Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

SuprstitionAintthWay

(386 posts)
Sat Apr 20, 2019, 06:07 PM Apr 2019

The standards Mueller applied for deciding a conspiracy was prosecuteable were astronomically high

The minimum standards for conspiracy or coordination Mueller chose and applied in his investigation strike me as almost impossibly stringent. Perhaps some lawyer out there can show me where this impression is wrong.

Mueller seems to have chosen conspiracy between a Trump Campaign paid employee ONLY, directly with an employee of the Kremlin ONLY, and in which he could prove that an exchange of something of value was discussed, agreed upon, and delivered, as the mimimun and only standard he would accept for reporting a conspiracy out as proveably criminal. 

In any Trump-Russia conspiracy or coordination, if there was any intermediary party at all, any step through anyone not a campaign employee or a Putin government official, then it failed Mueller's stringent requirements... and he let it go.

Meaning very much malevolent conspiracy and coordination that definitely did occur didn't meet the high standards being applied.

Among many such examples: 

-- GRU to Julian Assange to Roger Stone directly to Trump himself. Assange was not a direct Kremlin employee, and Stone was not on Trump's payroll, so their conspiring was... what? okay? (It should have been prosecutable as racketeering under RICO, it would seem to me.) 

-- GRU to somebody at Wikileaks to Donald Trump Jr. The person at Wikileaks wasn't a Kremlin employee, so their conspiring was okay, per Mueller. 

-- Putin to Deripaska to Kilminik to Manafort. Deripaska and Kilminik fail Mueller's direct-employee-of-Kremlin requirement, so no conspiracy prosecution there either. Even though Putin got something very tangible out of that: a change to the 2016 Republican Party platform to insert a plank for relaxing the sanctions in place against Russia. 

-- Russian government to the British professor to Papadopoulos regarding Democratic Party emails hacked by Russia. The professor is the problem, the non-employee insulation from prosecution for that conspiracy channel. 

-- Michael Flynn to Peter Smith to Russian hackers pursuing more emails. Peter Smith (who killed himself afterwards rather than face investigation) was an employee of neither the Trump Campaign nor the Kremlin, so same result for that conspiracy channel. 

-- Three top Trump campaign officials meet with a Russian lawyer about trading Hillary oppo research results specifically for a promise of sanctions relief. Here, the lawyer's direct employment by the Kremlin at the moment is gray-area, plus no actual value-for-value transaction occurred... says Trump Jr. (But does Mueller actually know that to be a fact, or is it just one more thing he has too little evidence of?) So, even this doesn't meet Mueller's sky-high standards for conspiracy. 

(-- And just as an aside, how is a post-election, late 2016 Putin "peace plan" for the U.S. to lift sanctions and Russia to be given America's blessing to absorb Crimea and control eastern Ukraine, being backdoored from a Russian contact to Jared Kushner to Sec of State Tillerson, in any way okay? How is that yet another freebie in this whole Trump-Russia tarpit?)

-- Trump through the U.S. media to the GRU: "Now find Hillary's personal emails!" Which conspiratorial instruction the GRU started working on within hours. The U.S. media isn't in the employ of the Kremlin, so... nope again, decides Mueller. 

And this list could go on.

Given the standards for proveable Trump-employee-direct-to-Putin-employee conspiracy that Mueller chose to apply, was there really ever any reasonable chance he would succeed? I suggest the answer is most likely, No. Our hopes were always misplaced. American law enforcement is just not well suited for taking on this kind of thing, especially when recommending criminal charges for a chief executive is at issue. 

(Yes, the contrasting example is Watergate. BUT we were able to (sort of) hold Nixon accountable ONLY because he tape-recorded all of his own conversations, including, amazingly, his criminal ones. AND he (mostly) obeyed the court order to turn the tapes over. Well, Trump is no Nixon. He doesn't tape himself (he even eats his paper notes), and, a lifelong criminal, he surely would destroy such tapes anyway rather than obey a federal court.) 

5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The standards Mueller applied for deciding a conspiracy was prosecuteable were astronomically high (Original Post) SuprstitionAintthWay Apr 2019 OP
I pretty much said Trump would weasel out of this for the past 1.5 years mr_lebowski Apr 2019 #1
thanks for the correction about the Republican plank change Manafort delivered SuprstitionAintthWay Apr 2019 #2
There were some (former) prosecutors that sure thought there would be conspiracy triron Apr 2019 #3
Ironically Turbineguy Apr 2019 #4
Of course a 100% airtight case is hardest to defend against. But sky-high standards SuprstitionAintthWay Apr 2019 #5
 

mr_lebowski

(33,643 posts)
1. I pretty much said Trump would weasel out of this for the past 1.5 years
Sat Apr 20, 2019, 06:22 PM
Apr 2019

Because of exactly what you're talking about ... basically, the laws to tackle this kind of thing just aren't there.

Point of fact though the 2016 GOP convention plank didn't say sanctions would be eased on Russia. The change was to the nature of US Support for Ukraine, which weapons and defense systems were to be provided and such, also softening the US's language in general against Russia for what they'd done. Sanctions weren't part of it. The SANCTIONS part ... publicly ... that came from what Trump told Maria Butina at a press conference.

But yeah ... they clearly weaseled their way out of trouble by dealing with Russian go-betweens and informal advisors like Stone ... to avoid accountability.

2. thanks for the correction about the Republican plank change Manafort delivered
Sat Apr 20, 2019, 06:34 PM
Apr 2019

...that instead it was to soften U.S. support for Ukraine and our criticism of Russia for their aggression in Crimea and E. Ukraine (for which in turn the Obama Admin imposed the punitive sanctions on Russia)

triron

(21,914 posts)
3. There were some (former) prosecutors that sure thought there would be conspiracy
Sat Apr 20, 2019, 06:46 PM
Apr 2019

charges--some from watergate. How were they all wrong?
I am puzzled and very disillusioned with Mueller myself.
Perhaps my mind will change somewhat when (and if) we hear Mueller
publicly testify.

Turbineguy

(37,206 posts)
4. Ironically
Sat Apr 20, 2019, 06:59 PM
Apr 2019

using a higher standard makes it harder for trump to weasel out of it. But Congress and the Senate have to do their part and if they don't, it comes down the the Voters.

5. Of course a 100% airtight case is hardest to defend against. But sky-high standards
Thu Apr 25, 2019, 07:08 PM
Apr 2019

Last edited Fri Apr 26, 2019, 11:10 AM - Edit history (1)

are self-defeating if applying them means you never charge the criminal at all.

Spring 2016 Trump Campaign Manager Paul Manafort began sending the campaign's polling data to oligarch Konstantin Kilimnik, who was Manafort's conduit to Deripaska, the higher-pecking-order corrupt oligarch Manafort is millions in debt to. And whenever Deripaska has something useful to use against somebody, U.S. intelligence's conclusion is that Vlad Putin has it too.

August 2, 2016 Manafort -- still campaign manager -- met with Kilimnik in NYC. Mueller reports that they discussed the campaign's efforts at focusing on voters in midwestern states. You know, like Wisconsin and Michigan. How is that not tantamount to the Trump campaign telling the Russians, "If you want to help, this is where we most need it and think it could be most effective." ? (Almost like yelling out, "Hey Russia, find Hillary's personal emails for us!", isnt it?)

But Mueller "can't establish" that that was Trump Campaign - Russian govt coordination? Why, because Kilimnik SAYS he's not a Russian intell asset? What else is he gonna say? Why ELSE would he give a shit about the Trump campaign's work? A special counsel can't make a call like that for himself? WTF?

If quid pro quo is needed to tie a nice bow on such dealings, part of what Kilimnik delivered to Manafort at that same meeting was that Russians-in-Ukrainian-sheep's-clothing would be requesting prospective future President Trump to support Russia controlling eastern Ukraine. A "peace plan," they called it. One that sounds similar to one that Jared's Russian contacts later had him back-door to Sec of State Tillerson.

But this conspiring fails Mueller's strict -- read, unrealistic -- requirements because Kilimnik isn't directly on the Kremlin, FSB, GRU, IRA, etc, government payroll... or, they can't prove he is, at least. A requirement for prosecution that just flies in the face of the realities that exist in Russia. It's a kleptocracy, with the Kremlin in the center running the sprawling, finger-in-every-pie organized crime system that is the 21st century Russian business sector. Billionaire oligarchs have their industries and their wealth because Putin allows them to, in return for which they all cooperate with Putin, support him, kick-back to him (he may be the real wealthiest man in the world), and do his bidding. Else they get charged with corruption, lose their wealth to the Kremlin, and have to either flee the country or go to the ex-oligarch gulag.

Oligarchs like Kilimnik and Deripaska already ARE assets and agents of the Russian government in every way that matters, and incredibly well-compensated ones, too. They just lack Kremlin Employee ID cards in their wallets. But apparently that alone is enough for Mueller to be "unable to establish" campaign-&-Russian-govt conspiracy or coordination, and to thereby grant the malicious Putin stooge in the White House the bona fides he needs to stay out of jail and in office.

Putin has all kinds of leverage over Trump, and that hasn't magically just gone away. Examples:
-- The details of many years, decades, of laundering dirty Russian money through Trump real estate.
-- The details of Trump pursuing a Moscow development deal during the campaign.
-- The Russians trying to get Trump property to develop in, of all places, Crimea. (! What a coup for Putin that wouldve been.)
-- Proof of what was really said in all of the many Russia-Trump Campaign communications.
-- Revelation of the true and full extent of Russia's 2015-2016 pro-Trump interference in our election. Putin could publicly de-legitimatize the Nov 2016 outcome any time he chooses.
-- What this oft-pursued private meeting with Putin during the campaign was going to be about, the one so many people were always trying to set up. It didn't happen, but both Trump and Putin HAD to know the prospective agenda. What was that?
-- Even Trump himself believes Putin has sexual shenanigans kompromat on him.
That's a partial list, and a partial list of just what we know or have seen the indications of. The full range of exortion fodder the Kremlin is holding over Trump may include things nobody here even has a clue of yet.

And the Mueller Report officially informs us the FBI is gonna sit still for all this.

(Icing on the absurdity, idiots in the media instantly pronounced, "Our bad! We were wrong! Trump's campaign never colluded with Russia and Trump has never been beholden to Putin at all! Mueller proved it!" Mueller proved no such thing.)

Our federal government's ability to prosecute criminals like Trump and protect us from foreign malefactors like Putin has broken down. It's ineffective; from appearances, now next to impotent. This has been a staggeringly harmful outcome for our nation.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The standards Mueller app...