Politics You were duped by the Ruskies.

This disagrees with you. Not everything is available for public viewing as far as I know.
At least 3 dozen sealed criminal indictments have been added to the federal court docket in Washington D.C. this year — an unusually large number, according to ABC News. The big question is whether they are the result of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Legal experts told ABC News the number of sealed cases awaiting action right now is unusual. In August alone, 14 were added as the midterm elections were drawing near and longstanding Justice Department policy precluded prosecutors from taking any public action that could appear to be aimed at influencing political outcomes.

The accidental discovery on Thursday night of what appeared to be secret charges pending against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has fired up more speculation. Legal experts told ABC that the sealed cases could be tied to Mueller’s probe.

“I assume that Mueller knew that once the election was over, there could be an existential threat to his investigation,” said Matthew Miller, a former senior Justice official under former Attorney General Eric Holder, told ABC. “He knew the best thing to do was act before that.”

The White House, meanwhile, is bracing for the probe to fire up again. President Trump's advisers are privately expressing worries that the special counsel, who's been out of the news for the past month, has been stealthily compiling information and could soon issue new indictments or a damning final report.
Trump abruptly altered the chain of command above Mueller on Wednesday, putting his work under the supervision of a Republican loyalist who has been openly skeptical of the special counsel's authority and has mused about ways to curtail his power. But Trump and his aides are concerned about Mueller's next move with the work that is complete, according to a White House official and a Republican with close ties to the administration.

They insisted on anonymity to comment on conversations they were not authorized to describe.

Mueller kept a low profile for the past month as voters were mulling their choices for this week's elections.

But a flurry of activity during his quiet period, including weeks of grand jury testimony about Trump confidant Roger Stone and negotiations over an interview with the president, hinted at public developments ahead as investigators move closer to addressing key questions underpinning the special counsel inquiry: Did Trump illegally obstruct the investigation? And did his campaign have advance knowledge of illegally hacked Democratic emails?

Trump has told confidants he remains deeply annoyed by the 18-month-old Mueller probe, believing it is not just a "witch hunt" but an expensive and lengthy negative distraction. The latest indication of the fury came Wednesday when he forced out his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, whose recusal opened the door to Mueller's appointment.

To this point, Trump has heeded advice not to directly interfere, though a new chapter in the relationship with the probe may have begun with the appointment of Matthew Whitaker as new acting attorney general. Even if Whitaker, Sessions' former chief of staff, does not curtail the investigation, Trump could direct him to take a more aggressive stance in declassifying documents that could further undermine or muddle the probe, the White House aide and Republican official said.

The investigation until now has been overseen by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller last year and granted him fairly broad authority.

"It's very significant because Whitaker's position on indictments or future indictments may be different than Rosenstein's, and Rosenstein had given Mueller a broad mandate to pursue various crimes," said Washington criminal defense lawyer Jeffrey Jacobovitz.

The Mueller investigation has so far produced 32 criminal charges and four guilty pleas from Trump associates. But the work is not done.

A clear focus concerns Stone, a longtime political dirty trickster. The special counsel's team has been investigating Stone's connection to WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign and whether he had advance knowledge of the group's plans to release hacked material damaging to Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Stone has said he did not, but emails, Twitter messages and his own public statements show he portrayed himself as plugged into the WikiLeaks orbit. That includes implying he had inside knowledge in separate email exchanges with a Breitbart editor and Steve Bannon, the former Trump campaign chief executive, just days before WikiLeaks began releasing thousands of emails stolen from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

Bannon and other Stone associates have been questioned, and multiple witnesses have appeared before the grand jury. One associate, Jerome Corsi, said in a video recording Monday that he's "been involved in a really constant basis" for two months with Mueller's investigation.

On Thursday, a federal appeals court heard a challenge to Mueller's authority brought by Stone aide Andrew Miller, who defied a grand jury subpoena last summer and was held in contempt by a judge.

In the president's orbit, there remains some concern about his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., though there are no outward indications that charges are imminent, according to a Republican close to the White House not authorized to speak publicly about private conversations.

Beyond Mueller, but also within the Justice Department's oversight, is a federal investigation into Trump's longtime legal fixer, Michael Cohen, who admitted as part of a guilty plea in August to coordinating with Trump on a hush-money scheme to silence a porn actress and an ex-Playboy model who say they had affairs with Trump.

The president hasn't been charged with any wrongdoing, but federal prosecutors have said that a grand jury investigation is ongoing and it targets unspecified "others." Court papers show Trump's conduct and that of top executives at the Trump Organization, some of whom have received immunity, have been scrutinized.

It's unclear what additional charges prosecutors are pursuing and how much of it pertains to the president personally. Federal prosecutors have said in court papers that the case involves numerous "uncharged" third parties and have argued against disclosing search warrants and other documents that would "certainly result in a very public guessing game" about their identities.

Overseeing it all is Whitaker, a former college football player and U.S. attorney from Iowa who was brought into the Justice Department last year to serve as Sessions' chief of staff. In the months before, Whitaker was a familiar presence on CNN, where he questioned Mueller's scope and reach.

In one appearance, he defended a June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between Trump Jr. and a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer, saying, "You would always take that meeting."

He also once tweeted an ex-prosecutor's opinion piece that described the Mueller team as a "lynch mob," and wrote his own op-ed saying Mueller would be outside his authority if he investigated Trump's family finances.

Trump had enjoyed Whitaker's cable TV appearances — including one on CNN in which he suggested that the Mueller probe be starved of resources — and the two men soon struck a bond. Trump told associates that he felt that Whitaker would be "loyal" and would not have recused himself from the Russia probe as Sessions had done, according to two Republicans close to the White House not authorized to speak publicly about private conversations.

Despite demands from Democrats that he recuse because of his past comments, Whitaker showed no signs Thursday that he intended to do so. And not everyone is convinced he needs to.

"Based on my experience with Matt," said John Richter, a former U.S. Attorney in Oklahoma and high-ranking Bush administration Justice Department official, "I think he will act consistently with the best traditions of the department and call things as he sees them.

Material from the Associated Press was used in this story.

 

I remember years ago there was a song called "The Russians are Coming to get me, ah ah" lol

 

There is bitterness on both sides, its not that hard to understand why. Both sides are extra bitter because the end result was Donald Trump. Hilary supporters are upset that she lost the general and blame Sanders supporters (among other reasons) for not supporting her or showing up for her. Sanders supporters blame Hillary for owning the DNC and squeezing out Sanders. In 2008 there was much less bitterness because the campaign Obama ran was respectable in regards to his opponents, and the bitterness was just sore loser bitterness which quickly dried up because Obama reached out to Hillary supporters and made Hilary a key part of his administration. Hillary did not reach out to Sanders supporters, in fact after Waserman-Schultz resigned because of leaked emails showed to conspired to sabotage Sanders campaign, Hillary spit in Sanders supports face by hiring her immediately.

The attitude of oh well Bernie ran a good race he just didn't have the votes, or delegates or whatever is very misguided and overlooks a lot of what went on. Even after all that Hilary should have won and could have united the party but didn't. Even now Hilary is furthering the divide by using her new book to blast Sanders for causing lasting damage to "her campaign". Fueling opinions like "He was basically using the democratic party for financial and exposure purposes. I know you don't like Clinton, but do you think it's fair what Bernie tried to pull?" and this after Donna Brazile revelations that confirmed what Sanders supporters were watching in real time and Hilary supporters just completely ignore and continue to do so.

The party in general needs to acknowledge their failures to heal the wounds. They also need to acknowledge the younger generation who wants change and are fighting for control of the party. If they don't then we all risk another 4 years of Trump.

 

ok sure, he endorsed her and called for party unity. What else should he have done? I would put most of that on Hillary as she was the winner, and could have reached out to Sanders and his supporters and she would have gained more support for them. She snubbed her nose at them and didn't like Sanders and didn't want his help, she just expected his voters to fall in line. There was lot more she could have done, which was a strategic mistake on her part. This is just more blame on Sanders for Clinton failures.

Nice gloss over.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

I also disagree that Sanders would not have done better than Clinton. Clinton made many strategic mistakes in the general that I don't think Sanders would have made. I also think that Sanders appealed to more people who were dissatisfied with the status quo than Clinton did, many of those people either didn't vote or went with Trump. The "Russians" were only part of the equation, a lot of blame is on Clinton herself. I am also upset with her that she is perpetuating that into the next election cycle rather than unifying the party or abstaining. Her book was lame on so many fronts.

No one is asking them to give up, some inclusion in the process and party would go a long way. Its a political party not a political monarchy. The condescending attitudes from the old farts of the party don't help include the younger generation who are attracted to people like Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez.

 

There was once a movie released in 1966 that was titled, "The Russians are Coming, The Russians are Coming". It starred Carl Reiner and Alan Arkin.

 

What gloss over?

 

I'm remember that one. It was a hoot!

 

This illustrates the condescending attitude I am talking about. Sanders did what was asked of him. How much effort is enough? Do you think calling people sore losers is going to win them over? When is it actually Clinton's fault? She ran a shitty primary and a worse general. Its always Sanders fault, and the Russians, and Comey and sexism, and and.....

Your reaching, there is enough information for those who pay attention to the subject to make an opinion, including Clinton's own words during interviews.

Kind of a shitty comment. I feel like a persons ideas transcend their age, race or gender.

I wonder who Clinton will blame in her next book?

 

That's a term my grandmother, who was born in the 1880s, used to use. Thanks for bringing back old memories of her.

Several times when my cousin, the one my age, and I got in trouble and our mothers would take turns punishing us depending on which one was around at the time. Whenever we were in the company of grandma, she would step in the middle and prevent any punishment. This was true even when we broke all the windows in her garage, even when we started a huge bon fire in grandma's back yard using the wood she had reserved for her wood furnace, even when we thru rifle ammunition we had found into that same wood burning furnace, even when we thru homemade darts made out of an empty ink pen and several sewing needles scotch taped into the front end of the pen and thru them wildly around the yard, even when we made homemade bombs using an empty coffee can filled with 1957's nickel's worth of gasoline and a CO2 cartridge in the coffee can which was lit on fire and we ran like hell. Grandma saved us numerous times and she will forever be burned into my most precious memories.

Edit:
Two things Grandma demanded -
1. We always had to say grace before dinner;
2. We had to go to church every Sunday. Following church services, my father would then take me, my younger brother, my grandmother and my mom to the Original Pancake House for breakfast. My cousin went to a different church.

 

What a bunch of monsters. Holy shit. I think the worst thing I did was hack a piece off of my grandpas new saw handle cuz I thought it would make it better.

 

Monsters is an understatement. However, grandma has earned an eternal place in my heart.

You know, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the United States, Michael Curry, was interviewed on the PBS Newshour today. He stressed the power of love and that the opposite of love is not hate but rather selfishness. That coupled with Christ's teaching of doing for the least of us does the most for him teaches me that I need to consider my fellow man's plight. That's my guiding light.

 

It was Clinton's job to win the general. She didn't do her job, the loss is on her, she is a loser.

You act like Sanders sabotaged her, she sabotaged herself with his supporters and she fell on her face in many other ways.

Hostility? I thought we we're both just having a nice conversation about losers.

Because she is a sore loser.

no it doesn't, I dislike her more now.

And you follow up by bringing up race and gender. I was referring to the voters by the way, not the candidates. I don't think we need to limit our candidates to certain ages, races or genders. Voter demographics are a thing though.

 

I don't think criticism or even bitterness is hostility.

I'm not so sure. But we will see.

The democrats win with voter turn out. Disenfranchising a large block of voters is not good strategy. Some candidates have historically energized young voters. Bill Clinton and Obama make that list. Even a few percentage points can make the difference and would have in 2016.