Jump to content

The Criminal Investigation of the Russia Investigation

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Homercles

Homercles 10205

Posted
Posted (edited)

spacer.png

Unbelievable.  Petty.  Sad.  The GOP way I guess...

Normally I’d say go for it and if you uncover something illegal that’s validated in a court of law then punish those responsible.  Unfortunately I don’t trust the administration to avoid manufacturing evidence.  
 

This is why I have a hard time explaining to people who don’t follow politics at all why this feels historically bad to me...there’s just too many angles.  

“You see 2016 election interference...”

”Trump is supposed to divest of his business...”

”Historic levels of lies...”

”So this is what he said to Ukraine...”

”Mitch McConnell has blocked...”

”He openly threatened violence against...”

I don’t know where to start.  

Edited by Homercles
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lagunamadre

Lagunamadre 1975

Posted
Posted

This feels very Hillary's emails all over again. Lot's of whispers and insinuations. Gives Fox, Breitbart and Texags something to talk about for  a year and then one random Tuesday evening with little fanfare the DOJ will release a statement saying they found nothing.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lagunamadre

Lagunamadre 1975

Posted
Posted
Just now, Lagunamadre said:

This feels very Hillary's emails all over again. Lot's of whispers and insinuations. Gives Fox, Breitbart and Texags something to talk about for  a year and then one random Tuesday evening with little fanfare the DOJ will release a statement saying they found nothing.  

That being said. If somebody broke the law, as determined by a jury of their peers, throw the book at them, no matter who they are or what "team" they are on. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45557

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

That being said. If somebody broke the law, as determined by a jury of their peers, throw the book at them, no matter who they are or what "team" they are on. 

Well, it would be nice if they had to wait their turn behind the hundreds of crooks in the current administration.  This smacks of the sudden interest in "Ukrainian corruption".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted

 

Quote

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) criticized Attorney General William Barr over reports that the Justice Department is launching a criminal investigation of the Russia probe.

Said Warner: “Senate Intel is wrapping up a three-year bipartisan investigation, and we’ve found nothing remotely justifying this… He needs to come before Congress and explain himself.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45557

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Goredho said:

I have a feeling that Trumpco are going to wish they had just let things stand with Mueller's finishing the investigation and providing his report that amounted to nothing.

It's really astonishing that they keep relitigating a report that quite literally caused them no apparent harm.  I suppose they're terrified of whatever might have been spun off, but it's a pretty big leap to think they can eventually have all prosecution squashed simply by proving certain actions leading up to the investigation were illegal.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goredho

Goredho 17348

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's really astonishing that they keep relitigating a report that quite literally caused them no apparent harm.  I suppose they're terrified of whatever might have been spun off, but it's a pretty big leap to think they can eventually have all prosecution squashed simply by proving certain actions leading up to the investigation were illegal.

Your second sentence is the only thing that really makes sense here.  Otherwise, take the win and move on to your next criminal endeavor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29243

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Goredho said:

Your second sentence is the only thing that really makes sense here.  Otherwise, take the win and move on to your next criminal endeavor.

No, I think the explanation for their behavior is that Trump wants to vindicate Putin and Russia in the eyes of the American public to justify lifting sanctions against Russia, which Putin has been demanding.  In order to do that they have to find a way to refute the basic factual findings of the Mueller report pertaining to Russia's meddling operations.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goredho

Goredho 17348

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

No, I think the explanation for their behavior is that Trump wants to vindicate Putin and Russia in the eyes of the American public to justify lifting sanctions against Russia, which Putin has been demanding.  In order to do that they have to find a way to refute the basic factual findings of the Mueller report pertaining to Russia's meddling operations.

Maybe, but its at a significant risk to Trump himself.  So if that's the reason, there must be greater risk to Trump in not getting sanctions against Russia lifted.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Goredho said:

Maybe, but its at a significant risk to Trump himself.  So if that's the reason, there must be greater risk to Trump in not getting sanctions against Russia lifted.

Anyone who thinks Putin can't flip some switches to scuttle re-election hopes (putting it lightly) of not only Trump, but Congressional GOP is still wandering the wilderness. Nothing new here. 

You want to see a pee tape?  Check current Russian state media where Putin has already opened his fly over Trump.  It's beyond humiliating.  And he's nowhere near ready to shake it yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted

Cliff notes for the majority of the folks who are going to ignore this podcast.

Steele didn't write the dossier, Glenn Simpson did.  Steele didn't even spell the name of the bank he was supposedly investigating in the dossier correctly.  

Brennan set up Comey and the FBI because the CIA has no law enforcement powers.  He needed the FBI to believe the dossier was legit.  This is also why he needed everyone involved to believe that Steele wrote the dossier because Simpson didn't have the necessary intelligence credentials to be believable and was also too widely known as a political opposition researcher to be considered credible.  He needed the FBI to go through the FISA courts with the surveillance warrants because the CIA did not have the power to do a criminal investigation, only the FBI did.

 Brennan was the main planner of the entire operation.

Brennan maintains he knew nothing about the dossier until December 2016.  He sent a copy of the dossier to Obama marked FYEO in July 2016.

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23356

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 10/26/2019 at 10:13 AM, EMAWesome said:

Cliff notes for the majority of the folks who are going to ignore this podcast.

Steele didn't write the dossier, Glenn Simpson did.  Steele didn't even spell the name of the bank he was supposedly investigating in the dossier correctly.  

Brennan set up Comey and the FBI because the CIA has no law enforcement powers.  He needed the FBI to believe the dossier was legit.  This is also why he needed everyone involved to believe that Steele wrote the dossier because Simpson didn't have the necessary intelligence credentials to be believable and was also too widely known as a political opposition researcher to be considered credible.  He needed the FBI to go through the FISA courts with the surveillance warrants because the CIA did not have the power to do a criminal investigation, only the FBI did.

 Brennan was the main planner of the entire operation.

Brennan maintains he knew nothing about the dossier until December 2016.  He sent a copy of the dossier to Obama marked FYEO in July 2016.

 

 

What is the thesis of this?  That the Russia investigation had no basis for being started?  Do you realize how fucking crazy that is?  

We have Don Jr setting up a CLANDESTINE meeting with representatives of the Russian government trying to peddle dirt on Hillary in exchange for Magnitsky Sanctions relief.  This information didn’t come from a dossier.  It came from Don Jr tweeting out his own incriminating emails.

The only reason we know about that is because there was a Russia investigation in the first place which was based on probable cause of all the suspicious activity surrounding the campaign. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104609

Posted
Posted
Just now, Lagunamadre said:

Can a shaggy lawyer give me an explanation of what is going on here, along with any possible repercussions to Flynn and/or his counsel? 

Well, maybe I'm missing something.  Because what his lawyer did doesn't look to be "unethical" as much as it looks to be lazy and a pain for the court.  I mean, I've cited to briefing by another party (amicus, etc.) plenty of times.  Now, I usually quote the portion I want the court to read (so I am judicious about how much I do this, as it eats up my word count), instead of saying "hey judge, go read that other thing over there."  And it doesn't look like he cited it without attribution -- I mean, maybe he should have quoted what he said, but seriously, "plagiarism" of someone else's good writing isn't against the rules (far from it -- I've read a good turn of phrase in someone else's writing on a topic, and have used it in briefing in another case, without quoting or attributing.  I mean, if you like the way someone else says "The Rule Against Perpetuities is invarnished horse shit," then you can use those exact words in your own brief later.

So, maybe I'm missing something here.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104609

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, maybe I'm missing something.  Because what his lawyer did doesn't look to be "unethical" as much as it looks to be lazy and a pain for the court.  I mean, I've cited to briefing by another party (amicus, etc.) plenty of times.  Now, I usually quote the portion I want the court to read (so I am judicious about how much I do this, as it eats up my word count), instead of saying "hey judge, go read that other thing over there."  And it doesn't look like he cited it without attribution -- I mean, maybe he should have quoted what he said, but seriously, "plagiarism" of someone else's good writing isn't against the rules (far from it -- I've read a good turn of phrase in someone else's writing on a topic, and have used it in briefing in another case, without quoting or attributing.  I mean, if you like the way someone else says "The Rule Against Perpetuities is invarnished horse shit," then you can use those exact words in your own brief later.

So, maybe I'm missing something here.

Oh, and it appears that the issue is how MUCH language you swipe, and the context.  There's some interesting articles out there about getting popped for quoting without attribution, but it looks to mostly be in the context of citing a judicial opinion without citation, or copying and pasting your OWN past briefing (when you asked the court for more time to "research and write" that you obviously didn't bother to use), that sort of thing.

Again, I'll steal a turn of phrase that I like, or use some of my own writing from another brief in another case, that sort of thing, but general practice is, if you're citing a bunch of stuff from a third party, you cite it.  It's more about your duty of fully informing the court about information and where it came from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lagunamadre

Lagunamadre 1975

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Spring Branch Horn said:

Good thing that the IG Report found the FBI's investigation was perfectly handled exceptfor the those 17 things

Did any of those 17 mistakes apply to Flynn? If not, are you saying that the Justice Department should drop all charges against anybody charged with a crime related to information obtained by the FBI?  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31272

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, and it appears that the issue is how MUCH language you swipe, and the context.  There's some interesting articles out there about getting popped for quoting without attribution, but it looks to mostly be in the context of citing a judicial opinion without citation, or copying and pasting your OWN past briefing (when you asked the court for more time to "research and write" that you obviously didn't bother to use), that sort of thing.

Again, I'll steal a turn of phrase that I like, or use some of my own writing from another brief in another case, that sort of thing, but general practice is, if you're citing a bunch of stuff from a third party, you cite it.  It's more about your duty of fully informing the court about information and where it came from.

Yeah, the ethical thing seems to be somewhat of a fit of pique by the judge because the whole thing was pretty ill-founded and Powell was howling at the moon for anyone that would listen.  Legal briefing usually isn't subject to claims of plagiarism.  Law firms and most certainly the government recycle large chunks of briefs (whole paragraphs, sections, and even pages) all the time.

Apparently, the motion didn't quite rise to the level of frivolous or otherwise sanctionable, but Sullivan decided to bitch about every aspect of it he found objectionable.

Also, the really amusing category, and there are several more amusing than "documents that do not exist," is "documents Flynn concedes he is not entitled to receive."

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104609

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, the ethical thing seems to be somewhat of a fit of pique by the judge because the whole thing was pretty ill-founded and Powell was howling at the moon for anyone that would listen.  Legal briefing usually isn't subject to claims of plagiarism.  Law firms and most certainly the government recycle large chunks of briefs (whole paragraphs, sections, and even pages) all the time.

Apparently, the motion didn't quite rise to the level of frivolous or otherwise sanctionable, but Sullivan decided to bitch about every aspect of it he found objectionable.

Also, the really amusing category, and there are several more amusing than "documents that do not exist," is "documents Flynn concedes he is not entitled to receive."

This seems to be the case.  Seriously, if I was called out by a judge on the point of "I read something just like this in a previous brief you once submitted on the same legal issue" [and I AM frequently before the courts on the same legal issues], I'd be puzzled as hell, and I'd be trying to think of what I did to piss the court off, because.....of course I am drawing on writing I did in a different case on the same issues.  And same for stealing a good turn of phrase from someone else's writing on the subject in another case....again, we don't re-invent the wheel and charge our clients for it.

This guy just pissed the court off in every possible way, so he's getting whipped for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...