Jump to content

The Robert Mueller Investigation


Hugo Stiglitz

Recommended Posts

  On 5/10/2018 at 11:59 PM, Incredulity said:

Because I don’t believe Trump could “collude” with Russians to steal the election and that “collusion” be something that takes a year to uncover?

Expand  

No, because you simply refuse to believe anything else despite the mounting evidence, because it goes against your partisan mindset.  

Edited by Judge Roybeanbag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly don’t care if Mueller gets Trump or not.

I don’t buy the Mueller supercop long game narrative.   He is going to end up with a comprehensive report of innuendo, carelessness and amateur hour campaign shit that will garner a collective yawn and alot of consternation on MSNBC.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 5/11/2018 at 12:10 AM, Incredulity said:

I honestly don’t care if Mueller gets Trump or not.

I don’t buy the Mueller supercop long game narrative.   He is going to end up with a comprehensive report of innuendo, carelessness and amateur hour campaign shit that will garner a collective yawn and alot of consternation on MSNBC.

 

Expand  

You obviously don't care. Obviously. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually quite candid and forthcoming.  

Trump is and was winging it.  At this point there is going to have to be smoking gun evidence directly on Trump to end his presidency.  He sure as fuck isn’t resigning over payment to Stormy or one of his kids talking to Russians.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 5/11/2018 at 12:26 AM, Incredulity said:
Actually quite candid and forthcoming.  
Trump is and was winging it.  At this point there is going to have to be smoking gun evidence directly on Trump to end his presidency.  He sure as fuck isn’t resigning over payment to Stormy or one of his kids talking to Russians.  
 
 

Hint...he won’t resign if there’s video of him giving Putin our nuclear codes for a briefcase full of gold.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 5/11/2018 at 12:26 AM, Incredulity said:

Actually quite candid and forthcoming.  

Trump is and was winging it.  At this point there is going to have to be smoking gun evidence directly on Trump to end his presidency.  He sure as fuck isn’t resigning over payment to Stormy or one of his kids talking to Russians.  

 

 

Expand  

The fucking Russians paid Cohen directly to pay off hush money payments to Stormy Daniels and others during the height of the campaign.  What the fuck else do you need?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 5/11/2018 at 1:18 AM, Incredulity said:

Something beyond the word of Stormy Daniels attorney.  

Expand  

So New York Times allege they reviewed the bank records and confirm it:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/us/politics/michael-cohen-shell-company-payments.html

 

That work - or now do we need a Fox news review of the bank records?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is unclear whether that or any of the other transactions were improper, but Mr. Avenatti has asserted that Mr. Cohen’s use of Essential Consultants potentially violated banking laws. The financial records indicate that at least some of the money that passed through Essential Consultants was from sources and in amounts that were inconsistent with the company’s stated purpose.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 5/11/2018 at 1:33 AM, deech said:

So New York Times allege they reviewed the bank records and confirm it:

 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/us/politics/michael-cohen-shell-company-payments.html

 

That work - or now do we need a Fox news review of the bank records?

Expand  

I am behind the paywall, so can you please quote the section where the linked article confirms "The fucking Russians paid Cohen directly to pay off hush money payments to Stormy Daniels..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if that’s proven true, it’s not like some Russian spies got together with Trump and his campaign staff in a hotel room and discussed how best to work together on defeating Hillary Clinton during the campaign.

Until that’s proven true, NO COLLUSION!

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

  On 5/11/2018 at 2:13 AM, David Dennison said:

Does it?

Expand  

  Quote

When the case was filed in February, many legal experts viewed it as a so-called "name-and-shame" indictment, filed to call public attention to the alleged crimes and to make international travel more difficult for the defendants, but with no real expectation that any defendant was likely to show up in court. The Russian firm's appearance could be seen as an effort to call prosecutors' bluff by forcing them to proceed to a trial they never expected to have to put on.

Expand  

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is fascinating.  I suppose none of the individual defendants would ever appear as they would not be extradited even if convicted, which I guess everybody, including Mueller, knew and expected.

 

But the corporation, which isn't subject to imprisonment, only fine (and that I suppose dubiously enforceable itself), appears and presses the issue.

 

tumblr_m601f2Pnqg1rzpz9eo1_250.jpg

 

No harm to Mueller really to dismiss the corporate defendants.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 5/11/2018 at 2:23 AM, Gil Bang said:

get back to me when he dismisses the charges.

Expand  

If I were Mueller, I’d dismiss the charges against this one company and get on with prosecuting the confederate traitors.

The purpose of the indictment was to inform the public of the Russian interference.

That purpose has already been served.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 5/11/2018 at 2:23 AM, TwiceHorn said:

That is fascinating.  I suppose none of the individual defendants would ever appear as they would not be extradited even if convicted, which I guess everybody, including Mueller, knew and expected.

 

But the corporation, which isn't subject to imprisonment, only fine (and that I suppose dubiously enforceable itself), appears and presses the issue.

 

tumblr_m601f2Pnqg1rzpz9eo1_250.jpg

 

No harm to Mueller really to dismiss the corporate defendants.

Expand  

Is the last sentence sarcasm?

Mueller dropping charges is a death rattle.  It paints any subsequent charges as questionable.

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 5/11/2018 at 2:29 AM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

If I were Mueller, I’d dismiss the charges against this one company and get on with prosecuting the confederate traitors.

The purpose of the indictment was to inform the public of the Russian interference.

That purpose has already been served.

 

Expand  

hmm, so what you are saying essentially is that Mueller indictments only serve political purposes, and can/should be withdrawn after they execute those ends. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question.  Can you try an individual who never makes an appearance personally?  Ordinarily, they are grabbed by marshals and detained or bailed with conditions to secure their appearance.

 

It they are outside the reach of marshals, as Russians likely would be, they won't appear and there cant be any proceedings, pretrial or trial, as far as I know.  So then what happens?  At some point the judge has to say, apprehend these defendants or get this shit off my docket.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 5/11/2018 at 2:32 AM, Incredulity said:

Is the last sentence sarcasm?

Mueller dropping charges is a death rattle.  It paints any subsequent charges as questionable.

Expand  

Dismissing the case against the corporation is not that big a deal as long as the individual defendants remain under the gun.  However, in retrospect, it appears to be a tactical error to have charged a corporation in the first place.  Charging Arthur Andersen is one thing (and probably dumb enough in and of itself), but charging and convicting some fly-by-night corporation run by rooskies serves no purpose at all, really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 5/11/2018 at 2:37 AM, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

People are tried in absentia all the time. 

Expand  

That is after they have made an appearance at arraignment and fail to appear for trial or other proceedings. Or get kicked out because they're assholes. If they never show up at all, I don't think you can proceed.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 5/11/2018 at 2:30 AM, David Dennison said:

Poor Mike Flynn.

Expand  

That’s the point you overly educated clowns don’t get.  VERY few folks have the economic resources to fight the feds on a prosecution and not end up in bankruptcy.  So, do you go Roger Clemens and spend a million or two to “clear your name” or do you just fold up the tent and be dishonored forever?  Put yourself in Flynn’s shoes and make your choice.  You already lost either way.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 5/11/2018 at 3:17 AM, FUBAR said:

That’s the point you overly educated clowns don’t get.  VERY few folks have the economic resources to fight the feds on a prosecution and not end up in bankruptcy.  So, do you go Roger Clemens and spend a million or two to “clear your name” or do you just fold up the tent and be dishonored forever?  Put yourself in Flynn’s shoes and make your choice.  You already lost either way.  

Expand  

Or just don’t be a fucking lying criminal?

669FA6FF-0537-46DD-A0C4-247AEAA6CCB5_zps

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 5/11/2018 at 1:27 AM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Incredulity is a decent troll.

Someone’s gotta do it while Swam is MIA.

Expand  

No he’s not. His trolling sucks. It’s like he’s on the comments section of Fox News.

Swam was a master troller. I’ve never seen one better. Had everyone convinced he was a UT alum, hell maybe he is, and had completely mastered the start new thread hit and run troll tactic. The guy says he was a teacher. He could teach us all about the art of trolling. He was the yoda Jedi of trolling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 5/11/2018 at 3:22 AM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Or just don’t be a fucking lying criminal?

669FA6FF-0537-46DD-A0C4-247AEAA6CCB5_zps

Expand  

 

  On 5/11/2018 at 3:22 AM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Or just don’t be a fucking lying criminal?

669FA6FF-0537-46DD-A0C4-247AEAA6CCB5_zps

Expand  

Hugo, I didn’t know you were such a zealous defender of the Logan Act. Because that’s about all Flynn may have violated.  Lying criminals (Page, Cohen, Comey, McCade, Clinton, Trump, etc) should all get what’s coming to them once we can prove they broke the law.  

No perjury trap BS. You either have them or you don’t.  Otherwise, this is all bread and circus for the 2018 midterms.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Swam got way too many bites and objectively that made him a successful troll but Incredulity is more covert in his approach.  He genuinely doesn’t give a fuck and just wants to stir the pot.

Swam actually believed much of his bullshit and thought there was a Shaggy liberal cabal out to get him.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 5/11/2018 at 3:34 AM, FUBAR said:

 

Hugo, I didn’t know you were such a zealous defender of the Logan Act. Because that’s about all Flynn may have violated.  Lying criminals (Page, Cohen, Comey, McCade, Clinton, Trump, etc) should all get what’s coming to them once we can prove they broke the law.  

No perjury trap BS. You either have them or you don’t.  Otherwise, this is all bread and circus for the 2018 midterms.  

Expand  

Flynn was an unregistered paid agent of Turkey and Russia.

He was also outed as a Russian asset by the Deputy Attorney General who testified under oath publicly that he was susceptible to blackmail by the Russians.

But don’t let these facts hurt your feelings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...