So two FBI investigations: 1. larger counterintelligence investigation into Russian active measures and 2. the more narrowly scoped investigation into Trump’s aides.
Are the start dates for each investigation publicly known? or estimable?

I’m not sure this is what you are asking, but FWIW I’ve seen in media outlets that CI reports can (must?) be conveyed to congressional intelligence committees, e.g.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/mueller-may-drop-second-report-that-cant-be-buried
https://www.salon.com/2019/03/15/will-we-see-the-mueller-report-actually-there-are-two-and-bill-barr-cant-hide-the-second-one/

I know that this is a bit off topic but now that we are seeing the larger picture of this “Russia thing” as a long time prepared, international political coup centered on Great Britain and the United States with well funded and long worked activities in France, Austria and most of the other EU countries, we must conclude that this as an existential threat connected with and every bit as dangerous as the climate crises. With the New Zealand attack we are seeing the replaying of the world political crisis that began in 1929 and resulted in WWII. I’ve said this before but in the context of the United States I think that we are looking at a situation that threatens whether or not we are gunna have not just a peaceful but ANY kind of transfer of power in 2020. This is end stage capitalism and it’s not gunna end with a whimper.

Reading the Ohr, Strzok & Page interviews one is struck by the R’s dogged pursuit of the truth.

Unfortunately, the truth they’re after is limited to versions that match up with “Witch hunt! No collusion!” and the dupe of the week. The degree to which they sidestep or ignore IC revelations about disturbing Russian activities – and those of the campaign/administration – leads one to question their motivation, along with just about anything they say. And now we know their demeanor is the same behind closed doors – it really isn’t an act.

This same behavior is on display in the HR oversight hearings, compounded by the deceit, deflection and lack of cooperation on the part of administration officials. Ross’s appearance before Cummings’ committee was fubar incarnate. He needs to go, yesterday. For more reasons than I care to delineate here. OK, just one – he’s a greedy liar, too.

On the brighter side of things, if you live in/near a state of one of the 12 Rs that stepped up to the plate on the emergency declaration vote in the Senate, let them know they did the right thing – we’re gonna need a whole lot more of that in the months to come.

Thanks for all you’re doing, ew.

We should at least get a complete report from Mueller and let the chips fall where they may?
https://consortiumnews.com/2019/03/13/vips-muellers-forensics-free-findings/

Power to Cat herder and The Flamethrower

Authoritarians never do anything wrong;
They can only be thwarted.
Authoritarians never fail to overcome an obstacle, because they themselves are the obstacle.
They are the source of a legitimate grievance to us.
Impeach the fucker

Ironically, the implications of the distinction between “Russia” and “collusion” are probably Trump’s best defense against a conspiracy charge. Setting aside the legality of individual acts, it’s my understanding that parallel actions toward the same end are perfectly kosher. And Putin has been paralleling all over the place.

It makes one wonder why Trump’s been so adamant about denying that Russian intelligence does anything more sinister than baking cookies.

Gotta hand it to driftglass: always understated and always steals from the best:

“The sovereign is called a tyrant who knows no laws but his caprice.”

-Voltaire, a writer

[https://driftglass.blogspot.com/]

While an attorney might better address your hypothetical, Reader 21, I can give my layperson’s first impression as someone who has researched the felony-murder rule in connection with death penalty law and its evolution.

Interestingly, the felony-murder was widely debated in the first years of our Republic, with one Virginia proposal for reform reported in 1793 asserting that a killing in the course of a felony would be “murder only if murder were meant, and manslaughter only if manslaughter were meant” (close paraphrase). It wasn’t adopted, but shows that then, as now, there were mixed feelings about the rule (also debated in 18th-century English sources) as there are about related doctrines such as the Texas law of parties.

But for your question, Reader 21, the felony-murder rule itself might suggest one analogy at least to me where I’d welcome comment or correction from others. The rule as usually interpreted does impose strict liability on felons for any killing during the commission of a felony or in the course of flight immediately after the crime until the felons reach a place of safety (e.g. if the getaway car is involved in a fatal traffic accident). There are fine points that can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, like whether a felon is liable for the killing of a partner in the crime by the police which is ruled a justifiable homicide. But it’s pretty sweeping strict liability.

However, suppose one is the getaway car driver, or even a gun-toting robber, in a robbery where no one is hurt and there’s a clean escape from the scene. Then, some months later, all the felons (including the getaway driver) are caught. One of them, without letting any of the others know, manages to arrange for the murder for hire of a witness scheduled to testify about the robbery. Here, my intuition is that this murder is sufficiently independent in time and space from the robbery that the other felons wouldn’t be liable — even though it could be argued philosophically that but for the robbery, and the victim’s witnessing of it, there wouldn’t have been any occasion for the murder.

In short, it’s a question of how proximity causality has to be. And this is isn’t always so hypothetical when we remember that in the Rosenberg case, Judge Kaufman in his sentencing speech held Ethel and Julius Rosenberg responsible by reason of their espionage for the Korean War, one factor that may have influenced his decision to impose the death sentence. (He also referred to their crime as “treason,” showing how federal jurists sometimes may not have an adequate understanding of the Treason Clause, at least if they mean what they say, as one might expect when a judge is imposing the death penalty).

Again, I’d welcome comments from any attorneys.