Before I start this thread, I repeat what I said when Mueller was appointed: he was a good choice bc he had credibility, trust at FBI, and was perceived as non-partisan.https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/25/us/politics/robert-mueller-russia-investigation.html …
-
-
As to these comments about Mueller not testing a new theory? I think that undersells how much effort Mueller has put into a strategy that has side-effect of reinvigorating protections on Democracy, w/appellate staff of 4/17.pic.twitter.com/XyEGkiAQUN
Show this thread -
And the notion that subpoenaing the president (by a guy whose FBI got Cheney in a quasi Grand Jury appearance?) would test limits of executive power? Maybe work on a more obvious theory.pic.twitter.com/qrOZiMcE9g
Show this thread -
Having just credited Rudy G's tripe, NYT here -- on issue of final report -- doesn't (smartly). Add in the fact that Rosenstein keeps saying overandoverandover indictments will do the talking.pic.twitter.com/voZAAMqfhs
Show this thread -
Anyway, I still think Mueller was the right choice for the job. My guess though -- and that's all this is -- is that this investigation is different for him.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That one is easy: bigger fish to fry. In the 00s the focus was terrorism. White collar crime and money laundering were not viewed as big deals due to resource constraints and official priorities. FBI tolerated some of Sater's antics b/c of his value on getting intel on Al-Qaeda.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I wonder this about NY & NJ federal/state prosecutors.
@PreetBharara has some explaining to do because he knew Trump was dirty but never prosecuted him when he could. -
Trump, himself, has been an informant, no? I just read something stating as much.
-
I haven’t read anything for sure. Speculation isn’t fact.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think the perfect mind-blowing conclusion to this epic would be to learn that Trump is an informant as well. Not a chance, but it would be perfect.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
They didn't want to poke the loud mouthed TV star.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Felix Sater probably NEEDED to keep doing that to keep his cover, IF the stories he tells are true: what would the incentive be for the Mogilevich org to keep him in the loop otherwise? Let's remember Sater gave info on arms trafficking, etc. to terrorists Mogilevich supplied.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
In A Conspiracy>A Large And Wide Net Can Ketch Many More Co-Conspirators.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
How about the fact Trump’s little more than a glorified Russian (now) bag man and money launderer and the real catches are those he serves? If the dots do in fact connect to Mogilivech and Putin, they're the prizes, not Donny Dasvidaniya.
-
This might explain why Michael Cohen has been like "flip on the President? Tell you everything" and he still doesn't have any deals with Mueller. Maybe Mikey has a lot of people he'd rather not discuss...
-
Or Mueller doesn’t need his testimony because they’re already on wire. Friendly foreign intel services were signaling about Russian active measures before we even got going. The Spanish have Torshin & Jr on audio and gave to FBI. Cohen and Weisselburg open up NYS charges.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
And in a sense, he knows where *not* to look
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That question has bugged me for a long time.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
HAs been said that trump was also an informant during this time
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.