Jump to content

The Robert Mueller Investigation

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

GRHorn

GRHorn 105

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Now is the time to come together as a nation and heal. 

I would actually like to see that.  Gonna be tough though. One side has been worked into a frenzy over a bullshit narrative that on its face is straight up ludicrous. Now that’s it’s being officially declared such, people that have been in said frenzy want a fresh slate. Gonna be a tough sell. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 34.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    3238

  • Anastasis

    2088

  • David Dennison

    1559

  • triplehorn

    1384

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Goredho
Goredho

Just to make sure I have the alternative facts straight...  Our government -- but I'm guessing only the deep state part of it --- is now guilty of torturing a poor, naive Russian exchange student who

Incredulity
Incredulity

liberals suddenly being terrified of Russia and manic for election integrity is just pure comedy gold.

Chooky
Chooky

I don't believe for a moment that any of this is entertaining to you.  I think it gives you a bit of anxiety knowing that your best weapon against a group who you despise is a bumbling fraud as a busi

Posted Images

Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Grandioso said:

Questions for the conservatives: Are you happy that Trump scored a win or just that the libs got owned? I.e., are you happy with Trump being our president?

He’s an asshole I wouldn’t care to know who is doing a good job. Making those on the left make retards out of themselves is a nice bonus.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45979

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

I would actually like to see that.  Gonna be tough though. One side has been worked into a frenzy over a bullshit narrative that on its face is straight up ludicrous. Now that’s it’s being officially declared such, people that have been in said frenzy want a fresh slate. Gonna be a tough sell. 

Wait, you're saying I should support an administration headed up by a man who is very likely a criminal?  I didn't sign up for that.  What on earth would make an American support a crook in office?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Wait, you're saying I should support an administration headed up by a man who is very likely a criminal?  I didn't sign up for that.  What on earth would make an American support a crook in office?

So you were a Gary Johnson supporter in the 2016 election ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45979

Posted
Posted
Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

So you were a Gary Johnson supporter in the 2016 election ?

News flash:  Gary Johnson isn't the president.

Now, I know you think you're being clever and alluding to all of Hillary's "crimes" (all of which were investigated and none of which were prosecuted, but hey, you do your stupid shtick, it's what makes you you).  Regardless, his post was about "healing" and some sort of come-together-kum-bay-yah moment, and fuck that.  

Donald Trump has broken the law NUMEROUS times in office.  He's fucking selling likenesses of the White House on soap bars with the Trump brand in his hotel down the street, for fuck's sake.  Do you have no shame?  Do you never tire of the brazen, callous disregard for everything this country (allegedly) stands for?

I don't care about bars of soap.  That's a blip on the screen.  What I care about is the fact that this man is so crass that he simply is unconcerned with the rule of law.  I'm supposed to support that?

FUCK.  THAT.

Screen-Shot-2019-03-21-at-1.00.30-PM.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
Just now, jimmyjazz said:

News flash:  Gary Johnson isn't the president.

Now, I know you think you're being clever and alluding to all of Hillary's "crimes" (all of which were investigated and none of which were prosecuted, but hey, you do your stupid shtick, it's what makes you you).  Regardless, his post was about "healing" and some sort of come-together-kum-bay-yah moment, and fuck that.  

Donald Trump has broken the law NUMEROUS times in office.  He's fucking selling likenesses of the White House on soap bars with the Trump brand in his hotel down the street, for fuck's sake.  Do you have no shame?  Do you never tire of the brazen, callous disregard for everything this country (allegedly) stands for?

I don't care about bars of soap.  That's a blip on the screen.  What I care about is the fact that this man is so crass that he simply is unconcerned with the rule of law.  I'm supposed to support that?

FUCK.  THAT.

Screen-Shot-2019-03-21-at-1.00.30-PM.jpg

That's a lot of words to just say you'd support your crook.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grandioso

Grandioso 2592

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I would like to think that we could all find a little bit of bright side in conclusively 1) learning that the president of the united states did not collude with a foreign nation to influence the outcome of an election; 2) dispelling a vein of  hysterical media driven narrative nonsense; 3) shutting the door on  divisive propaganda that has been sown across this board for 2 years.

But isn't far more sad/fucked up if Trump won the election fair and square and has totally clean hands? That means Brisket is right about everything, essentially. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23477

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Grandioso said:

But isn't far more sad/fucked up if Trump won the election fair and square and has totally clean hands? That means Brisket is right about everything, essentially. 

IMO the entire Russia narrative has been a distraction to avoid us taking responsibility for our fucked up electorate and our fucked up political parties.  But just 2 cents from a traitor. 

Edited by Anastasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
Just now, Anastasis said:

IMO the entire Russia narrative has been a distraction to avoid us taking responsibility for our fucked up electorate.  But just 2 cents from a traitor. 

Our electorate is deeply divided by the extremes.  When a gov. says he supports the decision to let a viable, too term, healthy baby just born to live or die we've gone down a dark fucking hole.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45979

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

IMO the entire Russia narrative has been a distraction to avoid us taking responsibility for our fucked up electorate and our fucked up political parties.  But just 2 cents from a traitor. 

If you don't think Russia has been fucking with our elections you're a fool.  It's not a distraction.  It's reality.  What are you going to do about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ted Lange

Ted Lange 16110

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, CoTex said:

Question - was there collusion with Russians  to alter an election and if so, who were the people involved with enough authority to matter?

The same people Trump said were full of shit and PUTIN was right, he is now using to claim victory.   Mueller and his angry band of Democrats are no longer conflicted. Weird 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31503

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

IMO the entire Russia narrative has been a distraction to avoid us taking responsibility for our fucked up electorate.  But just 2 cents from a traitor. 

Yeah the electorate is a bunch of morons, but that's nothing new.  Both Sides(tm) ignored the morons for decades and Trump paid a little attention to them and bingo bango, the presidency.

Now someone has to figure out how to wrest them away. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SimonBolivar

SimonBolivar 10958

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

IMO the entire Russia narrative has been a distraction to avoid us taking responsibility for our fucked up electorate and our fucked up political parties.  But just 2 cents from a traitor. 

Well Russia did try their best to get DJT elected as the IC and now Mueller confirms. We need to have Trump do something about that even though they helped him. I think this is where his business mentality hurts him. Sort of a hey they helped me so they can't be that bad type of thing. Instead we get him publically saying he believes Putin's denials. Like I commented to @Johnny Sack earlier, we dont need to go all 1962 on them, but a bit more into acting like getting caught doing this a big deal to the administration and that they're taking it seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45691

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Ted Lange said:

The same people Trump said were full of shit and PUTIN was right, he is now using to claim victory.   Mueller and his angry band of Democrats are no longer conflicted. Weird 

This honestly makes me kinda chuckle with regards to the dotard.  Like, which one is it dipshit?  Is Mueller full of shit still?  Or is he magically amazing and truthful now that he didn't fully impale you on the long dick of the law?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13218

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

IMO the entire Russia narrative has been a distraction to avoid us taking responsibility for our fucked up electorate and our fucked up political parties.  But just 2 cents from a traitor. 

Yep.

The Russians hacked the DNC and RNC. The Russians paid Facebook to boost anti-Hillary stuff. The Russians tried to help Trump win.

That's all true.

Here are some other true things:
We are actively starving the Venezuelan people TO DEATH and enforcing cruel sanctions that rob them of medicine and food because we want to replace their unelected "president" who doesn't want to sell the final rights to his nation's resources with a different unelected "president" who does want to. We are responsible for the deaths of men, women, and children in Venezuela right now because we want to change their leadership.

Russia bought some Facebook ads.

Jesus fucking Christ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mapache

Mapache 1117

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Our footprint on the world is an ocean filled with the blood of the poor and weak.

But Russia hacked some e-mails so we know that Debbie Washingmachine-Schultz wanted Hamilton tickets.

LIBS FREAK THE FUCK OUT

Clinton got impeached for a blow job. Repugs freak the fuck out!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23477

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

If you don't think Russia has been fucking with our elections you're a fool.  It's not a distraction.  It's reality.  What are you going to do about it?

I find humor in that you think that I don't track the facts of the situation. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23477

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Well Russia did try their best to get DJT elected as the IC and now Mueller confirms. We need to have Trump do something about that even though they helped him. I think this is where his business mentality hurts him. Sort of a hey they helped me so they can't be that bad type of thing. Instead we get him publically saying he believes Putin's denials. Like I commented to @Johnny Sack earlier, we dont need to go all 1962 on them, but a bit more into acting like getting caught doing this a big deal to the administration and that they're taking it seriously.

I have already laid my perspective out numerous times. I've been told that I am a traitor and a America hater as a result, only to have my perspective borne out by reality.  As a result, Brisket and Hugo can suck a big fucking dick. Russia attacked the fault lines in the political system that we created out of our own dysfunction. Russia Russia Russia!!! is an external distraction that only provides cover for those that refuse to address our own political failings. On both sides. But it's just a punch line. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Kinda wishing that @triplehorn would have taken me up on my 1k collusion wager.  Need that to offset the losses I am seeing in my first term impeachment position. 

 

For someone calling for the fullest disclosure, it's intellectually dishonest to call in your bets with a 4 page 48hr turnaround letter from a Trump appointed, McConnell-led Senate confirmed AG...and no Mueller report.

Both Sides Extraordinaire  

WoW !

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29355

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

giphy.gif

I know you'd have to interrupt your little victory dance, but it is very clear that Barr's letter doesn't say that Mueller found that Trump did not collude. Don't listen to me, listen to Ken White:

Quote

We cannot yet see the report that Special Counsel Robert Mueller submitted to Attorney General William Barr on Friday. But we can see its shadow in the four-page letter Barr sent to the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees on Sunday afternoon. The letter will be touted as vindication by President Donald Trump and his supporters, but will do little to bridge the partisan divide over Mueller’s nearly two-year investigation, and will inspire more vociferous demands to release the entire report.

 

Barr’s letter thoroughly quelled some of the fondest hopes of the anti-Trump “resistance.” The letter revealed that Mueller closed his investigation without recommending more criminal charges, and that no further indictments are under seal, as some had speculated. That’s a great relief for Trump and his family and associates, but it’s not the end of their federal criminal jeopardy. Barr also pointed out that Mueller “referred several matters to other offices for further action.” For instance, the special counsel sent the investigation of Michael Cohen’s hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, which secured Cohen’s guilty plea for federal campaign-finance violations. That office is still actively investigating the matter—we know this because it carefully redacted the details of the investigation when it released the Cohen search warrants last week. But the special counsel’s investigation was the most prominent legal threat to the president and his family, and its closure without further indictments is a major victory for him.

Next, Barr reported that the special counsel concluded that Russia attempted to interfere with the 2016 presidential election. That interference involved disinformation campaigns, efforts to sow “social discord” online, hacking the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party, and distributing misappropriated emails through WikiLeaks. But crucially, Mueller reported that his investigation “did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” whether expressly or tacitly. To use the popular cable-news vernacular, Mueller did not establish “collusion.” (Never mind that collusion is not a legal term, and that the special counsel’s mission was to investigate “links and/or coordination” with the Russians.)

Trump’s triumphant supporters notwithstanding, we don’t yet know what that means. When prosecutors say that an investigation “did not establish” something, that doesn’t mean that they concluded it didn’t happen, or even that they don’t believe it happened. It means that the investigation didn’t produce enough information to prove that it happened. Without seeing Mueller’s full report, we don’t know whether this is a firm conclusion about lack of coordination or a frank admission of insufficient evidence. The difference is meaningful, both as a matter of history and because it might determine how much further Democrats in Congress are willing to push committee investigations of the matter.

The other big reveal in Barr’s letter is that Mueller “determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment” about whether the president obstructed justice over the course of the two-year investigation of Russian interference in the election. Instead, Mueller laid out the relevant evidence “on both sides” of the issue, but did not resolve what the special counsel saw as the “difficult issues” of fact and law concerning “whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction.” Mueller’s report “does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it does not exonerate him.” Mueller punted.

Why would Mueller spend so much time investigating obstruction of justice but not reach a conclusion? We won’t know until we read his report. But Mueller, a career G-man, is fundamentally legally conservative. That means he has a narrow view of his own role and a healthy respect for the authority of the other branches of government. He might believe that the evaluation is so inherently political that no conclusion he could offer would ever be seen as legitimate, and that the matter is better resolved through Congress’s constitutional authority to impeach (or not) the president. Even if Mueller didn’t make an explicitrecommendation, we’ll probably be able to infer his conclusions by reviewing how he marshaled the evidence for and against guilt. Prosecutors, as a rule, are not good at neutral renditions of facts.

The attorney general showed no such circumspection. In less than 48 hours, he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein—who supervised Mueller for most of his investigation—“concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offence.” Though Barr emphasized that he and Rosenstein had been involved in evaluating the status of the investigation for months, and that they consulted the Office of Legal Counsel and other Department of Justice experts, this conclusion reflects startling and unseemly haste for such a historic matter.

Crucially, we don’t know whether Barr concluded that the president didn’tobstruct justice or that he couldn’t obstruct justice. Well before his appointment, Barr wrote an unsolicited memo to Rosenstein arguing that Mueller’s investigation was “fatally misconceived,” to the extent that it was premised on Trump firing former FBI Director James Comey or trying to persuade Comey to drop the investigation of Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national-security adviser. Barr’s memo was a forceful exposition of the legal argument that the president cannot obstruct justice by exercising certain core powers such as hiring or firing staff or directing the course of executive-branch investigations. So although Barr’s letter to Congress says that he and Rosenstein found no actions that constituted “obstructive conduct” undertaken with the requisite corrupt intent, we don’t know whether he means that Trump didn’t try to interfere with an investigation, or that even if he did, it wasn’t obstruction for a president to do so. Democrats in Congress will want to probe that distinction—as they should.
 
Mueller’s report was initially confidential under Department of Justice regulations governing the special counsel. In Sunday’s letter, Barr said his goal was to release as much of it as possible consistent with the law. In particular, he noted that the report includes information about matters occurring before a grand jury that are secret as a matter of federal law, and that some other references in the report might reveal the status of ongoing investigations. Barr must abide by his promise to resolve those questions promptly and in favor of as much disclosure as the law permits. It’s impossible to evaluate the results of Mueller’s investigation—and their legal, political, and historical significance—without the details.

Mueller's report won't be narrative and I doubt it will include his private suspicions, but it will shed much more light on what the investigation found and where it ran into roadblocks in its investigation (e.g. stonewalling from Trump associates). I highly doubt that the report itself will actually indicate that there was no evidence of collusion. If it had, Barr almost certainly would've included that in his letter and Republicans wouldn't already be speaking out against releasing the full report. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23477

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

 

For someone calling for the fullest disclosure, it's intellectually dishonest to call in your bets with a 4 page 48hr turnaround letter from a Trump appointed, McConnell-led Senate confirmed AG...and no Mueller report.

 Both Sides Extraordinaire  

WoW !

I'll till offer the same action triple. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SimonBolivar

SimonBolivar 10958

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I have already laid my perspective out numerous times. I've been told that I am a traitor and a America hater as a result, only to have my perspective borne out by reality.  As a result, Brisket and Hugo can suck a big fucking dick. Russia attacked the fault lines in the political system that we created out of our own dysfunction. Russia Russia Russia!!! is an external distraction that only provides cover for those that refuse to address our own political failings. On both sides. But it's just a punch line. 

I don't disagree with that. I'm sure the IC knew it was coming like we attempt to influence elections all over the world too. I just think when you catch them doing it you have to act tough in response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

So you believe in the rule of law when it supports your guy but not when it fails to incriminate someone you don't support?

How Republican of you.

I think most thinking people  believe Trumps done illegal shit. He hasn't been caught, but still may be implicated in ongoing investigations.

If you think Hilary wasn't and isn't a crook you're a head in the sand fool. Trumps illegal shit has been in the private sector (up until 2016 at least). Hillary used her time in gov't service to commit crimes against the citizens of the country to benefit her. The e. mail/server issue is and was real.

Her destruction of the primary evidence makes it hard if, not impossible to convict. You can try and deny there was no illegal intent, but you'd be lying or just too naive to grasp what she as doing with her hidden server when she was AG (and after), and the money was pouring in to the Clinton foundation coffers for future favors.  30,000 e mails relating to yoga and wedding plans ?  sure right ?  Funny how Comey pretty much called her lie about no sensitive material being on the e. mails they were able to recover, I mean the ones that weren't literally smashed to bits inside her illegally used devices.

I chose to pick an outsider who went up against a person whose entire game plan was to win the WH at any cost. The Clintons have enough dirt on them for 10 life long felons. That you choose to ignore it is typical of a partisan supporter. I've said many times that if Trump is guilty then get his ass out of office.  I would have voted for any candidate going up against Hillary "I'm an unconvicted felon" Clinton.  

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23477

Posted
Posted
Just now, wildcat09 said:

I know you'd have to interrupt your little victory dance, but it is very clear that Barr's letter doesn't say that Mueller found that Trump did not collude. Don't listen to me, listen to Ken White:

Mueller's report won't be narrative and I doubt it will include his private suspicions, but it will shed much more light on what the investigation found and where it ran into roadblocks in its investigation (e.g. stonewalling from Trump associates). I highly doubt that the report itself will actually indicate that there was no evidence of collusion. If it had, Barr almost certainly would've included that in his letter and Republicans wouldn't already be speaking out against releasing the full report. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Putin won a while ago.  It wasn’t just the hacking of emails/state voting systems or the trolls and bots.  It was all the gaslighting and the media playing right into Russia’s hands.   Every time Trump or the media brought up Wikileaks and Hillary’s emails they were doing Russia’s work for them.   Think about how much oxygen that shit sucked up in the 2016 election process.  Hillary’s emails were literally the #1 topic of discussion online and in the media all thanks to a covert Russian military operation.

Maybe we, I dunno, should work to avoid that kind of shit in the future? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11675

Posted
Posted
Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Putin won a while ago.  It wasn’t just the hacking of emails/state voting systems or the trolls and bots.  It was all the gaslighting and the media playing right into Russia’s hands.   Every time Trump or the media brought up Wikileaks and Hillary’s emails they were doing Russia’s work for them.   Think about how much oxygen that shit sucked up in the 2016 election process.  Hillary’s emails were literally the #1 topic of discussion online and in the media all thanks to a covert Russian military operation.

Maybe we, I dunno, should work to avoid that kind of shit in the future? 

It wasn’t a Russia problem.  It was a HILLARY problem.

get that through your thick skull.

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...