How Mueller’s First Year Compares To Watergate, Iran-Contra And Whitewater

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...ares-to-watergate-iran-contra-and-whitewater/

The article goes on to identify three different potential models based on previous special counsel appointments: Watergate, Iran-Contra, and Whitewater. If the Mueller investigation is like Watergate (the only special investigation to have resulted in more indictments during the first year), then Mueller already has the evidence necessary to topple Trump even if we do not know it. If the Mueller investigation is like Iran-Contra, then the investigation could fizzle with pardons for multiple lower level officials and the president emerging largely unscathed. If the Mueller investigation is like Whitewater, then Trump could be imperiled because of something largely unconnected to the Russia collusion allegation. It should be noted that Whitewater is the least likely of the three models because Kenneth Starr operated with a much larger degree of freedom and job security thanks to a law, designed to protect special counsels, that expired in 1999.

One final note regarding job security. The three previous investigations discussed in this article all lasted at least four years.

Trump has reportedly tried to fire Mueller twice already in the first year.

 

And for those curious about where the Mueller probe goes next, this article predicts that Mueller is about to unveil the indictments against the Russians who perpetrated the hacks against the DNC. The question remains whether anyone from Trump's circle will be named in those indictments as well.

 

You keep glossing over the key factors in your self-serving pep rally comparison. All other special prosecutors began with a known crime. Mueller's work started with no crime. All the other indictments and guilty pleas were directly tied to the assigned investigation. None of Mueller's are directly connected to Trump collusion and coordination with the Russians to affect the election.

Plus it is beginning to look like some of Mueller's indictments and guilty pleas are completely made up. Reminds me a little of the judge asking a defendant prosecuted by Weissmann in an old case who was pleading guilty why he was pleading guilty to a crime he did not commit and likely never happened.

 

Your attempt to differentiate the investigation is wholly inadequate. As an initial matter, it absolutely makes no sense to claim that an investigation has to start with the identity of a crime. The entire purpose of any criminal investigation is to discern whether a crime occurred. If you require that a crime be identified before the investigation begins, then you create an improper bias in the investigation.

But are you really trying to claim that zero crimes were committed when Russia meddled in the 2016 election?

Now, let us set aside that the origins (pre-appointment) of the Mueller investigation was a counter-intelligence operation designed to investigate the meddling by a foreign adversarial government into the 2016 U.S. election and focus on circumstance immediately before the appointment Mueller. Remember that Mueller appointment immediately followed the wholly unexpected firing of Comey, a firing that occurred after Comey refused to let the Flynn investigation go, refused to swear loyalty to Trump, and after Trump openly claimed that he was thinking about the Russia investigation when he fired Comey.

In other words, Mueller was appointed after a series of events that all act as blatant evidence of obstruction of justice.

 

ONLY one of the three was originated with paid-for FOREIGN DIRT bought by the political campaign of the party in power, or by the FBI of the party in power placing SPIES into the opposition party's presidential campaign, or illegally obtained FISA (and other) warrants, designed to OVERRULE the election, and unseat the duly-elected President.

Nice , desperate deflection attempt from the growing mountain of exposed demleft crimes, duly noted.

 

Nixon spent the one year anniversary of Watergate claiming that it was a which hunt too.

He resigned less than 18 months later.

 

Sing it, Leon. Investigations are done to find the perpetrators of a crime. A policemen going out to "look into" a report of a dead body is not an investigation. Only secret state police go looking for crimes. But keep up the good work.

I think there is reasonable suspicion, though no proof, that Russia was criminal in the 2016 election. But Mueller is not investigating that other than pissant window dressing. (Indicting Russians for trolling the internet! Are you kidding me?!?!?)

Again, nice song and dance. But 1) this has ZERO to do with Mueller as a special prosecutor, and 2) there is no credible evidence that Trump was anywhere near criminality in the firing of Comey. (But Rosenstein perhaps?????) BTW, a FBI Director refusing allegiance to the president is simple and certain grounds for dismissal.

 

Why does there need to be proof of trumps involvement? In watergate we didn’t start out with proof of Nixon’s involvement. Reagan was never accused of a crime with Iran contra, Bush was never implicated in plame-gate.
There were several known crimes when mueller was appointed.

 

You appear to forget that an investigation of a dead body might return that no crime was committed and that the person died of natural causes or suicide...

Like I said, you do not investigate after the identity of a crime. You investigate in order to identify the crime based on the reasonable suspicion of a crime.

And there you go admitting that the reasonable suspicion of a crime existed. Thanks. And absolutely Mueller has been investigating Russian criminal action - he even indicted 13 of them because of a conspiracy to defraud the U.S., money fraud, and identity theft. Not because they "trolled the internet."

Mueller was appointed less than 10 days after Comey was fired. You are arguing a really losing position to claim that the two were not connected, especially when the order which granted Mueller's investigative authority explicitly referenced any crimes committed that relate to the investigation of the Russian meddling, like obstruction of justice.

And the President can fire the FBI director for anything which is not illegal, but the FBI director is also supposed to be independent of the President. Demanding loyalty from the judiciary is the height of filling the swamp.

 

Mueller will be into the hundreds of criminal indictments before this is do and Lets see how many pardon's actually get issues before the big fish is in the boat.

 

Well, you got the gist, but your timelines are a bit off

6/17/72 = Watergate break in
1/30/74 = Nixon's SOTU address saying "1 year of Watergate is enough" - 19+ months after break in, but I suppose he was referring to when the heavy duty investigation started
8/9/74 = Nixon resigns - 6+ months after SOTU

Total time from break in to resignation < 26 months. Hard to say exactly when we start the clock on Trumpgate (July 2016 or May 2017?), but that clock IS ticking...

 

It's not. Impeachment is an authority held by CONGRESS, not some misguided clown in the Executive Branch using a Witch Hunt to conduct a Cover Up of the Previous Administrations egregious crimes against a political rival and incoming Administration.

Mollie Hemingway: 10 Key Takeaways from the NY Times' Error-Ridden Defense of FBI Spying on Trump Campaign

 

If a cop hears of a potential crime, and goes to find out, that's called an 'Investigation'.

Or do you believe that firefighters never go to calls where there is only a report of 'smoke'?

 

Congress has Impeachment Power, not Dirty Bob Mueller trying to conduct an unconstitutional impeachment probe from the Executive Branch.


ANOTHER MUELLER GAFFE: Lawyers Defending Russian Firm Tell Court Named Employees DON’T WORK FOR THEM – Dirty Bob Mueller MADE IT UP

 

They're still counting that fluff as 'indictments'? Damn, that's sad.

And we can't count the Flynn guilty plea, because Mueller himself hadn't even FILED it yet lol. So we're left with the 'statements of lying' pleas, much of which will also likely be contested at court in some level. The Papadoulous case particularly is one that might hurt prosecutors, if the evidence was obtained through entrapment.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/entrapment-basics-33987.html

Particularly, it is not known which "emails" Papadoulous referred to, it's not even known if Papadoulous(and Misfud, the English Professor) had even seen the emails themselves.

So if they want to clap themselves for their controversial cases that will be challenged in the court of law, I guess they can do that.

 

If a cop hears of a crime and the District Attorney and 10 of his minions plus six called-in FBI agents go out to check the "crime scene" and interrogate everybody within ten miles, that is an investigation -- and one Stalin and Beria would be proud of.

 

You have a dead body at the White House, and that's the minimum likely response. Things are a bit different when the highest office in the land is involved.

 

What did you think you were accomplishing with this analogy?

 

It has to either conclude with: evidence of collusion by Trump with the Russians to ensure his election, or an end to the special council.

Either way, I'm sure it'll drop right before or just after the midterms.

 

538.com

left wing source, do you have anything credible?

 

Did you have an intelligent thought or contribution? Because I have my doubts considering that you posted a source that placed 538 just to the left of "least biased," asked for a more credible source, and otherwise did not contribute...in the slightest.

Welcome back to ignore.

 

Why are those the only two outcomes? Trump lying under oath or committing obstruction of justice or any of his associates committing a crime is irrelevant to you?

 

I was pointing out the significant (night and day) difference between non-crime investigations done with large official investigative teams and "investigations" that involve a quick check of information or a tip. For the slew of people who try to rationalize Mueller's soviet style investigation by claiming it's the same as a cop in a squad car.

 

It's not. Congress has impeachment power, not the Executive Branch, SILLY!

Trump Is Going Full Alinsky – and His Opponents Are Flummoxed

What a refreshing treat to finally be on offense, scoring touchdowns, leaving Democrats and NeverTrumps babbling

 

I don't consider anything left of center credible, you should know that by now.