Jump to content

The Robert Mueller Investigation

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 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

bolverk

bolverk 29809

Posted
Posted (edited)

This is very interesting and goes to show the "witch hunt" was likely a legitimate investigation of Russian efforts to manipulate our system.

The article states this guy worked with Manafort through (it sounds like) his private practice back in 2012 to support the Putin-backed President Yanukovich in Ukraine.

Edit: For the moronic moithbreathers, the article says absolutely nothing about any sort of implication that Obama was involved in any way whatsoever. Y'all can save your "both sides" shit for another day.

Edited by bolverk
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexEx15

TexEx15 17812

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, bolverk said:

This is very interesting and goes to show the "witch hunt" was likely a legitimate investigation of Russian efforts to manipulate our system.

The article states this guy worked with Manafort through (it sounds like) his private practice back in 2012 to support the Putin-backed President Yanukovich in Ukraine.

If this happens you know Trumpkins are going to lose their shit about 1 Obama aid while completely missing the irony of them defending the multiple republicans charged as a result of the investigation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29809

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TexEx15 said:

If this happens you know Trumpkins are going to lose their shit about 1 Obama aid while completely missing the irony of them defending the multiple republicans charged as a result of the investigation.

Agreed. See my edit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
notre dame joe

notre dame joe 198

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Polls don't predict who is going to win. They predict who voters are likely to vote for. The polls leading up to 2016 predicted more voters would vote for Hillary Clinton.

They were right.

This is just plain wrong.  Polls are taken to determine who gets the most votes and they account for a popular-electoral divergence.  You have to go back to Dewey defeats Truman to find polls that got it so wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Celery Man

Celery Man 21026

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, bolverk said:

This is very interesting and goes to show the "witch hunt" was likely a legitimate investigation of Russian efforts to manipulate our system.

The article states this guy worked with Manafort through (it sounds like) his private practice back in 2012 to support the Putin-backed President Yanukovich in Ukraine.

Edit: For the moronic moithbreathers, the article says absolutely nothing about any sort of implication that Obama was involved in any way whatsoever. Y'all can save your "both sides" shit for another day.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46470

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

This is just plain wrong.  Polls are taken to determine who gets the most votes and they account for a popular-electoral divergence.  You have to go back to Dewey defeats Truman to find polls that got it so wrong.

Rasmussen called it for Hillary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
horncyclist

horncyclist 1391

Posted
Posted

I wasn't aware of this from the WaPo article on Assange's arrest:

When Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III indicted 12 Russian military intelligence officers, he charged that they “discussed the release of the stolen documents and the timing of those releases” with WikiLeaks — referred to in the indictment as “Organization 1” — “to heighten their impact on the 2016 presidential election.”

Considering that we also know Roger Stone communicated with Wikileaks, and the Trump Campaign, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/roger-stone-was-in-close-contact-with-trump-campaign-about-wikileaks-indictment-shows/2019/01/25/65d9ad1a-20a2-11e9-8e21-59a09ff1e2a1_story.html, why isn't that enough to prove a broader conspiracy? At a minimum it's collusion, if not criminal for some reason. We need to see the Mueller report and Barr's a traitor. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Harvard Man

Harvard Man 9

Posted
Posted

Apropos of cock sucking ...

The FBI & Special Counsel should be so incensed at what Barr is doing to undermine them while recklessly affirming Trump's 2 year long trash talking of them, they should leak the whole fn report.

We need a double deep throat.

We need Trump's tax returns and the full Mueller report leaked.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

You're right. +rep for owning it.  I had to do some digging but what I was remembering was from March 21, the day before the Mueller Report was released. That was now 102 pages ago. 

https://www.surlyhorns.com/board/index.php?/topic/172-the-robert-mueller-investigation/page/352/

This thread's been such an all-you-can-eat buffet for trolls since then (102 pages!) that I haven't really kept up.

Not sure what you mean by "owning it".  I don't claim to know.  I hold that notion as a possibility more as an exercise in trying to explain highly unusual bordering on unexplainable actions/events that don't really fit.  Why would Barr, an accomplished, respected attorney throw Trump an 18 page hook to be his AG?  Everyone sane knows what Trump is.  Remember how much difficulty Trump had finding top legal counsel over a year ago ?  How'd that turn out?  They know what kind of client he is.  It's one thing to be AG, the people's atty, but another to be the AG of Donald Trump.  Why would Barr do it for Donald, which is what has been on full display ?  It defies explanation.  

After Barr's House and Senate testimony the past two days, he's either completely drunk on Trump koolaid or it's a put on.  The conduct we saw from Barr probably rendered him unrecognizable to people who know him well.  That unsubstantiated BS about spying on the Trump campaign and rationalizing Trump's Wall to the Senate yesterday?

Right now, I don't see that Barr has actually done anything to alter any eventual outcomes from the work Mueller and Congress have done/are doing/will do.  If anything it's sparked outrage, peaked suspicion, and lit a fire under the House to get more aggressive.  Well done, Mr. Barr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28825

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, triplehorn said:

Not sure what you mean by "owning it".  I don't claim to know.  I hold that notion as a possibility more as an exercise in trying to explain highly unusual bordering on unexplainable actions/events that don't really fit.  Why would Barr, an accomplished, respected attorney throw Trump an 18 page hook to be his AG?  Everyone sane knows what Trump is.  Remember how much difficulty Trump had finding top legal counsel over a year ago ?  How'd that turn out?  They know what kind of client he is.  It's one thing to be AG, the people's atty, but another to be the AG of Donald Trump.  Why would Barr do it for Donald, which is what has been on full display ?  It defies explanation.  

After Barr's House and Senate testimony the past two days, he's either completely drunk on Trump koolaid or it's a put on.  The conduct we saw from Barr probably rendered him unrecognizable to people who know him well.  That unsubstantiated BS about spying on the Trump campaign and rationalizing Trump's Wall to the Senate yesterday?

Right now, I don't see that Barr has actually done anything to alter any eventual outcomes from the work Mueller and Congress have done/are doing/will do.  If anything it's sparked outrage, peaked suspicion, and lit a fire under the House to get more aggressive.  Well done, Mr. Barr.

By "owning it" I mean you stepped up and admitted you espoused the Trojan Horse hypothesis about Barr. I think a lot of people wouldn't have. Kudos. 

Remember, Barr helped shield Reagan and Bush from Iran-Contra. He's not a man of integrity. And this administration isn't complicated. They're easy to read. They're perfectly corrupt. Of course Barr was hired to protect the president at all costs and that's exactly what he's doing. 

Edited by WhatTheBuck
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
retread

retread 2951

Posted
Posted

And they do it all in plain sight. It's incredible. He auditioned for the job with a 19-page memo saying that obstruction is a very high bar to meet.

His soulless self will also have no problem dismantling ACA through the courts. Good times.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GW Hayduke

GW Hayduke 1953

Posted
Posted

I guess we should add Barr’s stance on “spying” to the list of actions that squarely fit within political theatre.

Kind of shocking he did this days before releasing his redacted version of the report.

This was self-inflicted and lowers his credibility even further. I would consider it a political misstep.

It will be very difficult for objective observers to trust Barr’s redacted version of the report.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GW Hayduke

GW Hayduke 1953

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, retread said:

imo it was a very calculated remark that served its intended purpose.

I agree it was calculated. It can be calculated but still be a misstep. This was obviously intended to pander to trump, his base, Fox News but should remove most doubt that he is able to act impartially. I’m actually baffled by Barr

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This.

Assume that they are all shitty and crooked.  You will be correct.

I'd at least expect Barr to be shitty and crooked with some semblance of evil competence.  Instead, in his appearances before Congress the past two days, he's clown shoes. 

It's like he's sitting there with splayed arms begging to be hit on the chin and knocked the fuck out.

Edited by triplehorn
with emphasis
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
retread

retread 2951

Posted
Posted (edited)

Barr's a shitstain like the vast majority of the Trump administration/mob family. Part of his purpose is to flaunt the truth by throwing out the word "spying," and his other purpose is to protect Trump by all means possible.

Edited by retread
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28825

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, retread said:

Barr's a shitstain like the vast majority of the Trump administration/mob family. Part of his purpose is to flaunt the truth by throwing out the word "spying," and his other purpose is to protect Trump by all means possible.

As if Trump would hire a new AG for any other reason. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GW Hayduke

GW Hayduke 1953

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

I'd at least expect Barr to be shitty and crooked with some semblance of evil competence.  Instead, in his appearances before Congress the past two days, he's clown shoes. 

It's like he's sitting there with splayed arms begging to be hit on the chin and knocked the fuck out.

He was able to pretend that he was going follow the rule of law, but not anymore. There was a lot of value in being able to rely on the DOJ’s credibility when it came to justifying redactions. That is all gone. I feel something is compelling him.

My sense is that Barr has given up on being able to hide the damaging information in the Report. Either he’s not able to redact it or he knows it’s just a matter of time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
retread

retread 2951

Posted
Posted

I see it the other way, GWH and triple. There is a little bit of stammering in his answers, but I get the sense that he knows that he can dissemble and stonewall his way through this. He's empowered by what Trump has gotten away with. Y'all may be right. We'll see...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GW Hayduke

GW Hayduke 1953

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, retread said:

I see it the other way, GWH and triple. There is a little bit of stammering in his answers, but I get the sense that he knows that he can dissemble and stonewall his way through this. He's empowered by what Trump has gotten away with. Y'all may be right. We'll see...

He has been seemingly successful thus far in stonewalling. Why not keep it up while still maintaining his and the DOJ’s integrity? Why throw it all away on the eve of the report release? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GW Hayduke

GW Hayduke 1953

Posted
Posted

Good take on how to look at redactions when the report comes out.

“Don’t be quick to jump to the conclusion that redactions suggest that a coverup is happening. The better approach is to examine whether the redactions significantly impede understanding of Mueller’s conclusions or whether the report is still largely comprehensible. Redactions are far more concerning and suspicious if they are extensive and if they blot out conclusions than they are if they are sparse and merely remove evidentiary detail.

In his second letter to Congress, Barr laid out four different categories of likely redactions: grand jury material; sensitive material that may compromise intelligence community sources and methods if made public; material that could affect “other ongoing matters,” including investigations referred out from the special counsel’s office; and material that would “unduly infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties.” Not all these categories are of comparable weight. Redaction of grand jury material is legally required, at least in the absence of a court order to the contrary—and Barr has said that he will not seek such an order as an initial matter. Redaction of material related to intelligence sources and methods is important and a legitimate concern for the intelligence community. Capacious redactions for the privacy of “peripheral third parties,” by contrast, should draw greater suspicion. Redactions to protect pending matters are exactly as defensible as they are proximately related to matters actually still pending.”

 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/memo-press-how-not-screw-mueller-report

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

He was able to pretend that he was going follow the rule of law, but not anymore. There was a lot of value in being able to rely on the DOJ’s credibility when it came to justifying redactions. That is all gone. I feel something is compelling him.

My sense is that Barr has given up on being able to hide the damaging information in the Report. Either he’s not able to redact it or he knows it’s just a matter of time. 

 

13 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

He has been seemingly successful thus far in stonewalling. Why not keep it up while still maintaining his and the DOJ’s integrity? Why throw it all away on the eve of the report release? 

 

The key interaction w Barr yesterday was with Sen. Van Hollen (D-MD).  Maddow did a solid segment on this last night:  

Barr avoids account for imposing judgement on Mueller conclusions

 

1) It appears that Barr is not personally involved in the redactions process of the Mueller report.  There is a DOJ "redactions team" working with Mueller applying the standard process for appropriate and justifiable redactions.  That's potentially highly significant - in a good way.

2) (at 2:30 mark) Sen. Van Hollen: "Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?"  Barr (begrudgingly): "I don't know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion."  Ponder that.  There was zero process.  Zero deliberation or rationale.  He pulled it out of his arse likely for the sole purpose of pleasing Trump.  And it completely lacks substance and won't hold, and I believe Barr knows it.

Barr appears to have given it the college try on Trump's behalf, served a brief purpose, and is signaling he's checking out.  He's got nothing left except clown shoes.  And arguably the redacted Mueller report may look no different than the report had Barr not intervened..

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 hours ago, retread said:

imo it was a very calculated remark that served its intended purpose.

In Senate confirmation, I think every Trump nominee going forward needs to be questioned about their Fox News viewing habits.   It would help determine what to expect in their job performance. 

Bill Barr is your typical smart guy boomer that just watches a little too much Hannity and it shows. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46470

Posted
Posted

I'm not exactly sure how we are supposed to assess whether the redactions significantly reduce comprehension of Mueller's findings if we can't see what was redacted, but whatever.  Sure, if there are effectively NO redactions, then great.  If the report is shot through with black bars?  The only solace I would take is if Mueller's conclusions are delivered whole.

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...