More Mueller news: Whitaker, Treason, and Farage.

[The Romulan Republic]

Fair enough: He'll only quit if he can somehow spin it as a victory, because his raging egomania will never allow him to admit serious fault or defeat.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

There is also another thread in this in that the US military and IC probably has dug out and started implementing old Cold War plans for this very situation, left to gather dust because how insane it sounds (and this isn't actually out there, as plans like the Rainbow Plans and the plan just in case the Girl Scouts tried to take over the US are actual things). I wouldn't be surprised that if -somehow- the report gets buried or denied, we'll be seeing these plans getting implemented and Russia to be declared an enemy to the US.

[Gandalf]

Is there an exemption for "routine journalism?"

Um ... yes. I even explicitly quoted the relevant passage of the law in my original post, which was specifically directed at you, to answer this very question. Since you appear to have missed it, here it is again:

(d) The term “agent of a foreign principal” does not include any news or press service or association organized under the laws of the United States or of any State or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, or any newspaper, magazine, periodical, or other publication for which there is on file with the United States Postal Service information in compliance with section 3611 [2] of title 39, published in the United States, solely by virtue of any bona fide news or journalistic activities, including the solicitation or acceptance of advertisements, subscriptions, or other compensation therefor, so long as it is at least 80 per centum beneficially owned by, and its officers and directors, if any, are citizens of the United States, and such news or press service or association, newspaper, magazine, periodical, or other publication, is not owned, directed, supervised, controlled, subsidized, or financed, and none of its policies are determined by any foreign principal defined in subsection (b) of this section, or by any agent of a foreign principal required to register under this subchapter

I'll admit that I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't the rest of that paragraph seem pretty clear that it needs to be an American publication for the exemption to apply?

[FireNexus]

I'll admit that I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't the rest of that paragraph seem pretty clear that it needs to be an American publication for the exemption to apply?

You’d be right about that particular exemption. But the whole of FARA is mostly about political activities on behalf of a foreign principal inside the United States, with a foreign principal being specifically-defined groups of foreigners (political parties, governments. The law defines possible measures of being an agent based on funding and direct or indirect control.

It is, in theory, potentially broad enough to capture the Beeb because it’s vague. And the DOJ does consider producing news for a US audience to fall under “political activity”. However, the US doesn’t require the BBC to register both because it’s activities do not fall within the spirit of “activities on behalf of a foreign government” as defined in lots of internal DOJ memos related to FARA decisions. Also because there is a generally hands-off approach with foreign news services so long as they’re not explicitly engaging in propaganda. This is especially true of news outlets of allies like the brits. Accusing the BBC of being a propaganda arm of the British government would be downright scandalous.

According to CJR, the Al Jazeera thing (that never ended up coming down on them because they’re legitimate journalists) made people a lot more nervous than the RT thing. There’s no real question that RT is a propaganda arm of the Russian government, and exactly the kind of entity FARA was created to address.

The problem is that those internal DOJ memos aren’t quite binding in the way law or regulation are, so the whole fucking table could potentially be smashed and every single foreign news service (whether government or private) could be forced to register as a foreign agent and subjected to an organizational colonoscopy that would practically prevent them from doing journalism if they want to keep doing business in the US. Now those memos aren’t totally UNbinding, and there is a non-zero chance that capriciously changing the rules like that would run afoul of federal judges long enough for the administration to change.

The possible registration of news entities as foreign agents, though, does appear to have a chilling effect on foreign news entities operating inside the US. Even those who are probably unlikely to be asked to register.

(Also not a lawyer, but I did a bit of a dive including reading the law and some commentary on the law this morning.)

Relevant CJR article: https://www.cjr.org/analysis/fara-press.php

[Gandalf]

Right, but all of those laws require someone to be in the US, which sort of makes sense because the laws were drawn up to fight Nazis. The line of inquiry I was trying to advance was one based on a foreign source (I chose the BBC because it's well known and well regarded) who may have zero presence in the US. However, if they find some election swaying piece of information, place it on their own sites which US voters (or maybe campaigners) find because facebook/reddit/other, has someone committed a crime?

[aerius]

However, if they find some election swaying piece of information, place it on their own sites which US voters (or maybe campaigners) find because facebook/reddit/other, has someone committed a crime?

Depends. Were any Russians involved in any way?

[Gandalf]

However, if they find some election swaying piece of information, place it on their own sites which US voters (or maybe campaigners) find because facebook/reddit/other, has someone committed a crime?

Depends. Were any Russians involved in any way?

Yes, Mueller says that they've also got Iraq's WMDs.

Jimmy Hoffa remains unaccounted for.

[FireNexus]

Right, but all of those laws require someone to be in the US, which sort of makes sense because the laws were drawn up to fight Nazis. The line of inquiry I was trying to advance was one based on a foreign source (I chose the BBC because it's well known and well regarded) who may have zero presence in the US. However, if they find some election swaying piece of information, place it on their own sites which US voters (or maybe campaigners) find because facebook/reddit/other, has someone committed a crime?

It depends on whether they were producing it “for a US audience”. If there was an effort to target US audiences on the part of the company, it probably counts as something that requires registration because of the broadness of the law. And since said effort would require someone from a US entity (Facebook or google, say) to be involved as information services provider or public relations agent, they could maybe exert some leverage or force registration which would sever any relationship.

But even though it technically falls under the requirement, I don’t expect it to be something that anybody wants to waste resources on. Because those guys aren’t going to register or get extradited. And you’re not going to have an easy time getting documents to prove they were letter of the law in violation.

[FireNexus]

Right, but all of those laws require someone to be in the US, which sort of makes sense because the laws were drawn up to fight Nazis. The line of inquiry I was trying to advance was one based on a foreign source (I chose the BBC because it's well known and well regarded) who may have zero presence in the US. However, if they find some election swaying piece of information, place it on their own sites which US voters (or maybe campaigners) find because facebook/reddit/other, has someone committed a crime?

Also, BBC world news has a presence in the US. From a practical standpoint, you can’t do any meaningful reporting on US politics without boots on the ground in the US. So pretty much any news org who would have a claim to being real news and for whom this law might apply is going to have a US presence that may have to register. If they don’t have a US presence they’re not doing any real reporting, anyway.

[The Romulan Republic]

However, if they find some election swaying piece of information, place it on their own sites which US voters (or maybe campaigners) find because facebook/reddit/other, has someone committed a crime?

Depends. Were any Russians involved in any way?

Yes, Mueller says that they've also got Iraq's WMDs.

Jimmy Hoffa remains unaccounted for.

Hah hah.

Iraq was a disgrace, but it should not be used to dismiss any information from US intelligence as automatically false, regardless of evidence, in perpetuity. That's ad hominem. Iraq really has nothing to do with this situation.

I'd also like aerius to back up his insinuation that the investigations are motivated by anti-Russian bigotry, or that Russians are being held to a different standard, but I don't expect him to. Just throwing out "McCarthyist Red-baiting Russophobic!" is just standard modus operandi for the Deniers.

[The Romulan Republic]

Judge bars Roger Stone from publicly speaking about the case:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/201 ... sr-vpx.cnn

Suck it, terrorist scum.

But yeah, he has a long history of this kind of shit:

As Roger Stone heads to court today to defend an apparent threat he aimed (literally) at the judge in his case, it's a good time to look at his disturbing history of making similar threats of violence, domestic terrorism, and even civil war.

Stone, the Fort Lauderdale resident arrested in an FBI raid last month on charges related to the Mueller investigation, has repeatedly suggested violence and assassination during the tumultuous presidency of his long-time boss, Donald Trump.

A look at just a couple of those examples makes the Instagram post calling special counsel Robert Mueller "a deep state hitman" and attacking Judge Amy Berman Jackson with crosshairs next to her photograph look tame in comparison.

In December 2017 he and fellow conspiracy theorist Alex Jones did a segment at a gun range in which they said they were preparing for the civil war that would break out if Trump were to be removed from office by a "Clinton corporate coup."

"I'm not advocating violence ... but If there is a coup d'etat, if there is an illegitimate unconstitutional effort to remove Donald Trump on trumped-up charges by biased or partisan prosecutors or an illegitimate takedown by the 25th Amendment, there will be a civil war in this country," Stone says on the video. "The Trump constituency has been awakened and they will not be put to sleep. I choose to defend myself and my family. I'm tired of the death threats, I'm tired of the need for personal security, I'm tired of the insults, and therefore I am going to defend the Constitution and myself."

"Roger's been going to the shooting range more and more," said Jones. "And now has security, just like we do."

Then they hit the gun range, where Stone and Jones fire a number of automatic weapons at paper targets.

"Die commie dogs," Stone says as he fires an Uzi. "... Up against the wall, commies."

The two men also joke about making a "JFK throat shot," and Jones calls Stone the "Rambo" of the movement "to take out globalists."

In August of the same year, Stone said there would be an "insurrection in this country like you have never seen before" if Trump were impeached and that "any politician who votes for it would be endangering their own life."

"Just try it," he said in the TMZ interview. "... Both sides are heavily armed my friend."

And if you think the exhortations by people like Stone and Jones have no real-world effect, consider the case of U.S. Coast Guard Lt. Christopher Hasson, an alleged domestic terrorist and white supremacist who was arrested Wednesday on drug and gun charges. Hasson, who was allegedly plotting to murder numerous Democratic politicians and media personalities, had recently searched for "civil war if Trump impeached" on Google.

The video and barely veiled threats shows why the FBI took it very seriously when they arrested Stone, including the presence of heavily armed agents in tactical gear. Stone and the right-wing media, led by Fox News, have claimed the raid was unnecessary because Stone is a senior citizen charged with lying to Congress. No guns were found on Stone's property.

Somehow Stone's history of barely veiled threats has evaded media scrutiny during the buildup to today's hearing in Stone's felony case. Judge Jackson is set to determine if Stone's Instagram post violated his partial gag order or the terms of release, one of which is that he's forbidden to intimidate those involved in the case, including the judge. It's also against the law to threaten any federal official.

The big question is whether Jackson will revoke his bond and incarcerate the 66-year-old Stone, an answer that should come during today's 2:30 p.m. court hearing.

Oh, and this lovely gem:

Roger Stone today is sitting in a D.C. federal court begging a judge not to crack down on him for being, well, Roger Stone. The Fort Lauderdale resident was arrested last month as part of Robert Mueller's investigation into alleged ties between the Trump administration and Russian hackers. After he was released on bail, Stone last week posted a photo on social media of the judge in his case, Amy Berman Jackson, next to an image of gun crosshairs. Whether intentional or not, the image seemed to be encouraging Stone's followers to shoot the judge.

In court today, Stone apologized profusely for his actions. Then he admitted something that most observers had expected for quite a while: He's working closely with various members of the Florida chapter of the Proud Boys, the hard-right, pro-Trump, semifascist group with numerous ties to harder-core white-supremacist organizations.

According to multiple reporters in the courtroom today, Stone has admitted he's coordinating extensively with the group. Stone even said that Jacob Engels — a notorious alt-right InfoWars reporter and all but admitted member of the Proud Boys — has access to Stone's cell phone and social media accounts.

Stone was asked in court today how he obtained the photo of Judge Jackson. He told the court he had been "sent" a series of images by multiple volunteers. He then named a few: Engels, Florida Proud Boys chapter founder Tyler Ziolkowski (who goes by “Tyler Whyte”), and Enrique Tarrio, the Miami Proud Boy who has become chairman of the national group. (Tarrio was caught on camera this week sitting behind Donald Trump during the president's Monday rally at Florida International University.) Stone did not say which volunteer sent him the image he posted online, but he admitted Engels and Tarrio have spent a good deal of time at his house.


Neither Engels nor Whyte responded to messages from New Times today. Reached by phone, Tarrio denied posting the image of Jackson but defended whoever did.

"I didn't post it," he said. "I know a few people have access." He added later he doesn't "see anything wrong with the picture. There's no crosshair over her head; it's an icon on the top right."

But Judge Jackson disagreed, and even Stone himself apologized today for his conduct.

But the news is unsurprising: Engels has long acknowledged he is a Stone protégé, and the Daily Beast reported earlier this year that Engels was beginning to function as Stone's "assistant." Engels also routinely appears alongside the Trump adviser at events — Engels was even in the D.C. courtroom today while Stone gave his testimony, though Engels refused to speak to reporters.

Florida's Proud Boys have spent the past few months defending Stone in public. After Stone was arrested January 25, Tarrio and other Florida Proud Boys showed up outside the courtroom in shirts emblazoned with the message "Roger Stone did nothing wrong." Tarrio wore the same shirt at Monday's Trump rally. Stone has also posted multiple images of himself hanging out with Proud Boys in South Florida.

New Times previously dug into the backgrounds of Tarrio and Engels. Before joining the Proud Boys, Tarrio was caught committing a few crimes, including stealing a motorcycle and selling stolen diabetic test strips online. (He was sentenced to 16 months in prison in the latter case.) He told New Times he joined the Proud Boys — a self-described "Western chauvinist" group that rails against feminism and tells followers it's "OK to be white" — after attending a 2017 party in Miami with disgraced alt-right personality Milo Yiannopoulos. Tarrio identifies as Afro-Cuban, but other members of the group have repeatedly been linked to harder-core white-supremacist groups — and to acts of violence. Former Vice magazine founder Gavin McInnes started the group, but even McInnes "left" the group after some Proud Boys were filmed beating counter-protesters in New York City.

Tarrio's group has also made a series of offensive and racist statements online:

Engels, meanwhile, claims to be a reporter "embedded" within the Proud Boys but in reality is almost certainly a member. (He's even been photographed wearing the traditional Proud Boys uniform — a black-and-yellow Fred Perry polo shirt.) He runs the online blog the Central Florida Post and has contributed to alt-right misinformation sites InfoWars and the Gateway Pundit.

Stone's pleas and apologies today did not convince Judge Jackson. Although Stone apologized and claimed he is now broke and struggling to pay his bills, she ordered him to stop discussing his case in public.

In short, Stone has a long history of making thinly-veiled threats of political violence against Trump's opponents if they remove him (keeping in mind that Trumpers like Stone describe any efforts to investigate Trump as illegitimate), publicly relishes the idea of shooting "commies", and is in close coordination with a violent white nationalist group.

This man isn't merely a colluder and an obstructor- he is a domestic terrorist, who's actions in my opinion come very close to meeting the Constitutional definition of Treason (levying war against the United States, or offering aid and comfort to its enemies).

Edit: Maybe those ties explain the above-mentioned decision to conduct his arrest as a full raid in tactical gear.

[The Romulan Republic]

Some good news- why it is waaaayyy too late for Trump to walk away from this unscathed, even if he shuts down the Mueller probe:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/02 ... ler-report

Both CNN and the Washington Post are now reporting that Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, the great national psychodrama that has touched every corner of our politics and culture over the past two years, is coming to an end. Attorney General William Barr is expected to make an announcement as early as next week. Among supporters of the president, the news is a welcome sign that Donald Trump might finally be free of the "witch hunt" that has haunted his presidency. Mueller fans, meanwhile, are grappling with he chilling possibility that the special counsel might not have Trump dead to rights.

Under the special counsel regulations, Mueller is required to provide the attorney general with a confidential report explaining his prosecutorial decisions. But Barr is under no obligation to share the report with Congress or the public, and he made no commitment to do so during his confirmation hearings earlier this month (though as I previously reported, Democrats are prepared to go to war over the report's release). While speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Trump said it was "totally up to Bill Barr" whether to release the Mueller report next week, when the president is scheduled to be overseas in Vietnam.

Legal experts, however, are skeptical that this is really the end of the "Russia investigation" as the American public knows it. "There are so many loose threads," Neal Katyal,, who served as acting solicitor general under President Barack Obama, told me. "Add to that the complexity of any investigation of this nature, it would be beyond superhuman for Mueller to have reached determinations on it all. So whatever the report says, it is highly likely the investigations will continue." As former Illinois federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti explained, Mueller's work has spawned multiple interrelated investigations, "some of which are being close and some of which are ongoing and going to continue to be handled by other Justice Department entities." New York prosecutors are handling investigations involving Michael Cohen, campaign-finance violations allegedly by the president, and potential financial crimes involving the Trump inaugural committee. CNN reports that the Washington, D.C., U.S. attorney's office has stepped in to work on cases stemming from the Mueller probe. And there is ongoing litigation involving Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone, and his associate Jerome Corsi, among others. "I think what people will find is that the legal problems surrounding the Trump administration are not going to end," Mariotti added. "This is merely the end of chapter one."

The timing of CNN’s report prompted some speculation that Barr—who has been attorney general for less than a week—had pressured Mueller to close up shop. But it seems unlikely that Mueller is operating under duress. CNN noted that there has been a flurry of activity in the special counsel’s office in recent weeks. Moreover, sources who know Mueller, a Vietnam War hero, say folding under pressure isn’t part of his DNA. Perhaps most important, the statute under which Mueller was appointed requires Barr to inform Congress whether, at any point, the D.O.J. prevented him from pursuing any investigative steps or denied funding requests. “I don’t see any scenario under which Robert Mueller is issuing a report because he has been told he has to do so prematurely,” Mariotti said. “There are a number of loose ends that are out there. It is unclear how those are going to be wrapped up, but it may be that Mueller feels that those loose ends will not impact the ending of his investigation such that it would be worth delaying the issuance of his report.”

Where those loose ends lead, if anywhere, is the billion-dollar question. Past reporting by The Daily Beast indicated Mueller’s team was looking into possible foreign interference in the 2016 election by multiple other nations, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Israel. The special counsel’s office has investigated Joel Zamel, a social-media expert with ties to Israeli intelligence, as well as Lebanese-American fixer George Nader, who brokered meetings between Trumpworld and various foreign dignitaries. Nader was also involved in the remote Seychelles meeting between Blackwater founder Erik Prince, a Trump associate, and Kirill Dmitriev, the C.E.O. of a $10 billion Russian sovereign wealth fund. Have those investigations come to an end, as well?

It could be that Mueller, recognizing the political volatility of his position, reached a point where he feels more comfortable passing the baton to other prosecutors. The New York attorney general, for instance, can bring state charges over which President Trump has no pardon power. And House Democrats, now in the majority, are aggressively pursuing leads their Republican colleagues ignored. “[Republicans] have set us back dramatically from where we should be right now in our investigation,” Congressman Eric Swalwell, who sits on the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees, told me after Stone’s indictment. “We want to fill in the gaps where they exist but also open up inquiries that we weren’t allowed to pursue, like money laundering by the Russians into the Trump Organization. There is good reason to look as to whether that occurred.”

Still, Mueller's singular grip on the public imagination is not incidental, and his final report-in whatever form it is revealed to Congress-will have immeasurable political consequences for Donald Trump, his administration, and the 2020 presidential campaign. "What Mueller is looking at is fundamental," Bob Bauer, who served as Obama's White House counsel, told me. "I am not minimizing business irregularities or the campaign-finance case in the Southern District. But the questions of Trump's relationship to Russia, the political alliance he and his campaign may have struck with Russia, and what can be learned of the extensive efforts to prevent himself, his associates, or his family from being investigated, go directly to his fitness to hold this office."

Note that Mueller has had the threat of the investigation being prematurely shut down hanging over him from the beginning, and has almost certainly taken steps to prepare for this eventuality, such as farming aspects of the case out to other office where possible, as noted above, or sealed indictments that have already been issued.

And the there's this:

https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... roadmap-to

A former Trump campaign adviser said on MSNBC that he believes Special Counsel Robert Mueller will give the House of Representatives a "roadmap" for impeaching President Trump.

“I can’t imagine that the special counsel is not going to release something that shows a roadmap for the House to investigate a conspiracy,” Sam Nunberg said Thursday.

When host Katy Tur asked if he meant a roadmap for impeachment, Nunberg answered affirmatively.


"Correct, for articles of impeachment,” he said.

Nunberg later walked back the statement saying he expected the special counsel's office to give the House "a roadmap to their findings."

"I’m not saying that Mueller is going to say whether or not the president is going to be impeached," he said. "I don’t think he can.”

Nunberg also said the special counsel is likely to submit the report soon because Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is on his way out of the Justice Department.

Rosenstein appointed Mueller in 2017 to investigate whether Russia interferred with the 2016 presidential election, including whether Russia colluded with the Trump campaign.

Trump has lashed out at Mueller, Rosenstein and the Justice Department many times. He frequently calls the investigation a "witch hunt."

Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions stepped down in November, saying in his resignation letter that the president asked him to do so. He was replaced with newly confirmed Attorney General William Barr earlier this month.

Rosenstein has alluded to the fact that he too could leave the department and Trump said he would nominate Deputy Transportation Secretary Jeffrey Rosen to replace him.

In other words- this ain't over. Trump and Barr can try to shut it down and bury the report- but they will fail. They can't shut down all the other FBI investigations, certainly not quickly and cleanly, and they sure as hell can't shut down the state-level and Congressional investigations (short of outright declaring Trump dictator).

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Yeah, Stone is Manafucked, Trump was too slow, and Mueller and the FBI have contingencies set up for any attempt on shutting the investigation down. We're probably going to see the FBI return to it's Director Hoover ways at this point.

[Civil War Man]

I think the talk of even just Mueller wrapping things up is premature. For the past two years, the media's been reporting that Mueller's final report is imminent, based on "sources close to the investigation." Every single time, it's found that said sources were not part of Mueller's team, but were part of the legal teams of defendants or interviewees, all of whom don't have any knowledge of Mueller's timeline but have a vested interest in advancing the narrative that he's almost done. But every single time a credulous media dutifully reports it because a) they are desperate to be the one who gets "the scoop" on the end of the investigation, and b) a lot of news outlets are desperate for the investigations to end so they can pretend that everything is normal and nothing needs to change.

One of the clear signs of this is that after everyone reported that Mueller would be done within days, yesterday the NYT published an article that is now saying he might be finished in a few weeks (you may hit the paywall, but it's right there in the headline). This isn't a retraction of the previous reporting, but seems to be more like when you see a cat trip and then it gets up and keeps going as if nothing happened in the hopes that no one noticed. It screams of the media starting to hedge their bets because after breathlessly reporting that the end of the investigation was imminent, they're finding out that it is, in fact, not.

Also, just a reminder that Mueller being finished with his investigation is not a prerequisite for doing something. The Watergate investigation continued for a month after Nixon's resignation, and would have gone on even longer if Ford didn't make the whole thing moot by issuing the pardon. If Congress believes they have adequate cause and enough evidence, they could impeach Trump today, regardless of whether Mueller is done or not.

[The Romulan Republic]

Apparently its now been announced that Mueller will not deliver a final report until Trump returns from Vietnam. Which honestly seems rather ominous for Trump.

We're waiting right now for his final sentencing memo for Manafort tonight.

[Gandalf]

It depends on whether they were producing it “for a US audience”. If there was an effort to target US audiences on the part of the company, it probably counts as something that requires registration because of the broadness of the law. And since said effort would require someone from a US entity (Facebook or google, say) to be involved as information services provider or public relations agent, they could maybe exert some leverage or force registration which would sever any relationship.

But even though it technically falls under the requirement, I don’t expect it to be something that anybody wants to waste resources on. Because those guys aren’t going to register or get extradited. And you’re not going to have an easy time getting documents to prove they were letter of the law in violation.

When you say "producing for a US audience," do you mean specifically for the US, or a worldwide audience which may or may not include people from the US?

Also, BBC world news has a presence in the US. From a practical standpoint, you can’t do any meaningful reporting on US politics without boots on the ground in the US. So pretty much any news org who would have a claim to being real news and for whom this law might apply is going to have a US presence that may have to register. If they don’t have a US presence they’re not doing any real reporting, anyway.

I'd love to see a practical definition of "real reporting" and why it's a relevant metric, except for needless gatekeeping.

Iraq was a disgrace, but it should not be used to dismiss any information from US intelligence as automatically false, regardless of evidence, in perpetuity. That's ad hominem. Iraq really has nothing to do with this situation.

Iraq was more than a disgrace. It was an abomination with effects going on even today, aided by Mueller when he gave the following testimony to the US Congress:

Although Iran remains a significant concern for its continued financial and logistical support of terrorism, Iraq has moved to the top of my list. As we previously briefed this Committee, Iraq's WMD program poses a clear threat to our national security, a threat that will certainly increase in the event of future military action against Iraq. Baghdad has the capability and, we presume, the will to use biological, chemical, or radiological weapons against US domestic targets in the event of a US invasion. We are also concerned about terrorist organizations with direct ties to Iraq—such as the Iranian dissident group, Mujahidin-e Khalq, and the Palestinian Abu Nidal Organization.

It doesn't help his credibility a whole lot.

[FireNexus]

I'd love to see a practical definition of "real reporting" and why it's a relevant metric, except for needless gatekeeping.

My practical definition here involves cultivating and maintaining US sources who trust that information they give you isn’t going to get their career or freedom ruined. You might be able to do that somewhat over the internet, but not for anything with real stakes.

If you don’t have sources and you’re representing yourself as a news org, what you’re largely doing is going to be either commentary or making shit up. Commentators aren’t in much danger from registration (since they lack sources, there’s no valuable info to give up). People making shit up, I’m not sure how they’d be affected.

Note that my definition would include RT (who was forced to register) as actual reporting. It is also propaganda for the Russian government, but I’m not defining the two as mutually exclusive here.

[The Romulan Republic]

It depends on whether they were producing it “for a US audience”. If there was an effort to target US audiences on the part of the company, it probably counts as something that requires registration because of the broadness of the law. And since said effort would require someone from a US entity (Facebook or google, say) to be involved as information services provider or public relations agent, they could maybe exert some leverage or force registration which would sever any relationship.

But even though it technically falls under the requirement, I don’t expect it to be something that anybody wants to waste resources on. Because those guys aren’t going to register or get extradited. And you’re not going to have an easy time getting documents to prove they were letter of the law in violation.

When you say "producing for a US audience," do you mean specifically for the US, or a worldwide audience which may or may not include people from the US?

Also, BBC world news has a presence in the US. From a practical standpoint, you can’t do any meaningful reporting on US politics without boots on the ground in the US. So pretty much any news org who would have a claim to being real news and for whom this law might apply is going to have a US presence that may have to register. If they don’t have a US presence they’re not doing any real reporting, anyway.

I'd love to see a practical definition of "real reporting" and why it's a relevant metric, except for needless gatekeeping.

Iraq was a disgrace, but it should not be used to dismiss any information from US intelligence as automatically false, regardless of evidence, in perpetuity. That's ad hominem. Iraq really has nothing to do with this situation.

Iraq was more than a disgrace. It was an abomination with effects going on even today, aided by Mueller when he gave the following testimony to the US Congress:

Although Iran remains a significant concern for its continued financial and logistical support of terrorism, Iraq has moved to the top of my list. As we previously briefed this Committee, Iraq's WMD program poses a clear threat to our national security, a threat that will certainly increase in the event of future military action against Iraq. Baghdad has the capability and, we presume, the will to use biological, chemical, or radiological weapons against US domestic targets in the event of a US invasion. We are also concerned about terrorist organizations with direct ties to Iraq—such as the Iranian dissident group, Mujahidin-e Khalq, and the Palestinian Abu Nidal Organization.

It doesn't help his credibility a whole lot.

See, you're not wrong about Mueller's testimony serving to promote a war that should not have happened. And I do understand why people would be inclined to distrust him on that basis. But I don't think it is intellectually honest to basically say "This person was wrong and/or dishonest once, therefore he must be presumed to be on all future occasions." You have to look at each case. What were Mueller's reasons for saying what he said in the case of Iraq, and would those same motives apply to the Russia probe, and therefore likely bias his work?

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

The NYTimes has posted a list of those we know that have been charged with and/or guilty of crimes that pertain to the investigation or associate investigations.

Please note, Tan means charged, red means Guilty.

As you can see, practically everyone in the 'inner circle' -outside of Trump obviously- has been put into the slammer with two still in the 'charged' phase of justice... one of which (the only faceless character) is probably long gone by now or in some ditch somewhere with a good old 9mm 'retirement package' if you know what I mean (and if you don't believe me, one of Steele's sources was dead days after the dossier's release in the back seat of his car with a similar 'retirement package' in his body in the streets of Moscow).

[Gandalf]

See, you're not wrong about Mueller's testimony serving to promote a war that should not have happened. And I do understand why people would be inclined to distrust him on that basis. But I don't think it is intellectually honest to basically say "This person was wrong and/or dishonest once, therefore he must be presumed to be on all future occasions." You have to look at each case. What were Mueller's reasons for saying what he said in the case of Iraq, and would those same motives apply to the Russia probe, and therefore likely bias his work?

Out of curiosity, when did he recant his testimony, or acknowledge his role in the horrors of Iraq? Because the longer between his lies to Congress, and his recanting, the less honest he looks.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Out of curiosity, when did he recant his testimony, or acknowledge his role in the horrors of Iraq? Because the longer between his lies to Congress, and his recanting, the less honest he looks.

Problem, back then Iraq was playing a rather dangerous game because chemical agents were really the only thing that kept Saddam in power. He was basically playing the same play that Israel has done with it's nuclear arsenal...

... and the US has always been not as good as the Russians when it comes to 'people intelligence', preferring to use satellites and electronics.

[Gandalf]

Problem, back then Iraq was playing a rather dangerous game because chemical agents were really the only thing that kept Saddam in power. He was basically playing the same play that Israel has done with it's nuclear arsenal...

... and the US has always been not as good as the Russians when it comes to 'people intelligence', preferring to use satellites and electronics.

Your point being?

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Your point being?

Given that even Hilary thought it was actionable intelligence that Iraq had chemical agents, you should be far more lenient on Mueller.

[Gandalf]

Your point being?

Given that even Hilary thought it was actionable intelligence that Iraq had chemical agents, you should be far more lenient on Mueller.

War hawk Clinton is your barometer for reasonable foreign policy? Also, where do you think Clinton got that "actionable intelligence" if not for scum like Mueller pushing lies in order to perpetrate a war crime?

[aerius]

Given that even Hilary thought it was actionable intelligence that Iraq had chemical agents, you should be far more lenient on Mueller.

Ah yes, the same person who helped stage a coup in the Ukraine and installed a bunch of honest to god Nazis in power there.
There's a reason we call her "Hitlery".