ORDER NO. 3915-2017
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS

By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows:

(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.

(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

+++++(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and
individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

+++++(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

+++++(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

(d) Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.

Date 5/17/17 General Rod J. Rosenstein


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.justice.gov/sco

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Related:
S.582 - Office of Special Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2017
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/582




GET SOMETHING THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD
GET SOMETHING THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD
GET SOMETHING THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD


++ROD J. ROSENSTEIN
WORKED UNDER JEFF SESSIONS AND WAS APPOINTED BY DONALD JOHN TRUMP


++THE MAJORITY REPUBLICAN SENATE IN 2017
APPROVED THE APPOINTMENT OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL


++THE MAJORITY REPUBLICAN CONGRESS IN 2017
APPROVED THE APPOINTMENT OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL


+++JEFF SESSIONS
LITERALLY THE FIRST SENATOR TO PUBLICLY SUPPORT TRUMP'S ELECTION PRIMARY BID

HE IS ALSO A LIFE LONG REPUBLICAN AND THE ONE WHO PUT ROSENSTEIN IN CHARGE


========================================================


ROBERT MULLER
+LIFE-LONG-REPUBLICAN
+++LIFE-LONG-REPUBLICAN
+++++LIFE-LONG-REPUBLICAN
+++++++LIFE-LONG-REPUBLICAN
+++++++++LIFE-LONG-REPUBLICAN
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/07/30/fbi-nominee-lauded-for-tenacity/e2012e09-379e-479f-8bd3-8c2aef36152a/

"Mueller, 56, is a registered Republican, yet a striking number of people describe him as apolitical." - July 30, 2001


========================================================


ROBERT MULLER IS PUT IN CHARGE OF THE INVESTIGATION

HE FINDS (AMONG MANY OTHER PIECES OF EVIDENCE)

JANUARY 2016
+++++++++++++
Trump Signs the Letter of Intent on behalf of the Trump Organization - “intended to facilitate further discussions” in order to “attempt to enter into a mutually acceptable agreement” related to the Trump-branded project in Moscow.


MARCH 2016
+++++++++++++
Papadopoulos told the group that he had learned through his contacts in London that Putin wanted to meet with candidate Trumpand that these connections could help arrange that meeting.

PAPADOPOLOUS CONTINUES CONVERSATIONS OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL WEEKS AND MAKES TRIPS TO RUSSIA WHICH BEGINS TO RAISE FLAGS WITHIN THE CAMPAIGN

Manafort forwarded the message to another Campaign official, without including Papadopoulos, and stated: “Let[’]s discuss. We need someone to communicate that [Trump] is not doing these trips. It should be someone low level in the Campaign so as not to send any signal.”

APRIL 2016
+++++++++++++
Papadopoulos admitted telling at least one individual outside of the Campaign—specifically,the then-Greek foreign minister—about Russia’s obtaining Clinton-related emails.

Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton.

========================================================



THERE ARE AT LEAST 50 OTHER CONTACTS COORDINATING ASSISTANCE FROM THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT AND THE CAMPAIGN TO ELECT DONALD TRUMP

THE ENTIRE REPORT IS PEPPERED WITH OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CHARGES

HERE IS A LIST OF PEOPLE WHO WERE CHARGED BECAUSE OF THE INVESTIGATION

U.S. v. Roger Jason Stone, Jr. (1:19-cr-18, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Michael Cohen (1:18-cr-850, Southern District of New York)
U.S. v. Paul J. Manafort, Jr. (1:17-cr-201, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Viktor Borisovich Netyksho, et al (1:18-cr-215, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Konstantin Kilimnik (1:17-cr-201, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Richard W. Gates III (1:17-cr-201, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Paul J. Manafort, Jr., and Richard W. Gates III (1:18-cr-83, Eastern District of Virginia)
U.S. v. Alex van der Zwaan (1:18-cr-31, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Internet Research Agency, et al (1:18-cr-32, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Richard Pinedo, et al (1:18-cr-24, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Michael T. Flynn (1:17-cr-232, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. George Papadopoulos (1:17-cr-182, District of Columbia)



========================================================

DO I NEED TO REPEAT THAT?

========================================================
THERE ARE AT LEAST 50 OTHER CONTACTS COORDINATING ASSISTANCE FROM THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT AND THE CAMPAIGN TO ELECT DONALD TRUMP

HERE IS A LIST OF PEOPLE WHO WERE CHARGED BECAUSE OF THE INVESTIGATION
U.S. v. Roger Jason Stone, Jr. (1:19-cr-18, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Michael Cohen (1:18-cr-850, Southern District of New York)
U.S. v. Paul J. Manafort, Jr. (1:17-cr-201, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Viktor Borisovich Netyksho, et al (1:18-cr-215, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Konstantin Kilimnik (1:17-cr-201, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Richard W. Gates III (1:17-cr-201, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Paul J. Manafort, Jr., and Richard W. Gates III (1:18-cr-83, Eastern District of Virginia)
U.S. v. Alex van der Zwaan (1:18-cr-31, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Internet Research Agency, et al (1:18-cr-32, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Richard Pinedo, et al (1:18-cr-24, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Michael T. Flynn (1:17-cr-232, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. George Papadopoulos (1:17-cr-182, District of Columbia)


========================================================



STOP FUCKING REPEATING YOUR BULLSHIT LIES
STOP FUCKING REPEATING YOUR BULLSHIT LIES
STOP FUCKING REPEATING YOUR BULLSHIT LIES
STOP FUCKING REPEATING YOUR BULLSHIT LIES
STOP FUCKING REPEATING YOUR BULLSHIT LIES


THE DEMOCRATS DIDN'T START THE INVESTIGATION INTO DONALD TRUMP


THE INVESTIGATION THAT WAS STARTED BY THE REPUBLICANS IN POWER IN 2017 TURNED UP A MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE AND LANDED DOZENS OF PEOPLE IN JAIL ALL WHILE ACTING AS HUMAN SHIELDS FOR DONALD TRUMP


SEE FOR YOURSELF
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

FOR EVIDENCE OF SPECIFICALLY WHICH LAWS WERE BROKEN AND SPECIFICALLY HOW THEY WERE BROKEN AND BY WHOM, LOOK AT THE

APPLICATION SECTION

PAGE 181 (note page 189-190 are all redacted bc ongoing matter)

OF THE MULLER REPORT, COMPLETE WITH EXTENSIVE CITATIONS.

this assumes a few things.
1.this is a game.
it is not.
2.that the person being engaged is a rational,reasonable human being.
they are not.
they are ideologues.
and ideologues only come from ONE,singlular perspective:
their own righteous certitude.

and any engagement with this ideologue only serves as a vehicle for them to prove how wrong you are,not to actually engage and come to a reasonable and mutual understanding.


you have the equation all wrong my friend.


the force is strong in me.

I got lazy on the title, that is the video one. The best bar fight I ever saw was outside of a Korean bar in Harker Heights, Texas back in the 90's. I had exited the bar next to it with some friends when we saw the bouncers toss out two elderly Korean gentlemen in full suits. I would guess they were at least 50 or so.

Anyway, once they were outside, the bouncers left and these two guys proceeded to get into a full fledged Tae Kwon Do (or maybe Hap Ki Do, I don't think it was that though because it had a lot of power kicks) fight. I mean they were going at it, and I mean HARD. Much more contact than in any of the TKD matches I had been in at tournaments. After about a minute of not landing a solid hit, they stopped and mutually allowed one another to remove their suit jackets. Then back to the fray. They did get a few kicks in and got a bit bloody, but that is when the bouncers returned, apparently with their WIVES.

Hilarity ensued, because both wives basically glanced at one another and then waded into the fracas. They each started slapping and kicking on their husband, screaming at them. I don't speak Korean, but you could tell by the tone they were dressing them down hardcore. The fight stopped and two bloody, formerly distinguished looking guys looked like a couple of kids who had really torqued off their mom. I was dying off to the side from laughter. I swear if camera phones had existed back then it would have been an instance classic.

Fees are a big deal. This video helps explain why.

https://videosift.com/video/Frontline-Retirement-Gamble-Mutual-Fund-Fees

No.

That's like saying the worst thing to happen with going out with friends for a drink is to be shot dead by a guy who didn't like you checking out his girlfriend.

A date doesn't end in rape. If your meeting with a person ends in rape, it never was a date to begin with. To say it was a date assumes the victim made a wrong choice at some point. Or worse, that the shitball would have allowed a different outcome.

Sexual assaults may have shades of gray, but I believe rape is rape. The idea of "date rape" would be laughable it it wasn't so moronic.

Dates and rapes are mutually exclusive.

I do apologize for being harsh in my response. It is years of frustration.

Sexism isn't desire. Desire is lovely. Desire is mutual.

Sexism isn't mutual.

And there is internalized sexism for women just as there is internalized racism and homophobia by black and gay people. If you are steeped in a culture that lives in its lizard brain responses, one gets polluted by it. No one is free from it.

And you are correct. There is no where to go from here.

And now there's this: Sarin used in April Syria attack, chemical weapons watchdog confirms

So now we have two narratives that are mutually incompatible. Splendid, isn't it....

My own confirmation bias favours Hersh. Additionally, the OPCW openly admits they had had access to the site of the attack, and that all of their samples were gathered by third parties, primarily the White Helmets. That's about as tainted as evidence can be.

Either way, nobody has anything of substance in terms of proof, everything's circumstantial. Can't call it.

Bee & Corddry’s Mutual Appreciation Society

@ChaosEngine
that article was utter shit.

"friend zone" is a term used to shame women?
how can that possibly be considered an even remotely true statement?

she makes a valid point in that women are not binary creatures,and are mutli-faceted,nuanced and complex.well of COURSE they are,but the "friend zone" is from the guys perspective,not a woman's!

do you know why the majority of some men end up in the "friend zone"? or should we just change that term to be more accurate "i am not interested in you because you put all your cards on the table in the first five seconds,so while i think that is sweet,i no longer am curious about you,because i already got you".

you know..the "friend zone",or as chris rock put it "emergency dick,just break glass".

the problem here is that while relationships are a long slog of compromise,negotiation and mutual respect to work towards a common goal.romantic courtships are akin to a game,a playful dance fueled by curiosity,intrigue and of course:lust.

the men who who get relegated to the "friend zone" do not understand this very basic tenant of courtship.they reveal all their cards up front,and while that may be the most honest approach,and one that women have been openly asking for,it ignores that underneath it all,a woman wants romance,mystery and a sense of discovery that will continually peak their interests.

they want to be woo'd,they want courtship and romance.
when a man shows all his cards he takes that way from the woman,and now that she knows she can "have" him.he no longer interests her.

and what the author of this article so callously ignores is that the "friend zone" is not really a friend at all,but a surrogate for a boyfriend.having a bad day?she calls her "friend".feeling bloated and unattractive? has her "friend" come over to make her feel better about herself.needs a date for her company christmas party and doesn't want to go alone? get her "friend" to come along.

so it should not be a surprise that some men find this hurtful and degrading.

but she has a point,the woman owes them nothing.the woman was honest and forthright and it is the man who has put himself in this position.

and let me be clear before i am accused of being a misogynist pig.

some men do the exact same thing,and i am guilty of it myself.

i grew up with three sisters,so i tend to be more aware and sensitive to women's choices,and i respect their space.i have never been one to push myself on any woman.i was never the one to pursue or as this article describes "persistent",because i saw that as a bit "stalky".

so if i was interested in a woman,and that interest was not reciprocated,i shifted to "friend" mode with no issue.to me it was a win-win.ok,so she was not interested in me in that way,but she is super cool,and interesting and now i have a really interesting and intriguing friend.

now here is an interesting thing that happened maybe half of the time.my new friend and i would hang out,go to pubs,clubs,movies and sometimes just make dinner and watch movies.friends right? she was upfront and honest with me that she was not interested in me in that way,and i can respect that.

and then one day she would have her college friend over for dinner (this is a true story btw,one of many).her friend was cute,smart,witty and had a sick sense of humor.yep,i was digging on my friends college friend,and we were flirting up a storm.we were vibing hard,clicking like we knew each other for years.

now what do you think happened?
i bet you can guess.
and you would be right.
my friend,who was honest with me about not being interested,started to get real shitty with me.like offensive shitty and i really did not understand why.it came out of nowhere,and now she was acting like some jealous girlfriend.

so i pull her aside and i am like..what the fuck is wrong with you? you are being an asshole!

you know what she said to me? and i can remember this clear as day "watching my friend flirt with you,and seeing how much she is into you.i began to see you in a different light.i can see how she sees you,and that you are amazing but you are MY steve! not hers!".

and then she tried to kiss me,which was just awkward,because to me? she was in the "friend zone",and had been for over 6 months.i didn't want her that way.the irony here is that she could not handle that,and our friendship dissolved.which just fucking sucks.

this scenario has played out in my life quite a few times.so while anecdotal,i suspect women have had similar experiences.

so the "friend zone' may be considered a woman's thing directed at men,but in reality it is non-gender specific.most likely because woman are pursued more than men,but both men and women can be put in the "friend zone".

so what can we learn from this?
don't be a sap.
have some self respect and do not allow another person to use you for their own well being and sense of self.
if they are not interested? move on.
if they just want to be a friend? then be a friend,but do not expect anything more.if you cannot handle that,then move on.

pining away from a distance in the slim hopes that the focus of your affections will one day change their mind,is just pathetic.

and for fuck sakes,stop blaming that person for your heartache.
you put yourself in that position,and you can pull yourself out.

and the term "friend zone" is not used to shame women,that is just fucking stupid.the "friend zone" is a place that you put yourself in,because of flawed sense of romance,and you allowed yourself to be used for the betterment of another human being.so while you may be hurt and angry,you only have yourself to blame.

respect yourself yo.
/end rant

I don't agree that the two are mutually exclusive.

The feeling is mutual.

I do agree that unilateral disarmament is a difficult thing to achieve, but there are other arguments as to why it should be pursued. I am sure we agree on a lot of things on this subject, but let me at least put the other side out there:

1. America as the over achieving nation in the world has a duty to lead by example. How can the country with the largest nuclear arsenal expect other countries to start the process that we all signed up to? Hey France, why didn't you get rid of your 87 nukes? Well America, why haven't you touched that pile of 500? (making up numbers here to illustrate the point)

2. The US isn't worried about Best Korea nuking them because they would need a staging platform and a functional ballistic missile. They can be launched from subs, but NK isn't really your worry there. The most developed nations are the concern, and if you could get an agreement it could happen, with peacekeepers and mutually open inspections, and pressure on smaller countries to abide or be trade embargoed to stop them (which the west does/has done already). Unlikely as things are right now, i agree.

3. We have ageing equipment housing extremely dangerous explosives. They require a huge amount of maintenance and whatnot, costing billions. The UK has to replace their system soon to the tune of hundreds of billions of pounds. Imagine what kind of alternative modern anti-nuclear defence system we could develop using all that money and all our technology? That way we could be safe from nukes without using nukes and it would cost less in the long run.

Also if you claim your weapons as part of a defence, it's a bit of a giveaway that you're bullshitting if you then go off around the world antagonising other countries, knowing that they can't really fight back. So i think in fairness we should crack open that self-defence argument and see what percentage of it is referring to "a good offence".

Having said all that, binning all the US nukes overnight wouldn't be a great idea. The UK would be less of a target and safer without nukes imo, but the US would probably make the world a lot safer just by having less.

Let's be honest here, the amount of nukes we have is preposterous. No one could possibly have any reason to use that many, the potential for absolute worldwide devastation is far too high to need that many - you could potentially finish the world off in a nuclear winter, according to the average figures given, in about 100 'small' nukes. Not 100 each per country, but 100 total worldwide.

And remember, that doesn't mean you can use 90 and be safe. The figure 100 was enough to likely cause a global famine by causing temperature drops leading to crop failures. That doesn't account for extinction of animals and the devastation of the natural balance (which would lead to our eventual extinction) which can be wildly unpredictable. You could shoot 40 at a country, win the conflict, and cause the starvation of millions+ in your own (and other) countries for the next 20 odd years..... or worse.

Mutually assured destruction I think is often woefully overlooked as a stabilising force in the world.

I don't think it's at all a co-incidence that since nuclear proliferation we have only seen wars vs non nuclear nations. You can never really win meaningfully vs a nation that has the thermo-nuclear trump card in their back pocket.

When superpowers come to blows now, proxy wars are the only realistic option. That may still suck for the poor bastards that get caught up with it, but it does mean a world war is somewhat off the table (even if they like to rattle the sabres from time to time).

Also Starship troopers is an oft misunderstood book I think. Some people get so hung up on the underlying idea of a Military dictatorship that they miss much of the nuance and wisdom woven into it.
I'm not even sure Heinlein was even necessarily advocating such a world, but rather using it as a narrative device to explore how our societies really work once you drop the wishful pretences (especially the stable ones).

It seems like there is perhaps some intrinsic relationship between peace and the capacity for effective and controlled violence. There are few people as calm and non aggressive as the ones who truly know they have nothing to fear from you in a fight.

Answer-Yes, clearly self defense.

Nice snark, clearly directed at me, in your description @Buttle.

Mixon is not a disabled person or someone not used to violence, so it would clearly be harder to make a point that he feared for his life, but also clearly he should have feared for his safety, he was hit twice by a nutjob that was emboldened by idiots that think you can't hit a woman in the face...they have faces, don't they?

Had he gone to trial with the video, he probably wouldn't have been convicted of a thing, at worst it might be argued that it was mutual combat, even though it was clearly self defense, he even let her get away with the first physical attack and only (properly) retaliated after the second.
The incident was allegedly started by Molitor and her boyfriend who were loudly hurling racial slurs at Mixon, then attacked him physically when he tried to walk away....twice.

I think it's awful he took the plea, he should have stood up for himself, but I think the video proof wasn't made available to him so it was her word against his, and she claimed he was the sole aggressor. Sadly, because of people like the video poster who seem to believe that a woman attacker can't be defended against under any circumstances, he saw the writing on the wall that no matter how justified his actions were, he would likely be made to pay for them.

That woman shouldn't get a dime though, she clearly started the fight. Start a fight like a man with a man, you'll get punched like a man. That's called equality.