The Robert Mueller Investigation

[jimmyjazz 45437]

8 minutes ago, bolverk said:

For one, we know Trump is lying.

• He tried to make a deal with Putin for the tower while campaigning as president.
• His son met with someone who promised dirt with someone who stated that the Russian government wanted to help the campaign.
• His son-in-law attempted to create a backchannel for communications with Russia.
• His campaign succeeded in changing the Republican Pary platform in favor of Russia.
• His advisor tried to work a deal to lift sanctions before Trump was president.

Being angry about these accusations isn't a thing because these are all actual facts that took place. An honest man would want them investigated because they are all shady as shit.

Because you haven't yet addressed the evidence that was laid out for you showing that Putin wanted him elected, I'm questioning whether you ever actually wanted an "honest and unbiased" answer. Instead, I think you're just playing dumb and simply "asking questions" at this point.

In other words, I feel like I'm addressing someone who is not interested in an "honest and unbiased" answer.

I'll donate $50 to a legit charity (say Mobile Loaves & Fishes) if he actually engages you honestly about these issues.  I think you're tilting at windmills (which can lead to cancer).

[Gatorubet 30032]

9 hours ago, bolverk said:

Sorry for being off-topic, everybody, but I've got one more question for Gator. I'm curious if you ever ran into in the wild again. When she was still living on Harmony before moving over into the Quarter, she had two bars that she haunted: Verret's and Lucky's. I doubt you would've ever run into her at the former (because you're classy like that) but I could see you grabbing a cold one at the latter.

Not a Verret's guy.  Been to Lucky's several times, mostly in the a.m.     I would not know her if I saw her. Unless she was wearing those same goofy sunglasses.  Plus, if she has the poundage now, I def would have not recognized her.  

[Enchubben 5507]

35 minutes ago, bolverk said:

For one, we know Trump is lying.

• He tried to make a deal with Putin for the tower while campaigning as president.
• His son met with someone who promised dirt with someone who stated that the Russian government wanted to help the campaign.
• His son-in-law attempted to create a backchannel for communications with Russia.
• His campaign succeeded in changing the Republican Pary platform in favor of Russia.
• His advisor tried to work a deal to lift sanctions before Trump was president.

Being angry about these accusations isn't a thing because these are all actual facts that took place. An honest man would want them investigated because they are all shady as shit.

Because you haven't yet addressed the evidence that was laid out for you showing that Putin wanted him elected, I'm questioning whether you ever actually wanted an "honest and unbiased" answer. Instead, I think you're just playing dumb and simply "asking questions" at this point.

In other words, I feel like I'm addressing someone who is not interested in an "honest and unbiased" answer.

You state all of this as fact, yet no indictments are pending for Trump or his team for collusion for Russia. I see lots of tried, attempted etc, which leads me to believe that these “facts” are not indeed facts but just claims and accusations. If what you claim was verifiable and meets the criteria to be collusion than he will be indicted and convicted and I have no problem won’t that.

This was in response to somebody making the comment that because he hasn’t invited or welcomed this $35M 2 year investigation with open arms and been supportive of it that he must be guilty.  All I’m saying is innocent people can be angry too regardless of whether the investigation was warranted.

@jimmyjazz Might I suggest the $50 to Lymphoma and Leukemia Society. Thanks.

[retread 2951]

They thought enough of his lack of enthusiasm to open the Mueller investigation and to launch a counterintelligence probe against Trump himself. Not the actions of an innocent man.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/19/andrew-mccabe-no-one-in-gang-of-8-objected-to-fbi-investigation-of-trump.html

Quote

McCabe writes in his book that the briefing for the “Gang of Eight” leaders in Congress came days after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, making McCabe acting director of the bureau at the time. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein told the bipartisan group of lawmakers in that meeting that special counsel Robert Mueller had been appointed to continue the Russia investigations, according to McCabe.

In an interview on NBC’s “TODAY” on Tuesday morning, McCabe elaborated by saying he had informed the leaders that the FBI had opened a counterintelligence probe into Trump himself.

“The purpose of the briefing was to let our congressional leadership know exactly what we’d been doing,” McCabe said when asked specifically if he told Congress about the investigation into the president.

“Opening a case of this nature, not something that an FBI director, not something that an acting FBI director would do by yourself, right? This was a recommendation that came to me from my team, I reviewed it with our lawyers, I discussed it at length with the deputy attorney general,” McCabe said, “and I told Congress what we had done.”

 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11788]

20 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

You state all of this as fact, yet no indictments are pending for Trump or his team for collusion for Russia. I see lots of tried, attempted etc, which leads me to believe that these “facts” are not indeed facts but just claims and accusations. If what you claim was verifiable and meets the criteria to be collusion than he will be indicted and convicted and I have no problem won’t that.

 

They are facts.  Verifiable facts, whether they meet the gray definition of “collusion” or not is debatable, and indictments of Trump are irrelevant to collusion anyway, since collusion is not a crime and a sitting president isn’t likely to be indicted.  None of that allows you to dismiss those stated facts, so stop being disingenuous.  

Edited April 13, 2019 by Judge Roybeanbag

[jimmyjazz 45437]

19 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

You state all of this as fact, yet no indictments are pending for Trump or his team for collusion for Russia. I see lots of tried, attempted etc, which leads me to believe that these “facts” are not indeed facts but just claims and accusations. If what you claim was verifiable and meets the criteria to be collusion than he will be indicted and convicted and I have no problem won’t that.

This was in response to somebody making the comment that because he hasn’t invited or welcomed this $35M 2 year investigation with open arms and been supportive of it that he must be guilty.  All I’m saying is innocent people can be angry too regardless of whether the investigation was warranted.

@jimmyjazz Might I suggest the $50 to Lymphoma and Leukemia Society. Thanks.

I'll happily donate to them, but you did exactly what I expected you to do, which was to argue with no good faith whatsoever.  Your "proof" hinges on a lack of indictment, which (as you well know) is a non-starter for the DOJ when it comes to POTUS. 

Swing.  And.  A.  Miss.  As predicted.

[Anastasis 23340]

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Your "proof" hinges on a lack of indictment, which (as you well know) is a non-starter for the DOJ when it comes to POTUS. 

 Swing.  And.  A.  Miss.  As predicted.

Barr's letter indicates that the non-indictment policy was not the basis of the decision to not indict on obstruction.

After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.

[jimmyjazz 45437]

I was responding to Enchubben's claims regarding a lack of indictments for "collusion with Russia".   First, as we know, one can't be indicted for "collusion".  Second, the list he responded to was completely unrelated to obstruction, rendering your point about Barr's letter moot.

[immortal13 4059]

20 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'll happily donate to them, but you did exactly what I expected you to do, which was to argue with no good faith whatsoever.  Your "proof" hinges on a lack of indictment, which (as you well know) is a non-starter for the DOJ when it comes to POTUS. 

Swing.  And.  A.  Miss.  As predicted.

No facts= no indictment

[Anastasis 23340]

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I was responding to Enchubben's claims regarding a lack of indictments for "collusion with Russia".   First, as we know, one can't be indicted for "collusion".  Second, the list he responded to was completely unrelated to obstruction, rendering your point about Barr's letter moot.

So DOJ policy, which you brought up, really has nothing to do with this. 

[jimmyjazz 45437]

Just now, immortal13 said:

No facts= no indictment

Almost surely true.  However:  

No indictment != no facts.

 

Got any other blockbusters you want to drop on us?

[jimmyjazz 45437]

Just now, Anastasis said:

So DOJ policy, which you brought up, really has nothing to do with this. 

Sure it does.  He was speaking about a lack of indictments, which were never going to happen, regardless of evidence, etc.  It's the superseding fact.

[Anastasis 23340]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Sure it does.  He was speaking about a lack of indictments, which were never going to happen, regardless of evidence, etc.  It's the superseding fact.

But the DOJ policy was not the reason for the lack of indictment.  In your latter post you said that the reason was that collusion is not indictable. The reality is that unless Barr completely misrepresents the bottom line, the OSC could not establish that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russians to interfere in the election. These are indictable actions. They don't exist. Everything except for the political posturing and theater is done. 

[GRHorn 105]

9 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

But the DOJ policy was not the reason for the lack of indictment.  In your latter post you said that the reason was that collusion is not indictable. The reality is that unless Barr completely misrepresents the bottom line, the OSC could not establish that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russians to interfere in the election. These are indictable actions. They don't exist. Everything except for the political posturing and theater is done. 

In other words, 

The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. 

[jimmyjazz 45437]

11 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

But the DOJ policy was not the reason for the lack of indictment.  In your latter post you said that the reason was that collusion is not indictable. The reality is that unless Barr completely misrepresents the bottom line, the OSC could not establish that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russians to interfere in the election. These are indictable actions. They don't exist. Everything except for the political posturing and theater is done. 

Well, no.  The inability to indict for collusion was an aside . . . a fact I pointed out.  Second, this whole argument is about the points which were listed and which are largely agreed upon as fact, none of which have jack shit to do with obstruction.

You referenced Barr's letter regarding obstruction.  I'm pretty sure it's OK if we shoot from the hip just a little bit on these posts.  You know, neither one of use being lawyers and all.  But by all means, if you think you've scored points on me, good for you.  I am right in my original assertion -- a list was presented to Enchubben, and he deflected. 

As usual, you out-pedant even me.  Congratulations, I guess.  I'll have to settle for the silver medal around here.  Most always the groomsman, only twice the groom.

Edited April 13, 2019 by jimmyjazz

[Anastasis 23340]

Pedantry is a pretty good way to make a living these days.  Some things actually require attention to detail. And it appears that few are willing to put in the effort. 

Edited April 13, 2019 by Anastasis

[Guest Lobo]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Pedantry is a pretty good way to make a living these days.  

"Nuthin' wrong with the foot!"  

[WhatTheBuck 28697]

1 hour ago, Enchubben said:

You state all of this as fact, yet no indictments are pending for Trump or his team for collusion for Russia. I see lots of tried, attempted etc, which leads me to believe that these “facts” are not indeed facts but just claims and accusations. If what you claim was verifiable and meets the criteria to be collusion than he will be indicted and convicted and I have no problem won’t that.

This was in response to somebody making the comment that because he hasn’t invited or welcomed this $35M 2 year investigation with open arms and been supportive of it that he must be guilty.  All I’m saying is innocent people can be angry too regardless of whether the investigation was warranted.

@jimmyjazz Might I suggest the $50 to Lymphoma and Leukemia Society. Thanks.

jimmyjazz is winning the bet so far. 

Tell us everything you believe to be factually true about the June 9, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between Don Jr, Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, and the Russians. No indictments came down as a result of that meeting. That doesn't mean it didn't happen nor that they didn't lie about it multiple times. They also didn't inform the FBI who had already warned them that the Russians were trying to infiltrate their campaign. 

Let me guess. You're a "Gary Johnson voter."

[Anastasis 23340]

The problem is that jimmyjazz's terms were only an honest engagement.  It didn't really require that the other party actually win the points. 

[GW Hayduke 1949]

Trump is an un-indicted co-conspirator related to campaign finance violations. Individual #1. POTUS is very likely a criminal.

There is a lot of publicly known collusion between members of the trump campaign and Russia, even though the amount of evidence of a conspiracy does not reach the level of beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Its not ok for the trump campaign to meet with Russians to get dirt on Hillary.

its not ok for the trump campaign to give polling data to Russia.

its not ok for trump’s advisor to coordinate with a Russian cutout on release of stolen emails.

[Anastasis 23340]

3 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Let me guess. You're a "Gary Johnson voter."

Oh, and this is the biggest population of self loathing surly posters you will find.  

[GRHorn 105]

It feels like there’s a lot of bargaining going on in this thread now. I look forward to people getting through the depression and acceptance phases. 

[Enchubben 5507]

Go ahead and post the donation confirmation when you get the chance. 

[Anastasis 23340]

7 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Its not ok for the trump campaign to meet with Russians to get dirt on Hillary.

 

7 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

its not ok for trump’s advisor to coordinate with a Russian cutout on release of stolen emails.

But it is OK for the Clinton campaign, through shielded foreign intelligence intermediaries, to meet with assets associated with Russian Intelligence to get dirt on Trump.  And it is OK for the American IC to coordinate among themselves a series of events that result in the public release of the work product of that campaign in effort to undermine the results of an American democratic election. What a world. 

Edited April 13, 2019 by Anastasis

[WhatTheBuck 28697]

I went to a local bar to watch the Buckeye spring game this afternoon. I had two beers and a plate of chicken wings. I didn't get indicted. Does that mean it never happened?

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

 

But it is OK for the Clinton campaign, through shielded foreign intelligence intermediaries, to meet with assets associated with Russian Intelligence to get dirt on Trump.  And it is OK for the American IC to coordinate among themselves a series of events that result in the public release of the results of that campaign to undermine the results of an American democratic election. What a world. 

Are you serious with this? You actually believe American Intelligence was seeking to undermine the results of the election? Because If so I’ve lost all respect for you. My bad. 

[Anastasis 23340]

Just now, JimmyJames said:

Are you serious with this? You actually believe American Intelligence was seeking to undermine the results of the election? Because If so I’ve lost all respect for you. My bad. 

It is pretty clear at this point that Brennan, Clapper, et al. coordinated the briefing at Trump tower to provide cover for public release of the dossier. Maybe my speculation as to their motive in orchestrating that series of events is off.  Maybe, it was just "unwitting" as they say.  

[WhatTheBuck 28697]

2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Are you serious with this? You actually believe American Intelligence was seeking to undermine the results of the election? Because If so I’ve lost all respect for you. My bad. 

You must have missed it when he said Obama was colluding with Putin that time the camera caught him in an aside telling Putin he'd have more leeway (or whatever) after the election. 

[GW Hayduke 1949]

10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

But it is OK for the Clinton campaign, through shielded foreign intelligence intermediaries, to meet with assets associated with Russian Intelligence to get dirt on Trump.  And it is OK for the American IC to coordinate among themselves a series of events that result in the public release of the work product of that campaign in effort to undermine the results of an American democratic election. What a world. 

Opposition research has always been done by campaigns. It is totally legal and appropriate. False equivalency. 

Collusion concerning stolen materials and campaign finance violations are not ok. 

[Anastasis 23340]

Just now, GW Hayduke said:

Opposition research has always been done by campaigns. It is totally legal and appropriate. False equivalency. 

As long as you run it through the right lawyer screens, it's all good. 

[EuroHorn 3204]

We should start a FISA abuse thread...

[GRHorn 105]

6 minutes ago, EuroHorn said:

We should start a FISA abuse thread...

Title it, “You come at the King, you best not miss.”

[Anastasis 23340]

6 minutes ago, EuroHorn said:

We should start a FISA abuse thread...

It's not 2007.  The current majority of posters here no longer care about such things. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

I’m here for the troll circle jerk.

[Anastasis 23340]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’m here for the troll circle jerk.

[GRHorn 105]

16 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

It is pretty clear at this point that Brennan, Clapper, et al. coordinated the briefing at Trump tower to provide cover for public release of the dossier. Maybe my speculation as to their motive in orchestrating that series of events is off.  Maybe, it was just "unwitting" as they say.  

How dare you question the actions of the Right and Honorable John Brennan and James Clapper?

But seriously, how bad has Brennan come out looking from this? At least Maddow is getting paid big bucks to spew conspiracy theory nonsense. Doesn’t speak well for the CIA/Intelligence community that he has risen the top of it in the past. 

[Degenerate Gardner 4081]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

A principled nihilist. Congratulations are in order?

[Anastasis 23340]

1 minute ago, Degenerate Gardner said:

A principled nihilist. Congratulations are in order?

imgur

 

[wildcat09 29148]

51 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Pedantry is a pretty good way to make a living these days.  Some things actually require attention to detail. And it appears that few are willing to put in the effort. 

Let me get this straight. Bolverk posts a list of verifiable facts and jimmyjazz offers a bet that Enchubben won't honestly engage, to which Enchubben responds "nanana no collusion!" and fails to honestly engage regarding any of those facts just as jimmyjazz predicted, and your response is to...accuse jimmyjazz of pedantry?

 

[wildcat09 29148]

38 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

But it is OK for the Clinton campaign, through shielded foreign intelligence intermediaries, to meet with assets associated with Russian Intelligence to get dirt on Trump.  And it is OK for the American IC to coordinate among themselves a series of events that result in the public release of the work product of that campaign in effort to undermine the results of an American democratic election. What a world. 

I think we can all quit pretending you're not a Republican at this point.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11788]

27 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

It is pretty clear at this point that Brennan, Clapper, et al. coordinated the briefing at Trump tower to provide cover for public release of the dossier. Maybe my speculation as to their motive in orchestrating that series of events is off.  Maybe, it was just "unwitting" as they say.  

Wait, so they coordinated the meeting on June 6, before Fusion GPS even hired Steele?  The dossier didn’t exist at that point.  Steele’s first report wasn’t until June 20.  Et al must have had ESP.  Geezus dude.  

[Fudge Nuggets 19114]

On 4/11/2019 at 8:41 PM, TtomTerrific said:

every libtard dork here LOVED the "redacted" report from the DOJ on Lois Lerner, her boss and the disappearing evidence. 

they loved Eric Holder running interference for Obama weaponizing the IRS against his political opponents.. 

there was zero shot at a "special investigation" because Holder would never..ever.. give a fuck about the country over his political party's interest. 

 

every libtard here spent the last two years with the hoping and praying for Robert fucking Mueller and his stacked libtard team of "investigators" to deliver them from their misery. 

 

You go to kill the King,... you better not miss, you limp wristed faggots....

You are God Damned right that Barr is coming for your bitch ass. 

 

you did this 

 

you live with this 

I’m a proud libtard dork and have no fucking clue what you are ranting about.  You sound like the kind of guy that gets worked up because a school bond passes in South Dakota certainly means the collapse of the economy is near.

[Anastasis 23340]

10 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Let me get this straight. Bolverk posts a list of verifiable facts and jimmyjazz offers a bet that Enchubben won't honestly engage, to which Enchubben responds "nanana no collusion!" and fails to honestly engage regarding any of those facts just as jimmyjazz predicted, and your response is to...accuse jimmyjazz of pedantry?

  

yeah, you pretty much got that wrong. 

[Anastasis 23340]

9 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I think we can all quit pretending you're not a Republican at this point.

I've only pulled the lever for a republican one time, for any office, at any level of government.  I regret that decision of youth to this day. 

[Anastasis 23340]

9 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Wait, so they coordinated the meeting on June 6, before Fusion GPS even hired Steele?  The dossier didn’t exist at that point.  Steele’s first report wasn’t until June 20.  Et al must have had ESP.  Geezus dude.  

[Judge Roybeanbag 11788]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Well it’s hard to keep up given how fast you pull shit from your ass and fling it against the wall.  

[Anastasis 23340]

15 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Well it’s hard to keep up given how fast you pull shit from your ass and fling it against the wall.  

Speaking of shit flinging, Trump tower briefing. Jan 6 2017. 

Edited April 13, 2019 by Anastasis

[Judge Roybeanbag 11788]

7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Speaking of shit flinging, Trump tower briefing. Jan 6 2017. 

What was the problem with that briefing in your opinion?  Was the evidence “fake”?

[Enchubben 5507]

38 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Let me get this straight. Bolverk posts a list of verifiable facts and jimmyjazz offers a bet that Enchubben won't honestly engage, to which Enchubben responds "nanana no collusion!" and fails to honestly engage regarding any of those facts just as jimmyjazz predicted, and your response is to...accuse jimmyjazz of pedantry?

 

At no point in your rambling response were you even close to an accurate representation of what happened. Everyone on this board is now dumber for having read it. I award you 0 points.

[jimmyjazz 45437]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

The problem is that jimmyjazz's terms were only an honest engagement.  It didn't really require that the other party actually win the points. 

It certainly wasn't a bet.  I'll donate the $50 regardless.  Maybe he'll do the same.

Edited April 13, 2019 by jimmyjazz