So, let's get this straight. For the past 2 years, Democrats have been saying that the Mueller probe and the special counsel itself was formed for the

purpose of determining whether or not the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. Now, after No evidence of collusion has been found, they're attempting to rewrite history and make the investigation about ethics? Seriously, ethics?

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

HerKing · 61-69, M

Well no...your premise is incomplete to begin with.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download

The original order to Mueller.

[quote]
ORDER NO. 3915-2017
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS
By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C.
§§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and
management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the
Russian govemmenfs efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as
follows:
(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed t() serve as Specia] Counsel for the United States
Department of Justice.
(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confinned by then-FBI
Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) [b]any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) [b]any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).[/b]
(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is
authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.[/b]
(d) Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are
applicable to the Special Counsel.

[/quote]

Several people have been indicted under the authority in (ii) and (iii).

And (i) has this in the final report.

[b]The Trump campaign knew about and encouraged Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 election; they did not report it to the FBI.[/b]

Donald Trump had prior knowledge of WikiLeaks’ release of Clinton’s emails.
Within five hours of Trump publicly asking them to, Russia made its first attempt to hack Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails.

But quite interesting is this:

Mueller sent out 14 criminal referrals for investigation, only two of which are public.

That means 12 other jurisdictions are currently investigating people and events unknown to us.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Carla · 61-69, F

@ISpeakTheTruth ive been out of the news loop for days but we all should know that the investigation was about russian interference and the possibility of trump campaign involvement. As far as unethical behavior, we also all know that trump hasnt an ethical bone in his body. So, of course the report proves that trump and co acted in less than ethical ways.

Btw...you sure didnt address the above comment. All you got out of that was hillarys emails....typical.

HerKing · 61-69, M

@ISpeakTheTruth

[quote] What does Clinton's emails being obtain by Wikileaks have to do with Trump campaign collusion?
[/quote]

Separate issue as outline in-[b](ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; [/b]

[quote]If that's the case, every journalists in the business who received information from Assange would be guilty. [/quote]

Well no, not really, Only Trump was standing for the election and it's illegal to solicit information from a foreign power. In fact the law is clear on that, to the degree that in the 2000 election, Al Gore was offered a video that was allegedly detrimental to G W Bush, and immediately informed the FBI who arrested the one making the offer. Bush later thanked personally the official in Gore's campaign who was approached.

[quote]Trump didnt hack anyone's emails nor did he have authority to direct such.[/quote]

No he didn't. But he did solicit the unlawful hacking of same. A bit like if your neighbour asked or told his best friend to burgle your house and they did. They'd be complicit. They were hacked in this case nine hours after Trump asked for it to happen.

curiosi · 61-69, F

LOL! The libs talking about ethics! Donna Brazille gave the debate questions to Hillary, Wasserman-Shultz rigged the primary and Hillary? I don't have all day to write that out!