Robert Mueller to Arrest Those Who Lost the Election for Hillary0

Congressional Special Counsel Robert Mueller is about to begin arresting people in his probe of the 2016 presidential election. Who cost Hillary Clinton the election? He knows. So do we.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on RedditDigg thisShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

37 thoughts on “Robert Mueller to Arrest Those Who Lost the Election for Hillary0

  1. I note that some interlocutors here seem to regard publishing on Facebook as the equivalent of burglary – a concept, no doubt, that he/she/they have conceived after intensive study of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. They also seem to have equally informed opinions as to what constitutes «High Treason» among which, however, involving the country in interminable foreign wars of aggression do not seem constitute a part. Talk about « blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel» !…

    Henri

  2. Some – keep in mind that in logic, «some» means that there exists at least one – posters to this forum seem to believe that Mr Nixon «colluded» with Mr Brezhnev to win the US presidential elections of 1968 and 1972 (for which collusion Mr Brezhnev would seem to have been as singularly poorly rewarded as today’s Gospodin Putin is for his putative collusion with Mr Trump, given the Nixon-Kissinger alliance with China against Russia). Other commentators, perhaps not as knowledgeable as our poster here, seem to have a different take on what is the essence of the matter here….

    Henri

  3. To me the much more interesting question has always been: Do Trump’s business dealings and financial history hold up to scrutiny? After all, it is quite possible to get stung with some unrelated crime that surfaces during an investigation – ask Al Capone.

    I think anyone can readily grasp that Trump might get nervous enough of someone systematically going through his finances – with subpoena power to boot – to fire them (when in a hole, keep digging).

    In contrast, they have yet to explain to me how the Russkies would conceivably have had any more influence than any other (foreign or domestic) campaign backer (private or state-sponsored) of a PAC amassing negative ads, or engaging in whatever other shenanigans can get bought for money such as snooping around for insecure email servers.

    I was hoping that the Russian connection was only a convenient excuse to get the investigation going and then find whatever skeletons are buried in Trump’s closet – but unfortunately the media won’t let go of it. For once, this really is sad 😉

    • «I was hoping that the Russian connection was only a convenient excuse to get the investigation going and then find whatever skeletons are buried in Trump’s closet – but unfortunately the media won’t let go of it.» I suggest, Andreas, that the point is that corruption in the US is so ingrained and endemic that tarring Mr Trump with that brush is ineffective. Is anyone truly surprised that a person like Paul John Manafort has engaged in illegal activities ? Hardly. Thus the only effective means to get at a person whom the dark state considers insufficiently reliable is to employ the claim «the Russkies did it», which ever since Joseph Raymond McCarthy’s day (or earlier, cf the Palmer raids of nearly a century ago) has been guaranteed to interrupt any coupling between the brain and, for example, the mouth or the fingers on the keyboard….

      McCarthyism 2.0 is no less harmful to the body politic than was the original version….

      Henri

    • @A5 “To me the much more interesting question has always been: Do Trump’s business dealings and financial history hold up to scrutiny? ”

      To each his own. To me a much more interesting question is whether the POTUS committed High Treason. The other is a old news: Komrade Trumpinov’s financial history has never held up to scrutiny.

      “they have yet to explain to me how the Russkies would conceivably have had any more influence ”

      I dunno, influencing the opinions of 126 million people might maybe possibly conceivably have a slightly significant influence. But again, that’s not what I find most interesting.

      Let’s try an analogy: a burglar breaks into your home in the middle of the night, but you surprise him and he runs off. He didn’t steal anything so it’s all good, right? No reason for the cops to investigate, no reason for concern, no reason to throw anyone in jail, no harm, no foul …

      • Better analogy: Watergate. Since no one could prove just how much the breakin influenced the election, there was no need for poor, beleaguered, Richard Milhous to resign….

        … and it wouldn’t have made any difference if the breaker-inners were KGB agents, or if Tricky Dick cut a deal with Brezhnev. It’s exactly the *same* thing.

      • … or how much the Iranian Hostage Crisis influenced Reagan’s election … or whether he cut a deal with the Ayatollah … or how much Bush’s lies about Iraq influenced his election … or whether UBL deliberately helped get Bush re-elected.

        Nothing to see here, move along.

      • Watergate revealed the systematic abuse of (state) power by a sitting president – or more precisely how members of the club turned against one once it became clear that the dirty tricks were beginning to be directed against insiders, rather than Black Panthers or peaceniks who have always been fair game. We’re talking hiring mobsters to do physical break-ins to cover-up prior physical break-ins, material stuff which got bungled and left a trial of hard evidence and inside whistle-blowers.

        Actual U.S. hostages taken in the Tehran embassy/spy hub were left hanging since the presidential hopeful assumed the role of head-of-state-in-waiting. Let’s not even get started on Iran-Contra where weapons were sold to official enemies to prolong one of the bloodiest wars of the century and the proceeds used to finance death-squads against (for once) explicit prohibitions of Congress.

        How does any of this compare to “Russiagate”? The chain presented so far is incredibly weak. (1) Emails from the DNC may have been hacked – though Wikileaks insists that they were leaked by an insider. (2) Conceivably the Russian government obtained the emails through gray channels – emails which apparently any self-respecting secret service would have been able to access since the DNC couldn’t be bothered to set up a proper firewall and update passwords and such. (3) Perhaps whoever leaked/hacked the emails did so selectively while keeping back incriminating stuff they had against Trump. (4) Conceivably, they told the Trump campaign about it a bit earlier than the Wikileaks release and (5) perhaps people in the Trump campaign where ignorant enough to get excited beyond saying “don’t say another word, you do your thing, we do ours, and we’ll see where this leads us”, which would have been the sensible thing to say.

        Another weakness is that there has been zero evidence presented that these emails had any statistically measurable impact on the election, let alone influencing the opinions of 126 million people (which is what the billion$ ad budgets are for which are somehow legal). While these emails confirmed that the Clinton campaign was cozy with the super-rich and not keen on internal democracy – Bernie Sanders himself immediately dismissed as things everybody knew anyway.

        Implicitly the whole notion of Russia-gate is based on the belief that all contenders for high office are hopelessly compromised and that whoever holds evidence to that effect is in a position to swing elections. This is perhaps true – but then the Russians are the least of your problems.

        Indeed, by the “standards” of Russiagate, most actors in the U.S. can be put in jail – ideally Mueller will strike against both the Trump and the Clinton campaigns (over million$ payments for the Steele dossier) – and good riddance to all of them.

        I’m really confused about why people would bring up historical crimes such as Watergate – the only real analogy here would seem to be business as usual in hopelessly corrupt Banana republics – and indeed Reality-TV-soap intrigues.

      • @A5 –

        “Implicitly the whole notion of Russia-gate is based on the belief that all contenders for high office are hopelessly compromised and that whoever holds evidence to that effect is in a position to swing elections.”

        uhhh, no. It’s *explicitly* based an a fair amount of evidence that a particular politician gained from secret meetings with a foreign power – let alone a power with which we have unfriendly relations – and that that resulted in compromising our democracy.

        While it is interesting to note that there are other compromises, those are separate issues (and should be dealt with accordingly.)

        However – you wrote a lot of words without actually addressing my point. You have repeatedly asserted that we don’t know how far that compromise went, and implied that that makes it a non-issue. (Even as arrests are being made)

        Are you willing to apply the same criterion to Nixon and Reagan? Since we don’t know how far their election meddling went, it’s a non-issue. Nixon shouldn’t have resigned & congress shouldn’t have wasted all that money investigating Iran-Contra-guns-for-hostages. True or False?

      • Missed one:

        ” … let alone influencing the opinions of 126 million people ”

        That number isn’t related to emails. That’s the number of people that were exposed to Russian-backed fake news on Facebook (according to the article I linked below.)

        Consider the guy who walked into a pizza parlor with an assault rifle looking for Hillary’s kiddie prostitution ring. If someone can be influenced *that* much by fake news, then it is wholly within the realm of possibility that some people may have had their vote influenced as well.

      • @ CrazyH –

        “However – you wrote a lot of words without actually addressing my point.”
        *
        That about sums it up. I believe “verbose” was applied in an earlier post.

        When I see a post of six or seven paragraphs, I have to roll my eyes and say to myself, “Please, not again!” 😀

        [With regard to the “126 million people” who were supposedly influenced, wasn’t that just a “guess-timate”? I understood that there was no concrete evidence of how many people might have been exposed by means of “Shares” and that this was just based on speculation. Did I misinterpret?]

      • > Did I misinterpret?

        Not at all. FB *is* very good at spying on you – so I assume their guesstimates are pretty close. Given the way their algorithms work, I wouldn’t be surprised if they had a good estimate of the number of people who *were* influenced.

        Three of the biggest players on the internet testified before congress that their technology was exploited by Russians attempting to influence the election.

        Ergo: Google, Twitter, and Facebook are all very sad that Hillary lost …

      • «Indeed, by the “standards” of Russiagate, most actors in the U.S. can be put in jail – ideally Mueller will strike against both the Trump and the Clinton campaigns (over million$ payments for the Steele dossier) – and good riddance to all of them.» Alas, that doesn’t seem to be the task with which Mr Mueller is charged….

        Anyone generally interested in the integrity of the election process in the United States, would be addressing such issues as the decision in the so-called «Citizens United v FEC» (more properly known as Moneybags United v FEC) case, rather than claims that 126 millions in the United States have been exposed to «Russian meddling» – how typical that the same people who decry government control of the internet in, e g, China, seem to believe that such is needed in the US to prevent citizens of that country from being exposed to «outside influences». The Founding Fathers were obviously negligent in not excluding «foreign propaganda» from the protections, such as they are, of the First Amendment to the US Constitution….

        Henri

      • @ mhenriday –

        “Alas, that doesn’t seem to be the task with which Mr Mueller is charged….”
        *
        I might be wrong, but as I understand it the independent counsel can go anywhere the evidence leads, and that’s why Trump is running scared and has been known to talk about firing him.

      • «I might be wrong, but as I understand it the independent counsel can go anywhere the evidence leads, and that’s why Trump is running scared and has been known to talk about firing him.» Mein verehrter Lehrer, Mr Mueller is specifically tasked «to serve as special counsel for the United States Department of Justice. In this capacity, Mueller oversees the investigation into “any links and/or coordination between Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump, and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation”.» To my mind, this is hardly «go[ing] anywhere the evidence leads», given that it is specifically «evidence» that «leads» to Russian «interference» that is to be investigated. Otherwise, perhaps others than Mr Trump would be «running scared»….

        But of course, just as during Joseph Raymond McCarthy’s heyday, the current «Russian investigation» is not without its uses, as a distraction from, among other things, such matters of interest to residents as how the country is taxed….

        But of course, it’s all that dastardly Gospodin Putin’s fault (and that of foreign trolls like your humble interlocutor)….

        Henri

      • Let me be brief then: Trump. Avian flu. Watergate. Iran-Contra. Iraq war 1,2,3,4, and 5. Whitewater. Harvey Weinstein. Dirk Gently. It’s all connected 😉

        Honestly, this is about how “RussiaGate” sounds to me: First it was implied that voting machines were rigged (remember?). This was quietly dropped and the DNC email server hack (leak?) were focused on (while somehow sidestepping why the actual content of the emails was potentially damaging in the first place, no small intellectual feat). Now we are supposed to duck for cover because of fake Russian Twitter bots who accounted for less than 1% of traffic.

        The article CH linked puts things in perspective: Russian accounts pushed 0.004% of Facebook news feed items about the election in 2016. This sounds about right given the balance of power and shows how narrow this focus on “Russiagate” has become.

        Hey, I’m happy as the next guy when those Trump cabinet B-listers who have been are too stupid to do the corruption legally face the music (i.e. money-laundering for Ukrainian oligarchs rather than, say, making 5 figures for giving a speech for Western oligarchs).

        When will the real criminals like, say, Tillersen face the music? He was the CEO of EXXON for crying out loud, directly responsible for uprooting the lives of millions of “climate refugees”. But he probably didn’t need to resort to rookie tactics and thus didn’t make rookie mistakes, and anyway, if we’re being honest about it, has enough “social capital” to never stand trial even if he did.

        May I suggest that we please invest 0.004% of the energy that goes into lamenting Russki influence into reflecting on, say, actual voter suppression, or who the actual major players were who were driving facebook news feed items, or the power of those who make the actual inside decisions at Facebook and Google to shape the news?

        Or better yet, discuss how we the people can still sidestep the combined power of the oligarchy, e.g. the Sanders and Corbyn campaigns, even the Trump campaign when looked from a certain angle.

        RussiaGate is so dis-empowering since it basically denies agency to people even after they openly rebelled against their masters. So the sheep got out of line? Must have been the black shepherd from over there!

        Oh dear, too many paragraphs already? 😉

      • @A5

        “Oh dear, too many paragraphs already?”

        No, too many words. I asked a simple yes-or-no question, and you answered with (hundreds? thousands?) of words; none of which actually answered ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to said question.

        That’s called evasion.

        I’m pretty sure that you would want to see my hypothetical burglar prosecuted, even if he stole only 0.004% of your possessions. I’m pretty sure that you would want to see Reagan and Nixon brought to justice [posthumously] regardless of how much influence their actions they had on the election. I will continue to be pretty sure until such time as you directly and explicitly state otherwise.

        And I am absolutely, positively, 100% sure that High Treason outweighs Corruption by a couple orders of magnitude.

      • @ CrazyH –

        «No, too many words. I asked a simple yes-or-no question, and you answered with (hundreds? thousands?) of words; none of which actually answered ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to said question.»
        *
        Again, you cut to the chase and I reiterate from a previous comment:
        «That about sums it up. I believe “verbose” was applied in an earlier post.»

        .[What a freakin’ waste of time!]

      • @ mhenriday –

        “To my mind, this is hardly «go[ing] anywhere the evidence leads», given that it is specifically «evidence» that «leads» to Russian «interference» that is to be investigated.”
        *
        Your post to which I responded said:
        “«Indeed, by the “standards” of Russiagate, most actors in the U.S. can be put in jail – ideally Mueller will strike against both the Trump and the Clinton campaigns (over million$ payments for the Steele dossier) – and good riddance to all of them.» Alas, that doesn’t seem to be the task with which Mr Mueller is charged….”

        I stand by my judgment that “the task with which Mr Mueller is charged” includes those circumstances included in the remarks made by andreas5 on November 1, 2017 at 1:56 PM.

        In essence, you validate that judgment when you write: “In this capacity, Mueller oversees the investigation into ‘any links and/or coordination between Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump, and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation’”

        This is further confirmed in the following article: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/17/politics/special-counsel-robert-mueller/index.html

        “As special counsel, Mueller is ‘authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters,’ according to the Justice Department order Rosenstein signed.”

        Where did I miss the mark?

      • «Where did I miss the mark?» I don’t think you «missed the mark», mein verehrter Lehrer ; Mr Mueller’s authorisation does indeed, after charging him with investigating the Russian connexion, contain an addendum allow him to scrutinise «any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation», which, as you note, I cited in full. Where we seem to disagree is with respect to our assumptions on what lines of investigation Mr Mueller is actually pursuing ; from what we’ve seen hitherto, his investigation seems exclusively to concern «any links and/or coordination between Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump», rather than other matters concerned with the US presidential elections of 2016. But perhaps I am too cynical, and Mr Mueller will blow the whole rotten establishment sky high by investigating and telling all. I hope you will pardon me, however, if I don’t hold my breath….

        Henri

      • @ mhenriday –

        “Where we seem to disagree is with respect to our assumptions on what lines of investigation Mr Mueller is actually pursuing….”

        —-

        I don’t see any disagreement between us, especially with regard to your and my “assumptions” — primarily because I haven’t assumed anything at all about Mr. Mueller’s lines of investigation nor his pursuits. All I know is what is being reported and that I trust this man to know what he is doing and to fulfill his responsibilities to the best of his ability.

        Where our individual thoughts seem to have diverged was with regard to the afore-mentioned post of andreas5 (whom I judge to be a verbose and self-serving charlatan) wherein he expressed a desire that “… ideally Mueller will strike against both the Trump and the Clinton campaigns (over million$ payments for the Steele dossier) – and good riddance to all of them,” along with your reply: “Alas, that doesn’t seem to be the task with which Mr Mueller is charged….”

        I proposed that Mr. Mueller is indeed charged with such a task by Rosenstein’s order (not by addendum, but as an integral component), which can be viewed here:
        https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download

        I fail to understand how Mr. Mueller can fulfill his obligations should he choose to ignore the very obvious and prominent connections that involve Mr. Trump and his associates. Should the investigation lead to other politicians and their associates, that is within the realm of his authority to pursue.

      • «Should the investigation lead to other politicians and their associates, that is within the realm of his [i e, Robert Swan Mueller’s] authority to pursue.» With regard to the above. mein verehrter Lehrer, we are not in disagreement ; as noted above, I, like you, hold that investigating other politicians and figures that are not connected with Mr Trump certainly lies within his remit, but, unlike you, I doubt that he is interested in pursuing these matters….

        You are also correct in pointing out those areas in which we disagree ; viz your positive assessment of Mr Mueller – «I trust this man to know what he is doing and to fulfill his responsibilities to the best of his ability»- and your negative one of andreas5 – «whom I judge to be a verbose and self-serving charlatan». Here, I fear, we shall have to continue to agree to disagree….

        Henri

    • I don’t like needles. 🙂

      There’s no doubt that Hair Furor mit dem kleinen Schwanzstucker is stupid enough to fire Mueller, the real question is whether his handlers can prevent him from doing so. He was stupid enough to pardon Arpaio; the same reasoning applies.

      When HRmdkS fired Comey I went from “maybe there’s something here” to “yeah, there’s probably something here.” I cut out the newspaper article and put it on my fridge – it’s the only thing posted there.

      • @ CrazyH –

        Oddly enough, I never graded spelling tests; but I developed an accute eye for details and a skill for analysis. When I run into something that doesn’t immediately register, I start looking for answers. “HRmdkS” did not make sense to me, so I looked for the solution and found it in your previous post as “HFmdkS” (which probably escaped most readers). 😀

    • From the article you cite:

      Our best estimate is that approximately 126 million people may have been served one of their stories at some point during the two-year period,” Stretch says in prepared testimony. “This equals about four-thousandths of one percent (0.004%) of content in News Feed, or approximately 1 out of 23,000 pieces of content.”

      The Russkies controlled 0.004% of our Facebook news feeds. I guess it’s practically game over for American democracy 😉

      • «The Russkies controlled 0.004% of our Facebook news feeds. I guess it’s practically game over for American democracy» Indeed it is – aided and abetted by a political party that would rather point to those dastardly Russians than deal with its own problems….

        Henri

  4. https://www.salon.com/2017/10/25/how-steve-bannon-and-sean-hannity-ginned-up-the-hillary-clinton-uranium-story/#.WfKOv3uFicQ.twitter

    “How Steve Bannon and Sean Hannity ginned up the Hillary Clinton uranium story
    Pro-Trump conservatives want to talk about their own Russia narrative. The only problem is that it’s nonsense.”

    Trump is still up to his eyeballs, with Flynn getting kickbacks from the russians before the election. Kickbacks to make sure there were lucrative deals in the middle east for multiple nuclear reactors. The russians are still pushing their defective nuclear reactors all over the world. They insure death, terrorism, nuclear waste, more nuclear weapons. If Hillary or Sanders had been elected, and it was found their cabinet candidates and handlers were making similar deals, they should be impeached too. Direct compromise of the security interests of the US.

    https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2017/10/19/white-house-defies-document-request-re-former-trump-national-security-advisor-flynns-ties-to-russia-turkey-russia-china-saudi-nuclear-reactor-deal-us-house-oversight-committee-democrats-ask-congr/

    http://www.newsweek.com/2017/06/23/flynn-russia-nuclear-energy-middle-east-iran-saudi-arabia-qatar-israel-donald-623396.html

  5. @TedRall – you are absolutely, positively, 100% correct as to who is to blame for Hillary’s loss.

    Moving along: Robert Mueller is very sad that Hillary lost. How very sad is he? He’s so very, very, sad that he’s filing totally spurious charges in The Federal Court!!! That’s the ONLY *possible* unabsurd explanation for this whole dumbom cirkus.

    I mean really, it’s not like he has any PROOF …

  6. It was the Russians – and in particular that dastardly Gospodin Putin, wot done it, Ted ; Mr Mueller knows where to look….

    They are also responsible for Mr Weinstein as well….

    Henri

    • Mr Weinstein’s name sounds Jewish, which we all now is almost the same as Bolshevik, by which we mean Russian turbo-capitalist oligarchs. Obviously 😉

      • «Mr Weinstein’s name sounds Jewish …» Actually, Andreas, German, which is all the fault of the Austro-Hungarian (and Holy Roman) Emperor Joseph II – or rather would be, were it not the case that everything everywhere – including the fact that people in the US were exposed to points of view of which Ms Clinton did not approve (and therewith contrary to the provisions of the First Amendment of the US Constitution) is all the fault, as noted above, of that dastardly Gospodin Putin….

        Henri

Leave a Reply