The Robert Mueller Investigation

[yaqdum 182]

30 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The Democrats have a royal flush, they just aren’t interested in playing it.

so, basically, piss on the democrats for not being republicans?

[JimmyJames 12,271]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s also because the Republicans create the political reality they want while the democrats sit back and adjust to the reality the Republicans create.  

The Stormy Daniels scandal and cover up alone is an impeachable offense.  Individual 1 is an on the record unindicted felon that committed his crimes in pursuit of the presidency.   There’s also the very public conspiracy to obstruct the Russia investigation.  But the democrats have just let that go because....

But we have to wait for Mueller?!?  

“Democrats only get one shot.”  Says who? Why can’t they take multiple shots?  How much criminality and malfeasance is needed?  The republicans would never ask these questions, they would make the slightest criminal act (like lying about a BJ) an impeachable offense, wouldn’t think twice about it, and suffer minimal political consequences if it didn’t work out.

The GOP has weaponized not giving a fuck and it works.

The most recent midterms are a counterpoint to the assertion “it works.”

Trump won the presidency because the dems nominated Hillary, something it appears you supported. Dem candidate mr Magoo beats trump in 2016. 

I’d start with not nominating one of the only people on the planet who would lose to trump, and then work from there. 

[WhatTheBuck 28,822]

10 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Best case : Barr used what amounts to a trojan horse maneuver to gain the AG nomination and rolled with it during confirmation.  He sits on the side of justice from within the Trump camp.  He's appropriately working in concert with Mueller and Rosenstein and suggested Liu assume No 3 at DOJ to further fortify against anticipated Trump blowback when Mueller acts.  

It sounds crazy because it'd be the right thing to do.

Imagine if Barr poses no meaningful obstacle to Mueller, as appears to be a real option per TwiceHorn's reasoning above.  But we can' have that, right ? 

all eyes on Barr.

Most likely case: Barr meant what he wrote and is going to do everything in his power to protect the president. 

[suddenly shaggy 929]

13 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Most likely case: Barr meant what he wrote and is going to do everything in his power to protect the president. 

^This. Barr is there, specifically because he is a fixer. He has a track record of covering up crimes for GOP presidents already. I don't know why anyone expects this to be any different.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-10/attorney-general-william-barr-used-pardons-to-protect-president

The only good possibility is this is so bad, Barr will not be able to look the other way. That's not a lot to hang your hat on. Even then, he will contain the fallout for the rest of the GOP. That's what he's there for. 

 

Edited March 21, 2019 by suddenly shaggy

[triplehorn 2,664]

 

[Biff Tannen 45,752]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

Or exposing it to sunlight.  Or taking it out of its package.  Or smiling at it. Or breathing around it.  Or exposing it to the air.   

Forgot feeding after midnight.

[Dutchrudder 11,155]

13 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

 

Holy shit. That's way more concerning than selling a uranium mine.

[Biff Tannen 45,752]

17 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

 

Won't make a shit.  

[retread 2,951]

Nope. Will vanish like a fart in the wind.  ^

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

38 minutes ago, yaqdum said:

so, basically, piss on the democrats for not being republicans?

No, I don’t even necessarily disagree with how the dems are playing this.  They’re playing for maximum impact in 2020, and not to get rid of Trump via removal.  It’s a real gamble though.  

I’m just making the observation that if they wanted to get rid of Trump they could do it with enough political will and coordinated influence. They’re holding enough cards right now.

But where does that leave them? With Pence?  Apparently they’ve made the calculation that Trump isn’t dangerous enough and he’s not worth it.  

We shall see.

[triplehorn 2,664]

36 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Most likely case: Barr meant what he wrote and is going to do everything in his power to protect the president. 

 

23 minutes ago, suddenly shaggy said:

^This. Barr is there, specifically because he is a fixer. He has a track record of covering up crimes for GOP presidents already. I don't know why anyone expects this to be any different.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-10/attorney-general-william-barr-used-pardons-to-protect-president

The only good possibility is this is so bad, Barr will not be able to look the other way. That's not a lot to hang your hat on. Even then, he will contain the fallout for the rest of the GOP. That's what he's there for. 

 

Prior to today, I've feared Barr was solely going to be a political sweeper for Trump/GOP. 

But I also had that same fear initially with Rosenstein (was prickly w Dem Senators in confirmation/wrote draft letter critical of Comey - cited by Trump in firing), Brian Benczkowski (represented Russian Alfa Bank as a client then appointed assistant attorney general overseeing the criminal division at the Justice Department), and Dir FBI Wray (law firm repped Alfa Bank).  All three seem to be doing their job just fine.

I think as long as Barr stays in his lane, Mueller has a plan that will succeed.  Right now, I'm leaning towards Barr staying in his lane and has enlisted Rosenstein and Liu to fortify his stance.

[Dutchrudder 11,155]

I think Pelosi is just publicly saying Trump's not worth impeachment because she's third in line for the Presidency, and it would look bad if that person was chomping at the bit to ouster the POTUS and potentially the VP.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Is Trump really worth it though?  

[wildcat09 29,447]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Is Trump really worth it though?  

Yes.

[triplehorn 2,664]

15 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Won't make a shit.  

 

12 minutes ago, retread said:

Nope. Will vanish like a fart in the wind.  ^

This is squarely in Mueller's box.  It ties to Erik Price in Seychelles, Nadler, Russia, Saudi, Tim Barrack ---> Trump Inauguration fund.  ($110M).

That 18 page redacted section in Cohen's search warrant affidavit titled "Illegal Campaign Contribution Scheme" ?  That's one place to start looking.

[suddenly shaggy 929]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Is Trump really worth it though?  

Immediately if politically possible. Trump has done incalculable and irreparable damage to the United States and continues to do so on a daily basis. Pence would stop most of the bleeding. 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

4 minutes ago, Dutchrudder said:

I think Pelosi is just publicly saying Trump's not worth impeachment because she's third in line for the Presidency, and it would look bad if that person was chomping at the bit to ouster the POTUS and potentially the VP.

She can always refuse and let it fall to Grassley.  There is no requirement that people in the line of succession take the job if it comes up.  She better not do that because Grassley is worse than Trump, but she could do it.

[elfenix 34,364]

I think Pelosi is just publicly saying Trump's not worth impeachment because she's third in line for the Presidency, and it would look bad if that person was chomping at the bit to ouster the POTUS and potentially the VP.

*champing

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Yes.

Yeah, he’s worth it but removing him from office doesn’t make him go away.  He will still be tweeting and hold powerful political influence.  He won’t be able to start a war... or could he via twitter while out of office?  

Pence would only be slightly better.

Point is, removing him from office isn’t the huge victory everyone thinks it would be.

[lemonlime 5,503]

41 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

 

Every accusation is a confession.

[wildcat09 29,447]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Yeah, he’s worth it but removing him from office doesn’t make him go away.  He will still be tweeting and hold powerful political influence.  He won’t be able to start a war... or could he via twitter while out of office?  

Pence would only be slightly better.

Point is, removing him from office isn’t the huge victory everyone thinks it would be.

That's not news. Everything is a one-way ratchet of terribleness. But if we don't impeach him for all of his extremely obvious crimes, then we have no real checks and balances, the entire system is broken, and the GOP will recognize that fact sooner or later and just move ahead to effectively abolish democracy entirely. I don't know if there's a road back to a functioning democracy that doesn't involve civil war in the event Trump is impeached or loses in 2020. I can guarantee you there isn't if he isn't impeached and wins reelection.

[triplehorn 2,664]

4 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Every accusation is a confession.

 

[Brisketexan 105,478]

Just now, triplehorn said:

 

But....THEIR emails?  Man, that just doesn't have the same ring to it.  It doesn't work for me.

BENGHAAAAAAZIIIII!!!!!!!

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Maybe Hillary was mistreated. 

[retread 2,951]

It will be glorious if Mueller reveals whatsapp/signal conversations between Trump and Putin.

He's smart enough to delegate dirty work to his minions through a wink and a nod, but he's also arrogant enough to think he could get away with talking directly to Putin.

[hayden_horn 11,365]

12 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

 

aol email?

lol

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

2 minutes ago, retread said:

It will be glorious if Mueller reveals whatsapp/signal conversations between Trump and Putin.

He's smart enough to delegate dirty work to his minions through a wink and a nod, but he's also arrogant enough to think he could get away with talking directly to Putin.

Trump and Putin DMing on Twitter would be the way this ends. 

[atomheartbevo 89,878]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

But we have to wait for Mueller?!?  

“Democrats only get one shot.”  Says who? Why can’t they take multiple shots?  How much criminality and malfeasance is needed?  The republicans would never ask these questions, they would make the slightest criminal act (like lying about a BJ) an impeachable offense, wouldn’t think twice about it, and suffer minimal political consequences if it didn’t work out.

You spent hundreds - no, probably thousands, of posts across two websites telling us how Mueller’s got this, trust in Mueller, he’s an amazing guy, and that we need to be patient, etc.

And now it’s “Mueller’s report doesn’t matter!” and “the Democrats need to hurry the fuck up and start taking a flamethrower to everything!”

OKYeahSure.gif

And yeah, the Democrats do have to take their shots carefully.   A lot of what Trump does on twitter feels like (or actually is) some ADD angst-ridden 12 year-old on twitter randomly popping off about whatever grabs his attention that day, but that distracts everybody from the fact that he has spent the better part of nearly two years carefully crafting a narrative that all of the investigations, reports, etc. are just trying to reverse the 2016 election, and are the proverbial “WITCH HUNT”.  

If the Dems rush things on an investigation or two, and then miss/fail, it plays right into Trump’s narrative, and that hurts the Dems among the moderates, independents, etc.   That doesnt’ take into account the Republicans, both those in Congress, and the voters, who are on the fence about things (and there are some).  You have to give them something solid to go with if you want them to act against Trump in Congress, or vote for the Dem in 2020, or even just stay home and say “fuck it”.

[horncyclist 1,391]

You spent hundreds - no, probably thousands, of posts across two websites telling us how Mueller’s got this, trust in Mueller, he’s an amazing guy, and that we need to be patient, etc.
And now it’s “Mueller’s report doesn’t matter!” and “the Democrats need to hurry the fuck up and start taking a flamethrower to everything!”
OKYeahSure.gif
And yeah, the Democrats do have to take their shots carefully.   A lot of what Trump does on twitter feels like (or actually is) some ADD angst-ridden 12 year-old on twitter randomly popping off about whatever grabs his attention that day, but that distracts everybody from the fact that he has spent the better part of nearly two years carefully crafting a narrative that all of the investigations, reports, etc. are just trying to reverse the 2016 election, and are the proverbial “WITCH HUNT”.  
If the Dems rush things on an investigation or two, and then miss/fail, it plays right into Trump’s narrative, and that hurts the Dems among the moderates, independents, etc.   That doesnt’ take into account the Republicans, both those in Congress, and the voters, who are on the fence about things (and there are some).  You have to give them something solid to go with if you want them to act against Trump in Congress, or vote for the Dem in 2020, or even just stay home and say “fuck it”.

In Mueller we trust:

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

32 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

You spent hundreds - no, probably thousands, of posts across two websites telling us how Mueller’s got this, trust in Mueller, he’s an amazing guy, and that we need to be patient, etc.

And now it’s “Mueller’s report doesn’t matter!” and “the Democrats need to hurry the fuck up and start taking a flamethrower to everything!”

OKYeahSure.gif

And yeah, the Democrats do have to take their shots carefully.   A lot of what Trump does on twitter feels like (or actually is) some ADD angst-ridden 12 year-old on twitter randomly popping off about whatever grabs his attention that day, but that distracts everybody from the fact that he has spent the better part of nearly two years carefully crafting a narrative that all of the investigations, reports, etc. are just trying to reverse the 2016 election, and are the proverbial “WITCH HUNT”.  

If the Dems rush things on an investigation or two, and then miss/fail, it plays right into Trump’s narrative, and that hurts the Dems among the moderates, independents, etc.   That doesnt’ take into account the Republicans, both those in Congress, and the voters, who are on the fence about things (and there are some).  You have to give them something solid to go with if you want them to act against Trump in Congress, or vote for the Dem in 2020, or even just stay home and say “fuck it”.

You’re conflating my positions.

There is a difference between what I’d like to see happen versus what I think will happen versus what the democrats could make happen.

Mueller does have this. He’s going to give us the truth as he knows it and it will be damning.  All the literature Mueller has already put out is damning.  Trump’s team is going to prison already.  The report will make a difference to me because I care in a historical sense.  

When it comes to removing Trump from office, it’s not going to matter. 

Ive said from the beginning Mueller’s job is not to remove Trump and we shouldn’t expect that. 

That doesn’t mean this isn’t the biggest criminal conspiracy in US history. It is by a long shot. 

 

So so to clarify: 

What I’d like to see happen:  Trump removed

What I think will happen:  Trump isn’t impeached or removed unless the republicans decide to remove him (lol)

What could the democrats do:  they could remove him but they don’t want to because it’s politically advantageous to run against him in 2020.

Edited March 21, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[atomheartbevo 89,878]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

When it comes to removing Trump from office, it’s not going to matter.

It already matters, and the report isn’t even out yet - in 2018, Trump lost four states, and damn near lost a couple of more (including Florida).    

You don’t know how the final report will read.  There is a reason Nancy Pelosi said this: “Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country.”

9 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Mueller does have this. He’s going to give us the truth as he knows it and it will be damning.

If the report is as damning as you say, there’s no reason to think the House won’t put his shit on blast.  The fact that they are working on areas that Mueller isn’t covering says quite a bit - they are getting their ducks in a row.  Some analysts are even arguing that the House investigations that are looking at non-Mueller-related stuff are there specifically for the time they decide whether to impeach - it helps their case if not only do they have the Mueller Report, but also evidence they have developed from their own investigations.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

The House is going to put Trump’s shit on blast anyway.  No report needed for that. 

The democrats aren’t interested in impeachment otherwise they would have prepared better over the last few months pushing public opinion towards the idea of impeachment.  They haven’t been doing that. 

That’s why I said they should have started the process long ago if they were serious about impeachment.

Edited March 21, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[notre dame joe 197]

47 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The House is going to put Trump’s shit on blast anyway.  No report needed for that. 

The democrats aren’t interested in impeachment otherwise they would have prepared better over the last few months pushing public opinion towards the idea of impeachment.  They haven’t been doing that. 

That’s why I said they should have started the process long ago if they were serious about impeachment.

That's bass ackwards.  Prominent elected Ds have been literally screaming for impeachment.  Pelosi walked them back because it's politically damaging.  For which I am very disappointed as an impeachment faceplant in the House would increase President Trump's chances for 4 more.

[triplehorn 2,664]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

It already matters, and the report isn’t even out yet - in 2018, Trump lost four states, and damn near lost a couple of more (including Florida).    

You don’t know how the final report will read.  There is a reason Nancy Pelosi said this: “Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country.”

If the report is as damning as you say, there’s no reason to think the House won’t put his shit on blast.  The fact that they are working on areas that Mueller isn’t covering says quite a bit - they are getting their ducks in a row.  Some analysts are even arguing that the House investigations that are looking at non-Mueller-related stuff are there specifically for the time they decide whether to impeach - it helps their case if not only do they have the Mueller Report, but also evidence they have developed from their own investigations.

News yesterday was that House Intel is shifting its probe to the question of Trump being under active foreign influence.  At the outset that is different from Mueller, and re impeachment, it could define a case for Trump removal marked urgent.

Pelosi has the correct stance.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Triple, have you seen this theory on the Fox News twitter accounts?

It would be hilarious if this turned out to be true.

(This is crackpotty but plausible) 

TL:DR version is an obscure Fox News executive was back channeling with Guccifer 2.0 during the election using her’s and one of the Fox accounts (she didn’t know it was the Russians).  There’s some Carter Page in there too because of course he’s involved, the Forrest Gump of espionage.

Once Mueller put the GRU’s shit on blast, this executive didn’t call the FBI but instead doubled down on using Fox News to go after Mueller and FBI agents.  It apparently didn’t go well. 

[bolverk 29,767]

The White House on Thursday rejected congressional Democrats’ demands for documents relating to President Donald Trump’s private discussions with Vladimir Putin

[triplehorn 2,664]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Triple, have you seen this theory on the Fox News twitter accounts?

It would be hilarious if this turned out to be true.

(This is crackpotty but plausible) 

 

  Hide contents

 

TL:DR version is an obscure Fox News executive was back channeling with Guccifer 2.0 during the election using her’s and one of the Fox accounts (she didn’t know it was the Russians).  There’s some Carter Page in there too because of course he’s involved, the Forrest Gump of espionage.

Once Mueller put the GRU’s shit on blast, this executive didn’t call the FBI but instead doubled down on using Fox News to go after Mueller and FBI agents.  It apparently didn’t go well. 

 

 

 

 It's obvious Fox News has acted as a conduit of propaganda working in close concert with Trump around messaging, policy, and promulgating fake news stories.  The last example was particularly active during the election where fake news was generated by web sources based in eastern Europe, picked up by Fox and social media aligned to amplify it with bots, and then by Trump and campaign surrogates.  The tight coordination and messaging attacking, defending, and shaping perceptions for all things Trump has remained at peak intensity.

However, the thread you linked is kind of laughable only because it sounds like Erik Prince's story that he randomly was introduced to Kirill Dmitriev, Russian banker and close Putin confidant, at a resort bar in the Seychelles where he had a beer over polite conversation.

In reality it's likely there's more than 'an executive' involved and that the stakes and origins have been well understood in both directions, which includes utilizing Russian linked capabilities.  The anecdote you linked could be a minimizing front-facing joke compared to the Fox involvement Mueller may understand that led to them going dark on so many accounts.

 

Edited March 22, 2019 by triplehorn

[Gil Bang 26,069]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

This is like some sort of disinformation kaleidoscope 

 

It’s been fun watching the Russians squirm over the Mueller report these past few weeks.  They know it won’t be good for them either.

[GRHorn 105]

 

[Lurch 5,932]

Well, everything must be fine then.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Damn, really wanted Assange. 

[triplehorn 2,664]

The statement "sources familiar with the investigation believe there are no more indictments coming from the special counsel'" appears out of thin air, and out of context in that article.  Is the claim based on the content and tone of the Rosenstein letter from 2018?  If so, see Roger Stone's recent Mueller indictment to disprove that.

You know, Mueller doesn't leak.  And this wish for "no more indictments" combined with a DAG letter from 2018 stating simply that nothing disparaging will be reported absent indictments is simply a formula for a perp wet dream.  

Any reason ABC news would run with that ?  I know Fox News was separate from other Fox holdings in the just completed $70B+ Disney merger, but would any Mueller/Fox exposure stand to affect any of Disney's (ABC) recently acquired holdings tied to Fox ? 

That anonymous claim is just so random, and makes no sense in light of so many ongoing investigations and cooperating witnesses.

[Anastasis 23,471]

1 hour ago, triplehorn said:

The statement "sources familiar with the investigation believe there are no more indictments coming from the special counsel'" appears out of thin air, and out of context in that article.  Is the claim based on the content and tone of the Rosenstein letter from 2018?  If so, see Roger Stone's recent Mueller indictment to disprove that.

You know, Mueller doesn't leak.  And this wish for "no more indictments" combined with a DAG letter from 2018 stating simply that nothing disparaging will be reported absent indictments is simply a formula for a perp wet dream.  

Any reason ABC news would run with that ?  I know Fox News was separate from other Fox holdings in the just completed $70B+ Disney merger, but would any Mueller/Fox exposure stand to affect any of Disney's (ABC) recently acquired holdings tied to Fox ? 

That anonymous claim is just so random, and makes no sense in light of so many ongoing investigations and cooperating witnesses.

Lulz. I for one thought for sure we were going to get the Queen of England. Fuck.  What a let down. 

[Poolflood 845]

1 hour ago, Kiss said:

Release the damn report tomorrow!!!

It'll be Monday.  

[triplehorn 2,664]

11 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Lulz. I for one thought for sure we were going to get the Queen of England. Fuck.  What a let down. 

Len Blavatnik as a stand-in wouldn’t suck.

 

[NWBuck 8,589]

33 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Lulz. I for one thought for sure we were going to get the Queen of England. Fuck.  What a let down. 

And Colonel Sanders with his wee bitty eyes and addictive chicken additives 

[deech 2,297]

I'm going to bet against the anonymous reporting of the end / no more indictments.  If I didn't hear a similar story just last week.  Then Rosenstein extended his stay.

[pwinger 35]

10 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The Democrats have a royal flush, they just aren’t interested in playing it.

DEUCES WILD

 

edit: oh wait, this isn't a serious thread, is it?

Edited March 22, 2019 by pwinger

[Mdhorn 5,992]

On 3/20/2019 at 5:01 PM, Biff Tannen said:

Uh, this judge can get fucked.  If you can't see the difference in a blanket ban on Muslims and obvious attempts at bribing the President, you don't deserve your fucking position.  The easiest emoluments argument to me is Maralago anyway.

This is why Manafort was desperate for his case to move from the District to Virginia.