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

triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, 2005 said:

Trump is guilty. All Mueller has to do to prove this is read aloud excerpts of his report.

Step 1. Mueller testifies. 

Step 2. Impeach Trump's ass.

Step 3. Get the Repubs on record to excuse his high crimes and misdemeanors

Step 4. Greatest election turn out ever to vote Trump and all these r-tard scumbags out.

Step 5. Get his tax returns

Step 6. Hand him and his criminal finances over to NY for prosecution

Step 7. Reverse the Trump era and vilify every Trump advocate before history as the traitors trash they are.

 

Step 1 (a) :

 

 

AG in contempt of Congress followed by Mueller Congressional testimony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
4th&Five

4th&Five 41554

Posted
Posted (edited)
seems like a lot.

More than 370 former federal prosecutors who worked in Republican and Democratic administrations have signed on to a statement asserting special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s findings would have produced obstruction charges against President Trump — if not for the office he held.

“We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment,” they added. “Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here . . . But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience.”

Edited by 4th&Five
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mdhorn

Mdhorn 5949

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, babysdaddy said:

only a few pages. 

You had asked for examples of my claim that Trump has been tougher than he is getting credit for, which I supplied.  

Any of the financial crimes implicated in your sources will be fleshed or flushed by the SDNY.  I believe I said as much on the TOS that's what will get Trump eventually, not the imagined collusion.

One other thing I've seen discussed is the true or false nature of the dossier.  Disinformation works this way, planted inside a 90/95% true report or study, there will be some shit in there that just isn't true.  Because of one item or data point being false in the report, it doesn't mean everything is false.  The reverse is applies as well.  

It's not imagined collusion if Trump publicly asked Russia to hack Hillary's emails.  And they're still sorting the financial aspect.  I think that could also involve Russian financial backing for his election bid.  But otherwise, no collusion, whatever the hell that could mean.  I guess at this point, the definition might have adjusted to killing somebody. 

Edited by Mdhorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mdhorn

Mdhorn 5949

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, triplehorn said:

 

Step 1 (a) :

 

 

AG in contempt of Congress followed by Mueller Congressional testimony.

Excellent.  Guess there goes Trump's attempt to buy an AG.  Barr may not need another job but his reputation in the present and historical context is dirt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

The collusion question is irrelevant at this point. If you accept there was collusion, then so what? 

If you do not accept there was collusion, what would it take for you to accept collusion?  We have polling data being shared, secret campaign meetings with representatives of the Russian government, and multiple back channels to Wikileaks/Russian intelligence and the campaign.  So what? 

The thing I found most disturbing was how Eastern European and authoritarian Trump ran his campaign and administration.  Fuck the collusion, all the lies, propaganda, anti-American/pro-Russia worldview and rhetoric should be enough to persuade most educated voters this guy can not be trusted under no circumstances to serve the public good.  

This is when I start taking a hard look at the Republican Party and how their corruption just aided and abetted both the Russians and Trump.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

(Follow up tweets)

but i guess thats the point of gaslighting right? when u have the case, the whole case, and the gaslighter makes u believe u dont have anything.

or even worse, turns it around and makes it that ur the one that did something wrong for even looking into it in the first place. i mean...thats whats happening here.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Just now, Biff Tannen said:

After all this shit, if the Ds can't acknowledge that Rs are playing a different game with different rules, then we are truly fucked.  You cannot have a functioning government when one side isn't playing the same game.  

I think the Kavanaugh hearings may have broken Dems.  They really pulled out all the stops on Kavanaugh and even rallied public and professional legal opinion overwhelmingly not to confirm him.   Susan Collins’ “haha fuck you” speech all but guaranteed Trump could never be convicted in the Senate and public opinion wouldn’t even matter.  

That’s still no excuse for not doing their duty on impeaching Trump but I can see why they feel it’s a lost cause. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29191

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The collusion question is irrelevant at this point. If you accept there was collusion, then so what? 

If you do not accept there was collusion, what would it take for you to accept collusion?  We have polling data being shared, secret campaign meetings with representatives of the Russian government, and multiple back channels to Wikileaks/Russian intelligence and the campaign.  So what? 

The thing I found most disturbing was how Eastern European and authoritarian Trump ran his campaign and administration.  Fuck the collusion, all the lies, propaganda, anti-American/pro-Russia worldview and rhetoric should be enough to persuade most educated voters this guy can not be trusted under no circumstances to serve the public good.  

This is when I start taking a hard look at the Republican Party and how their corruption just aided and abetted both the Russians and Trump.

the "collusion" issue is what's fucked this whole thing up, and really made it confusing for the average citizen.

on its own, it's not a crime.  we know this.  so claiming no collusion isn't even saying "no crime".  presence of collusion (or attempted collusion i guess) is pretty apparent if you read part 1.  the real issue is when it falls to actual conspiracy, which is where they stumbled - in large part because of accidental ineptitude, and also because you can cover your tracks, which leads to part 2.

this was a report based on an investigation into russian interference in our election (which they found and said so).  if it had been a report on trump's possible obstruction, the entire thing would've been structured differently, prioritized differently, and likely investigated differently.

now, we're forced to investigate it retroactively with an attorney general in charge who didn't even look at the underlying evidence.  can an attorney in the room imagine a scenario where you took over a case and just looked at the previous attorney's summaries and notes, and didn't even glance at the actual evidence?

the only person who can clear any of this up is mueller himself.  and shocker, today trump is saying he shouldn't be allowed to testify.  because that's how innocent people act.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
yoladu

yoladu 4094

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, 4th&Five said:
seems like a lot.

More than 370 former federal prosecutors who worked in Republican and Democratic administrations have signed on to a statement asserting special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s findings would have produced obstruction charges against President Trump — if not for the office he held.

“We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment,” they added. “Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here . . . But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience.”

 

What is disheartening is that news like this wont move the needle. You wont convince those dug in. Any overwhelming evidence or near unanimous rebuke will be dismissed by the base with either "fake news" or "deep state".

While thoroughly depressing, It really is a fascinating study in "group think", manipulation, control, sheep-ism, etc. Thankfully not every American has fallen under the spell, but it is a shocking amount nonetheless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

the "collusion" issue is what's fucked this whole thing up, and really made it confusing for the average citizen.

on its own, it's not a crime.  we know this.  so claiming no collusion isn't even saying "no crime".  presence of collusion (or attempted collusion i guess) is pretty apparent if you read part 1.  the real issue is when it falls to actual conspiracy, which is where they stumbled - in large part because of accidental ineptitude, and also because you can cover your tracks, which leads to part 2.

this was a report based on an investigation into russian interference in our election (which they found and said so).  if it had been a report on trump's possible obstruction, the entire thing would've been structured differently, prioritized differently, and likely investigated differently.

now, we're forced to investigate it retroactively with an attorney general in charge who didn't even look at the underlying evidence.  can an attorney in the room imagine a scenario where you took over a case and just looked at the previous attorney's summaries and notes, and didn't even glance at the actual evidence?

 the only person who can clear any of this up is mueller himself.  and shocker, today trump is saying he shouldn't be allowed to testify.  because that's how innocent people act.

I posted this a few days ago from Philip Bobbitt's op-ed in WaPo, but the collusion is sort of adjacent to actual Constitutional impeachable crimes.  He's* got a book out on it and that intrigued me so I picked that up too.   If Trump worked to obstruct the investigation into Russian interference for the venal reason of fearing that what would be exposed would diminish his election, then that would be impeachable.  It's sort of about collusion and it constitutes a high crime and misdemeanor in the meaning of the Constitution regardless of whether it is actually covered in a criminal statute.

 

*don't get it.  he just wrote a new intro for Charles Black's book and published it, noting that people like yours truly are an easy mark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chrispy

Chrispy 132

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Move on is the latest trump/troll talking point. Not surprising you parrot it.

Trump is afraid of Mueller on the tv. As well he should be. 

I don’t want the Democrats to move on actually. The general public just doesn’t care anymore. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

I don’t want the Democrats to move on actually. The general public just doesn’t care anymore. 

They want to see mueller testify. Much different than some boring report misrepresented by a bunch of corrupt lawyers.

Your orange fake god Trump the tv actor knows how harmful that can be.

Bless your naive little heart. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45957

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

 

This needs to be highlighted for all the Trumpkins:  the DOJ certainly seems to believe it's possible to obstruct justice even when no crime is uncovered.  Williams Barr's DOJ.  The guy who says there can't be obstruction without a crime.

Trumpkins, any thoughts?

Edited by jimmyjazz
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chrispy

Chrispy 132

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

They want to see mueller testify. Much different than some boring report misrepresented by a bunch of corrupt lawyers.

Your orange fake god Trump the tv actor knows how harmful that can be.

Bless your naive little heart. 

They have no other recourse, the report flopped.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

They have no other recourse, the report flopped.

Having a corrupt AG running interference and misrepresenting the findings of the report helped. So far the obstruction is working. So far. Trump aims to keep it that way by keeping mueller off the tv where even morons like yourself can understand. Not gonna work. He’ll testify. 

Why is trump so afraid? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chrispy

Chrispy 132

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Having a corrupt AG running interference and misrepresenting the findings of the report helped. So far the obstruction is working. So far. Trump aims to keep it that way by keeping mueller off the tv where even morons like yourself can understand. Not gonna work. He’ll testify. 

Why is trump so afraid? 

Mueller will testify and nothing will change, you need to prepare yourself for that. 

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

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Mueller will testify and nothing will change, you need to prepare yourself for that. 

It won’t get trumped impeached, because of guys like you pretend to be on the net, but it will turn a lot normal people against him. 

Dear leader knows this. He can actually be quite instinctive, like a zebra knows when a lion is near. It’s one of his strengths.  That’s why he’s trying to prevent it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chrispy

Chrispy 132

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

It won’t get trumped impeached, because of guys like you pretend to be on the net, but it will turn a lot normal people against him. 

Dear leader knows this. He can actually be quite instinctive, like a zebra knows when a lion is near. It’s one of his strengths.  That’s why he’s trying to prevent it. 

Trump can’t prevent it if Mueller resigns, but it matters very little either way. I do know that hope can drive a man insane, so Godspeed Jimmy. 

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...