A spokesman for the special counsel's office declined to comment.
Mueller was appointed in May to lead the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
Under the regulations governing special counsel investigations, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who has oversight over the Russia investigation, would have been made aware of any charges before they were taken before the grand jury for approval, according to people familiar with the matter.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/27/politics/ ... index.html
Headline of the day was "Mueller Bombs Trump's Week". Only two weak tweets this morning - one thanking Carter for his kind words a few days ago and one saying we can fight the opioid epidemic by taking part in National Prescription Drug Take Back Day. Poor guy's probably so concerned he won't even break 100 this weekend.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is facing a fresh round of calls from conservative critics for his resignation from the Russia collusion probe, amid revelations that have called into question the FBI’s own actions and potentially Mueller’s independence.
This week’s bombshell that a controversial anti-Trump dossier was funded by the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign has Republicans asking to what extent the FBI – which received some of the findings and briefly agreed to pay the same researcher to gather intelligence on Trump and Russia – used the politically connected material.
ritics question whether Mueller’s own ties to the bureau as well as fired FBI director James Comey now render him compromised as he investigates allegations of Russian meddling and collusion with Trump officials in the 2016 race.
“The federal code could not be clearer – Mueller is compromised by his apparent conflict of interest in being close with James Comey,” Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., who first called for Mueller to step down over the summer, said in a statement to Fox News on Friday.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10 ... probe.html
The FBI is compromised because they payed the a researcher to gather intelligence on Trump and Russia....
Mueller is "close" with Comey......
Overblown and Misleading Rhetoric Spotting 101. Not a "bombshell" and the investigation was funded by the Democrats. The dossier was only the result of the investigation.This week’s bombshell that a controversial anti-Trump dossier was funded by the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign
C'mon Red, you can misdirect better than that.Red wrote:QR_BBPOST Pay no attention to where the information came from and pay no attention to the multitudes of crimes Hilary and DNC committed.
1. Where do you think the information came from?
2. What "multitudes of crimes" do you refer to? Seriously, name one crime.
I have to admit I don't understand the continuing parsing and splitting of hairs. Nobody funds a political investigation unless they believe it will have a result, presumably one beneficial to the funder. If I fund you to research and write a novel, it would be silly to say the novel was only the result of the writing and therefore I didn't fund it.John Q. Public wrote:Not a "bombshell" and the investigation was funded by the Democrats. The dossier was only the result of the investigation.
I could be wrong. I'm pretty sure federal election law prohibits a presidential campaign from accepting anything of value from a foreign entity. Regardless of whether or not they are a declared enemy.John Q. Public wrote:And ya know... unless a country is a declared enemy, I doubt there's anything illegal about a campaign working with one to influence an election. Trying to rig one is a different story but I haven't heard of any evidence of that. I'm guessing any charges will be for being an unregistered agent for a foreign government, money laundering, perjury or something along those lines. It could be different for the President or his staff, but I'm not expecting a "blockbuster" involving his campaign.
Except choosing to say that "the dossier" was funded by them implies that its contents were. My post was about the words they chose to use, not the literal meaning of what it said.MDDad wrote:I have to admit I don't understand the continuing parsing and splitting of hairs.
Good luck trying to convince a jury that learning information qualifies as "receiving anything of value," (or whatever the wording of the law actually is).Wabash wrote:QR_BBPOST by Wabash » Sat Oct 28, 2017 12:56 pm
I could be wrong. I'm pretty sure federal election law prohibits a presidential campaign from accepting anything of value from a foreign entity. Regardless of whether or not they are a declared enemy.
Certainly depends on the jury. I believe most people recognize that information has value irrespective of a dollar amount that might or might not have been paid.Professor Fate wrote:Good luck trying to convince a jury that learning information qualifies as "receiving anything of value," (or whatever the wording of the law actually is).