suggesting that judges that are just doing their jobs are endangering us all, and likely putting targets on them all.
      2. Threatening to primary any lawmaker that doesn't support his agenda.
      3. Just lying about everything. Seriously it weakens the office of the president and our ability as a country to get anything done.
      4. Never forget the Obama birth certificate crap. That was trying to destroy Obama, presumably to gain political advantage. As a side effect he weakened the ability of that government to get things done. Had their been truth to it, it would be fine, but the purpose was not truth. The purpose was basically A1 grade evil.
      5. Just blatant fact free appeals to emotion. It was, well very sad.
      6. Giving away Top Secret code word based intelligence to Putin as some sort of twisted ego trip. Seriously, this guy was the guy bitching about emails for ages. Can you see Hillary posing in those photos? You may not be able to prosecute _him_ for it, but anyone else, other than the vice president would be seeing 10 years jail time. He may have the power to do it, but it was stupid beyond all measures of stupidity. It's like he was put on Earth to make Sarah Palin look smart.

      .

        (as is obvious to anyone with a brain, who has looked in vain for actual verifiable evidence for any of that), at around middle of 2018, just in time for midterms, it would indeed be so much "winning".
      trump's opponents are overplaying their hand on this. they should focus on opposing him on his polices that hurt voters, on his breaking election promises, and in promoting policy alternatives that benefit voters(all of them, instead of playing identity politics).
      crying "russians!", "impeachment!" , "resistance!",etc, etc, while supporting illegal immigrants, open trade and borders, support for more wars in support of "allies", politically correct suppression of free speech, etc etc. will not help.

    5. Re:Winning by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 5, Informative

      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...
    6. 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.

    7. Re: Winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    8. Re: Winning by burtosis · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    9. 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.

    10. Re: Winning by Lisandro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Net Neutrality is totally a free speech issue. If Internet content starts getting different treatment by owner what you can read and, most importantly, what you can say becomes a function of how much money you have.

    11. Re:Winning by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd agree with everything you wrote, but would also add that the colonists saw what mixing government and religion does. The King ran the Church of England which was the official religion of England. If you didn't belong to the Church of England, you were effectively a second-class citizen. Meanwhile, the King could change the rules of the religion to suit his whims. If he decided that the whole "Lent" thing was a bother, he could do away with it. If he decided that he wanted to become vegetarian, the religion could outlaw all meat. (Obviously, these are exaggerations to make a point and didn't happen in history that I know of.)

      The people who want to remove the "Church-State Separation" keep thinking that this will mean that the Church (by which, they mean THEIR church and not that horrible church down the road that does everything wrong) will influence what the government does. If you remove the separation, though, the influence will flow both ways. I wonder how many of these Church-State Separation opponents would want government officials forming a committee to decide how Baptism should be performed or which prayers should be included in the service.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    12. Re: Winning by tbannist · · Score: 4, Informative

      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
  2. 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: 4, Insightful

      Your first link says its a conspiracy theory.
      Your second link says that no wrongdoing was found.
      Your third link says that Holder didn't know about the operation, much less Obama.
      The very headline of your fourth link states that the weapons airdrop to the Kurds accidentally hit the wrong place, and they had to destroy them to stop Daesh from getting them.

      Do we even need to go on, with a person who thinks that Obama bears personal responsibility (or even deliberately ordered) an airdrop's landing in the wrong place in order to support terrorists, while he's busy deliberately trying to fuel Mexican crime, personally running IRS persecution campaigns which the FBI says didn't actually exist, and ordering hits on Democratic staffers?

      --
      FSB hits! FSB hits! Your democracy dies. Do you want your possessions identified?
    2. 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?
    3. Re:Keep in mind by gman003 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

  3. Re: Not an investigation by JoeyRox · · Score: 5, Informative

    You're misinformed:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

  4. Re:Done, done, done by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even up until this afternoon I was certain the Republicans would wait until the fall or early next year, due to wanting to take the pulse of the voters, and in particular the base and any tight House races (there are only a handful of tight Senate races, or so I understand). But I think matters are quickly accelerating beyond any ability of the Republicans to control. While Trump's popularity with the base still seems fairly strong, he's shedding support elsewhere, and I suspect, unless things can quiet down for a bit, the base will begin to erode as well, and at that point, then so will loyalty for Trump among lawmakers.

    This was inevitable, if for no other reason than Trump just cannot keep his mouth shut. He's like Richard Nixon's idiot brother, all of the same paranoia and deceit, but with half the brains. How can his defenders keep up his defense, when they'll deny the report or rumor against him in the morning, and then he'll fucking confirm the truth of the report that night? At some point, and I expect that point is coming soon, he's just simply going to start shedding supporters, simply because they don't want to be tied to the anchor when it's finally pitched overboard.

    I waffle between Trump either being one of the stupidest human beings to ever get elected to high office, or him really not wanting to be there but too arrogant to just walk away, and wanting to be pushed so he can claim he was the subject of persecution. Certainly that's the way it's going if today's Coast Guard commencement is any indication.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. A pretty good choice by rmdingler · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  8. Re:No one has released any evidence... by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It took over a year for the Watergate investigation to (almost) reach the House Floor. It strikes me that your demand for immediate answers is more of you intentionally moving the goal post.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  9. Re:Done, done, done by DogDude · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  10. Re:Excellent. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  11. Re:All smoke and mirrors by DogDude · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  12. 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.

  13. 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.
  14. Re:Not an investigation by gman003 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  15. Say what you want by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Funny

    That new US Prez sitcom is better than anything I've ever watched. At first I was skeptical because it looked like a cheap Spin City knockoff or a weak rehash of That's my Bush, and, well, basically it is, but they really manage to spice it up and get to new heights week after week.

    Though I have to admit, it slowly starts to get a wee bit unrealistic.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  16. Re:Tell your friends and family by penandpaper · · Score: 4, Insightful

    it's meant that all our checks and balances have collapsed

    No it doesn't. Just because "people that think like me" didn't win elections does not mean ALL checks and balances are gone. They are still being eroded away slowly with bipartisan support.

    Did you say we lost ALL our checks and balances after 2008 when the Democrats controlled the Congress and Executive? No? Ok then, stop the hyperbole.

  17. Re:All smoke and mirrors by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let me give you some advice the next time you want to criticize Wikipedia. Go click on that link above to the Wiki article. Now, look at the text, notice how it has various numbers in brackets in superscript. You can hover over them and some text will pop up. That's called a "reference". Those "references" are where the claims in the article come from. If you click on one of those, or scroll allllll the way down to the bottom, you'll see the list of references for the article, all 283 of them. Those are what you need to attack the credibility of, because the Wikipedia article itself is really just a collection of claims given in those references. Just go ahead and start at #1 and work your way down, debunking each of those references. Make sure not to skip #4, which quotes a report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and National Intelligence Council:

    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.

    Make sure not to skip this one, either. You wouldn't want it to seem like you're cherry-picking.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  18. Re:Don't blame me. I voted for Johnson/Weld by Pfhorrest · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is the point that causes me the most uncertainty in what I hope for. (Not that my hopes have any causal efficacy, but still).

    Trump is possibly the first president in my lifetime who I've felt really viscerally disgusted by, however much I may have disagreed with others' policies. For that reason, it's kind of enjoyable to watch him failing so spectacularly. Until I remember that his failures are our failures as he represents the whole American nation. Then I want something done about it. But the only thing I can really see possibly being done about it is removing him from office, which only puts Pence into the same seat. That replaces the incompetent buffoon pushing all the wrong policies with... a (presumably) more competent professional pushing no better policies. Maybe it makes America more respectable and restores some sense of trust in our political process that Trump may be undermining. But is it a good thing to have someone every bit as despicable when it comes to the actual dry concrete policy content, who merely looks more respectable and is more trusted? Mightn't it be better if the villain were obviously evil than able to pretend to be good? I just don't know.

    --
    -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
    "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
  19. Re:All smoke and mirrors by dgood · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." -- Gerald Ford in 1970

  20. Common element by Tourney3p0 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    My takeaway from this thread:

    People with 6 month old accounts or Anonymous Coward = "this is nothing"

    People with actual accounts who have been around for awhile = "we should at least look into this".

  21. Re:No one has released any evidence... by Enigma2175 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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