My thoughts:

Given that

- Muellar has assembled a large team of aggressive prosecutors w DEM leanings

- Muellar and Comey are very close

- Muellar and Rosenstein allowed the Uranium One deal to go forward w/o raising the red flags of so much Russian illegal bribery associated w that deal

then there is no way Muellar is going to pull a Comey and say something like

"Although there is evidence of potential violations, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case"

Muellar is going for indictments.

After over a year of all this investigation, the fact that Muellar's indictments so far (mostly based on things about Manafort that were known in August 2016) would indicate there still isn't any evidence of any Russian collusion.

So the really big question is: Does Muellar have anything that is bad for the Trump campaign ?

If Mueller does not find anything I am quite certain he will just make it up. The dems have given him his marching orders to take down Trump, and he will do his best to do that.

I have ZERO, no make that less than zero, respect for the current DOJ or FBI.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
My thoughts:

Given that

- Muellar has assembled a large team of aggressive prosecutors w DEM leanings

- Muellar and Comey are very close

- Muellar and Rosenstein allowed the Uranium One deal to go forward w/o raising the red flags of so much Russian illegal bribery associated w that deal

then there is no way Muellar is going to pull a Comey and say something like

"Although there is evidence of potential violations, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case"

Muellar is going for indictments.

After over a year of all this investigation, the fact that Muellar's indictments so far (mostly based on things about Manafort that were known in August 2016) would indicate there still isn't any evidence of any Russian collusion.

So the really big question is: Does Muellar have anything that is bad for the Trump campaign ?

There is always lying to investigators. Ask Scooter Libby.

If my experience is any guide, FBI agents come in pairs. Unless one (or both) is wearing a wire, there are no recordings of the interview apparent. From their notes, or memory, afterwards, they prepare what are called 302’s, the report of the interview. That becomes the standard by which your statements are measured.

If the 302 says you told them the light was red, and they find other evidence that the light was green, you will be liable to be accused of lying, even if you actually told them the light was green and they misunderstood, or were confused, or simply erred, or you were.

I’ve not seen the 302s from my interviews, but I have made reports to local police/sheriffs and later saw the police reports written up by the investigating LEO. These were not confidence inspiring events.

Given their intense preference for secrecy, I imagine that if you told them you were going to tape your conversation, they would refuse, either consent or participation.

Edit to correct 502 to 302.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: JALLEN,

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/08/...gag-order/index.html

The federal judge overseeing the case against former Donald Trump campaign aides Paul Manafort and Rick Gates has issued a gag order in the case.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson on Wednesday said the order is necessary to limit the impact on potential jurors.

"In order to safeguard defendants' rights to a fair trial, and to ensure that the court has the ability to seat a jury that has not been tainted by pretrial publicity, all interested participants in the matter, including the parties, any potential witnesses, and counsel for the parties and the witnesses, are hereby ordered to refrain from making statements to the media or in public settings that pose a substantial likelihood of material prejudice to this case," Jackson wrote.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/08/...gag-order/index.html

The federal judge overseeing the case against former Donald Trump campaign aides Paul Manafort and Rick Gates has issued a gag order in the case.

This will ensure that only the prosecution will be able to put out information, and you can bet every 'leak' will be to make Trump look bad.

yeah right

what else are they doing in secret that gives justice a bad name

how can we trust them?

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Judge Amy Berman Jackson

Hmmm...

Lefty judge, likely a lefty jury. I wonder how this is going to go.

Trump should call for a special prosecutor to investigate Uranium One, including Muellers involvement or lack there of...

quote:

Given their intense preference for secrecy, I imagine that if you told them you were going to tape your conversation, they would refuse, either consent or participation.

It is my understanding that the FBI not only will not allow you to record these interviews in any form or take notes, you may not have a witness or your attorney present either. Further, often the "notes' are put together after the interview is over based upon what the agents thought they heard.

I cannot imagine why anyone in his/her right mind would agree to be part of such a procedure. Even assuming that the agents were absolutely pure at heart, an assumption not in evidence, the chance of misinterpretation is about 100%.

What possible rational objection could there be for having a video tape of the interview with copies held by both parties, unless of course The DoJ is not really interested in Justice.

Tony Podesta's firm has fallen apart

https://www.politico.com/story...days-244799?lo=ap_e1

less than two weeks after Podesta stepped down as chairman, the firm he founded 30 years ago may soon shut its doors, with staffers unsure if they’ll be paid after next week.

At an emotional staff meeting late Thursday afternoon, Fritts told staffers they could clear out their offices and said that Wednesday might be their last payday.

“We will try to compensate you on the 30th, but we can’t make any promises,” Fritts said

on Thursday Kimberley Fritts, the firm’s longtime chief executive, abruptly resigned, according to a Podesta Group staffer.


Fritts had been expected to relaunch the Podesta Group under a new name in the days after Podesta stepped down. But she instead announced in the meeting on Thursday that she was leaving to start her own firm after negotiations with Podesta broke down. Her last day was Friday, according to Podesta Group staffers.

Staffers are wondering why a firm that brought in $24 million last year suddenly can’t pay their salaries, and why Podesta and Fritts were unable to strike a deal to transfer ownership of the firm.

“There’s a lot of anger at Tony because of that,” one Podesta Group staffer said.

rival lobbying firms are pursuing the more than 80 clients that the Podesta Group boasted as recently as September

quote:

Originally posted by TXJIM:
Trump should call for a special prosecutor to investigate Uranium One, including Muellers involvement or lack there of...

In my opinion, if the FBI and the whole Justice Department were worth a pinch of shit, that would be THEIR job and there would be no need for these Special Prosecutors.

a good article by Andrew McCarthy that contrasts how the DoJ/FBI investigated the Clinton emails, and how they are now investigating Russian "collusion"



http://www.nationalreview.com/...ion-hardball-tactics

"The earth is being scorched by the stunningly large team he has assembled, which includes 16 other prosecutors (among them, Democratic party donors and activists) along with dozens of investigators (mostly from the FBI and IRS)."

quote:

Originally posted by oldRoger:

quote:

Given their intense preference for secrecy, I imagine that if you told them you were going to tape your conversation, they would refuse, either consent or participation.

It is my understanding that the FBI not only will not allow you to record these interviews in any form or take notes, you may not have a witness or your attorney present either. Further, often the "notes' are put together after the interview is over based upon what the agents thought they heard.

I cannot imagine why anyone in his/her right mind would agree to be part of such a procedure. Even assuming that the agents were absolutely pure at heart, an assumption not in evidence, the chance of misinterpretation is about 100%.

What possible rational objection could there be for having a video tape of the interview with copies held by both parties, unless of course The DoJ is not really interested in Justice.

I was once told (by an agent) that it is not legal to record an FBI interview/interrogation. BSing me? Certainly possible.

what makes them so special?

certainly it can't be their credibility?

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:

I was once told (by an agent) that it is not legal to record an FBI interview/interrogation. BSing me? Certainly possible.

I believe this is true, at least as to FBI policy outside of extraordinary circumstances.

If you are talking voluntarily, and you tell them you will tape it, they can either leave and talk to someone else, or remain, talk and be taped.

so what this means is that you can tell the truth, the FBI can then lie about it and you cannot prove yourself innocent?

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
so what this means is that you can tell the truth, the FBI can then lie about it and you cannot prove yourself innocent?

You can never prove yourself innocent. Where’d you get that silly idea?

I seem to remember seeing that the policy changed under AG Holder. I’m trying to run down the info.

Ummm …, yes, an FBI agent could lie about what an interviewee said. Any law enforcement officer could lie about what someone said. And, for that matter, any person can lie about what someone else said. Very few human beings don’t have the capability to lie, and very few don’t lie at some time or another.

Recording conversations or interviews was very uncommon at one time. During my investigative career whenever I elicited a confession or other critical information from a suspect or interviewee, I would finish up the process by preparing a statement that I had the individual then review and sign under oath. I’m sure there are exceptions just as there are dishonest people in all walks of life, but as a law enforcement officer I was first and foremost interested in obtaining the truth of the matter under investigation, not in obtaining convictions—and certainly not false convictions. If someone was lying to me, I would try to obtain the truth, but if he persisted, I would still want it recorded in a way that couldn’t be denied later (“I never told him that”). If he was telling the truth, I didn’t want him to have second thoughts later.

I have been fortunate in never having been in a situation that required me to assume that someone like an FBI agent would lie about what I told him. If I ever was, though, I’d just not say anything.

quote:

I seem to remember seeing that the policy changed under AG Holder. I’m trying to run down the info.

posted also in the thread about Sessions considering special prosecutor

The policy put out by Holder is here:

http://s3.documentcloud.org/do...recording-policy.pdf

there is a statement in the policy that says

"This policy also encourages agents and prosecutors to consider electronic recording in investigative or other circumstances where the presumption does not apply."

The points made by Paul Charlton sound valid to me.

An article on how Holder didn't go far enough is here:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/h...e-rule/#4b107b047264

"FBI agents routinely conduct their interviews in pairs, with one agent asking the questions and the other taking notes which are eventually typewritten into what is known as a form 302 report. It has previously been strictly against FBI policy to electronically record any of these interviews. Without an objectively accurate, verbatim record of the interview, the witness is compelled, forced even, to follow the script of the 302 report if it is presented in a court of law. If the witness’ testimony strays from the agent’s report, she opens herself up to a felony charge, for either making “false statements” to a federal agent (at the time of the interview) or for perjuring herself on the witness stand. This is how the FBI is able to coerce witnesses (or suspects) and shape their testimony."

^^^ I once had the pleasure of being interviewed by the FBI, and that is exactly how I remember it. Two agents, one asking all the questions. I don't recall if the second one was writing anything down or not.

They also bought me dinner at Bob Evans. Don't know if that's standard protocol or not.