The Robert Mueller Investigation

[Pods 7,586]

16 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Cohen and others should take note. Papadapolous is having a much better time as a witness than a subject. Papadapolous is banging his hot wife and rocking loafers with no socks, while Cohen is worrying about exactly how wide his butthole can be stretched late at night in cell block 9. 

[dOUblewide 101]

8 hours ago, Pods said:

Your anecdote doesn't mean shit. Even if you're telling the truth, it's not remotely relevant, because you were not getting a security clearance for a White House job. The idea that the president would have any fucking idea who you even are is ridiculous. Obviously that clearance would be handled by a career official. That's not remotely in dispute and never has been. 

Most clearances are done by career officials. This is not most cases. 

Trump has authority over clearances in the White House. I've provided you multiple links now showing you are wrong. I am not going to google yet more for you. There are hundreds more links on google. You have addressed zero of those.

SFGate

Quote

Kushner's permanent clearance was granted by career White House and intelligence officials after the completion of his FBI background check, according to a person familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation

 

[Pods 7,586]

A single anonymous source claiming the exact same White House claim is your response? The White House is filled with liars, especially when they are refusing to go on the record officially. 

You still haven't refuted anything I've said, or any of the sources clearly showing that Trump thinks he has the power to dictate security clearances, because he transferred that authority to John Kelly in February. You also haven't refuted any of the multiple lawyers and former FBI/National Security folks that say this is abnormal. 

Keep thinking whatever the fuck you want. We'll agree to disagree. 

[Ted Lange 16,110]

Fake news

[Lurch 5,931]

 

C’mooooooooon, google image search.... one time, ONE TIME!

[Gil Bang 25,978]

And the SDNY AG may have him beat when they are done.

I think you may be confused. Do you mean the US attorney for the Southern District of New York? Or do you mean the State Atty General?

[dOUblewide 101]

 

27 minutes ago, Pods said:

A single anonymous source claiming the exact same White House claim is your response? The White House is filled with liars, especially when they are refusing to go on the record officially. 

You still haven't refuted anything I've said, or any of the sources clearly showing that Trump thinks he has the power to dictate security clearances, because he transferred that authority to John Kelly in February. You also haven't refuted any of the multiple lawyers and former FBI/National Security folks that say this is abnormal. 

Keep thinking whatever the fuck you want. We'll agree to disagree. 

LInk

Quote

Kushner’s clearances were approved by career officials after the completion of the FBI background check, and the president was not involved in the process, according to the person briefed on the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because clearance decisions are supposed to be secret.

usatoday

Quote

But attorney Edward MacMahon, who specializes in national security matters, suggested that the FBI would not have signed off on such a clearance if Kushner was a target of a ongoing criminal investigation.

 CNBC

Quote

Kushner's security clearance does suggest that, at the very least, the FBI does not consider him to be a foreign agent or untrustworthy with government secrets, said Steven Mulroy, a professor teaching constitutional law at the University of Memphis.

 

[triplehorn 2,664]

Quote

Kushner's security clearance does suggest that, at the very least, the FBI does not consider him to be a foreign agent or untrustworthy with government secrets, said Steven Mulroy, a professor teaching constitutional law at the University of Memphis.

Jared, the unwitting honeypot ?  

Anyone with anything meaningful to lose would be a fool to consider touching Kush with a 10 foot pole.  

[HenryJames 66,133]

[NameAlreadyInUse 5,114]

3 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

it's fucking amazing. he posts from a template. "hey, guys, i don't know anything about any of this, but let me list a litany of questions that favor only one side of the matter."

And the funniest part, he assumes those who aren’t proven liars to be lying, and those that are proven liars to be telling the truth. It’s a fantastic show to watch and appreciate silently. It’s the one and only reason I’ve never put him on ignore. 

[NameAlreadyInUse 5,114]

2 hours ago, Pods said:

Cohen and others should take note. Papadapolous is having a much better time as a witness than a subject. Papadapolous is banging his hot wife and rocking loafers with no socks, while Cohen is worrying about exactly how wide his butthole can be stretched late at night in cell block 9. 

I can give him a hint, it can be stretched pretty wide. I’ve seen pictures. 

[RayDog 682]

1 hour ago, Gil Bang said:

 

I think you may be confused. Do you mean the US attorney for the Southern District of New York? Or do you mean the State Atty General?

 

I meant the SDNY US attorney since they will pick up the criminal activity outside Mueller's scope. I am not confused.

[Gil Bang 25,978]

you said "SDNY AG"

[RayDog 682]

24 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

you said "SDNY AG"

SDNY should have made it clear what I meant. They are under the AG.

[Pods 7,586]

 

2 hours ago, dOUblewide said:

But attorney Edward MacMahon, who specializes in national security matters, suggested that the FBI would not have signed off on such a clearance if Kushner was a target of a ongoing criminal investigation.

 

2 hours ago, dOUblewide said:

Kushner's security clearance does suggest that, at the very least, the FBI does not consider him to be a foreign agent or untrustworthy with government secrets, said Steven Mulroy, a professor teaching constitutional law at the University of Memphis.

I don't know who either of those guys are, but they are incorrect and are directly contradicted by the letter the FBI sent to Nadler. The FBI is very clear about it for a reason. The FBI does not clear anyone and did not clear Kushner. The White House issued the clearance. Here's the letter again. 

Here's the relevant section you seem to be missing. 

"The FBI does not grant, deny or otherwise adjudicate security clearances for individuals on behalf of these clients. As a result, the granting or suspension of Mr. Kushner's clearance would be the responsibility of the client adjudicating agency, in this case the White House."

 

Edited May 25, 2018 by Pods

[dOUblewide 101]

7 hours ago, Pods said:

 

 

I don't know who either of those guys are, but they are incorrect and are directly contradicted by the letter the FBI sent to Nadler. The FBI is very clear about it for a reason. The FBI does not clear anyone and did not clear Kushner. The White House issued the clearance. Here's the letter again. 

Here's the relevant section you seem to be missing. 

"The FBI does not grant, deny or otherwise adjudicate security clearances for individuals on behalf of these clients. As a result, the granting or suspension of Mr. Kushner's clearance would be the responsibility of the client adjudicating agency, in this case the White House."

 

Don Beyers tweet apears to suggest that since the FBI did not adjudicate the clearance that it couldn't have been done by "career" personnel. 

That is simply not true. 

 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,819]

35 minutes ago, dOUblewide said:

Don Beyers tweet apears to suggest that since the FBI did not adjudicate the clearance that it couldn't have been done by "career" personnel. 

That is simply not true. 

 

You're skirting the main issue, which is does he deserve or qualify for a clearance?  

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,585]

My nose has been to the grindstone last couple of days, but didn't Schiff give a statement last night that now that the Gang of 8 has reviewed classified materials of the Mueller investigation they've seen no illegal or unethical activity? Have any Republicans yet to make a statement regarding #OMGSPYGATE!!! ? Is it too early to add this to the list to Republican Drama Queen allegations that that were supposed to end in explosive revelations but end up quietly wafting away like an unlit fart?

[Tuco 5,076]

4 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

My nose has been to the grindstone last couple of days, but didn't Schiff give a statement last night that now that the Gang of 8 has reviewed classified materials of the Mueller investigation they've seen no illegal or unethical activity? Have any Republicans yet to make a statement regarding #OMGSPYGATE!!! ? Is it too early to add this to the list to Republican Drama Queen allegations that that were supposed to end in explosive revelations but end up quietly wafting away like an unlit fart?

McConnell indicated he supported the Mueller investigation and the IG investigation. 

null

Quote

"I support both of them, and I don't really have anything to add to this subject based upon the Gang of Eight briefing that we had today, which was classified."

 

[triplehorn 2,664]

Shorter Schiff:

 

Mitch McConnell after classified briefing on Russia probe: I support Mueller's investigation

[sheeeit 129]

8 hours ago, Pods said:

 

 

I don't know who either of those guys are, but they are incorrect and are directly contradicted by the letter the FBI sent to Nadler. The FBI is very clear about it for a reason. The FBI does not clear anyone and did not clear Kushner. The White House issued the clearance. Here's the letter again. 

Here's the relevant section you seem to be missing. 

"The FBI does not grant, deny or otherwise adjudicate security clearances for individuals on behalf of these clients. As a result, the granting or suspension of Mr. Kushner's clearance would be the responsibility of the client adjudicating agency, in this case the White House."

 

The twisting is funny to watch.  The fbi does the investigations for security clearances.  The fbi did the security investigation for Kushner.  According to multiple reports, in february, rosenstein called mcgahn or trump to alert them that kushner's application needed more time to investigate.  Kushner granted clearance in May.

So only one of 2 things could have happened.  1) the fbi's report was clean enough for Kushner to get a clearance or 2) the fbi's report recommended not giving clearance and the WH did it anyway.

For the scenario that you and others want us to believe, the fbi told the wh that Kushner was currently under investigation by the fbi, was likely to be indicted by the fbi, had numerous ties to foreign govts and was a great candidate to be either blackmailed or bribed for influence and then, with that report, the wh gave kushner clearance anyway.  I think that is an unlikely scenario.

[kevwun 15,806]

and so begins the process of Republicans distancing themselves from Trump.  His ass belongs to Mueller now.

Edited May 25, 2018 by kevwun

[Dahobbs 17,625]

10 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

For the scenario that you and others want us to believe, the fbi told the wh that Kushner was currently under investigation by the fbi, was likely to be indicted by the fbi, had numerous ties to foreign govts and was a great candidate to be either blackmailed or bribed for influence and then, with that report, the wh gave kushner clearance anyway.  I think that is an unlikely scenario.

Why? I mean, I agree, normally it would be very unlikely. But it seems exactly in keeping with the modus operandi of this White House

[sheeeit 129]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Why? I mean, I agree, normally it would be very unlikely. But it seems exactly in keeping with the modus operandi of this White House

Mostly because I have a hard time believing that John Kelly would ok a top secret security clearance to a person that was about to be indicted by the fbi for conspiracy against the US.  Also, I have a very hard time believing that that the upper echelon of the doj and fbi would not speak up or leak or something similar if they are aware that a top secret security clearance was given to a person that was about to be indicted.  Honestly, I think it would be criminal of those people to not speak up. 

[jimmyjazz 45,985]

Golly, criminal behavior in the White House?  GET OUT.

[Tuco 5,076]

13 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Mostly because I have a hard time believing that John Kelly would ok a top secret security clearance to a person that was about to be indicted by the fbi for conspiracy against the US.  Also, I have a very hard time believing that that the upper echelon of the doj and fbi would not speak up or leak or something similar if they are aware that a top secret security clearance was given to a person that was about to be indicted.  Honestly, I think it would be criminal of those people to not speak up. 

How would John Kelly know if Kushner was going to indicted?  The whole point of the Mueller investigation is to separate it from the DOJ.  Outside of the Mueller team, the only one at the DOJ who should have any indication whether a indictment is pending is Rosenstein. 

[kevwun 15,806]

And when you lay down in the slop with the pigs long enough, you start to look and smell like one.

[BurntOrange&White 39,934]

How would John Kelly know if Kushner was going to indicted?  The whole point of the Mueller investigation is to separate it from the DOJ.  Outside of the Mueller team, the only one at the DOJ who should have any indication whether a indictment is pending is Rosenstein. 

Tuco, why must you be so rational? Prepare yourself with dozens of dumb fuck questions with no rebuttal to this from sheeeit

[sheeeit 129]

1 minute ago, Tuco said:

How would John Kelly know if Kushner was going to indicted?  The whole point of the Mueller investigation is to separate it from the DOJ.  Outside of the Mueller team, the only one at the DOJ who should have any indication whether a indictment is pending is Rosenstein. 

Because the fbi did the security investigation on kushner and rosenstein was involved with it.  You guys can not have it both ways.  rosenstein is not going to release a "positive" background investigation on Kushner to the wh if he knows that kushner is in deep shit with mueller.  That would be incredibly reckless and likely criminal on the part of rosenstein.    

[triplehorn 2,664]

3 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Because the fbi did the security investigation on kushner and rosenstein was involved with it.  You guys can not have it both ways.  rosenstein is not going to release a "positive" background investigation on Kushner to the wh if he knows that kushner is in deep shit with mueller.  That would be incredibly reckless and likely criminal on the part of rosenstein.    

due process ? what is it ?  asking questions.

[jimmyjazz 45,985]

I'm sure sheeeit was equally concerned and inquisitive when Hillary was being investigated for Benghazi and her emails (and private server).  Not to mention Whitewater, Vince Foster's suicide, etc.

He is nothing more than a white knight who seeks the truth.

[Ted Lange 16,110]

15 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Because the fbi did the security investigation on kushner and rosenstein was involved with it.  You guys can not have it both ways.  rosenstein is not going to release a "positive" background investigation on Kushner to the wh if he knows that kushner is in deep shit with mueller.  That would be incredibly reckless and likely criminal on the part of rosenstein.    

Wrong.  

 

Good article cle on how felon Micheal Flynn got clearance despite being under investigation.  

http://www.newsweek.com/how-michael-flynn-got-security-clearance-591994

Had one or more of the vetting agents, their curiosity whetted by the mounting headlines about Flynn’s Russia contacts, asked for a green light to dig deeper, the answer from FBI headquarters might well have been silence. In the FBI’s secretive realm, the counterintelligence section, or CI, is the heavily guarded queen, to be protected at all costs. “The CI investigation would be separate from the White House security and background investigation

[Texas73 421]

50 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Mostly because I have a hard time believing that John Kelly would ok a top secret security clearance to a person that was about to be indicted by the fbi for conspiracy against the US.  Also, I have a very hard time believing that that the upper echelon of the doj and fbi would not speak up or leak or something similar if they are aware that a top secret security clearance was given to a person that was about to be indicted.  Honestly, I think it would be criminal of those people to not speak up. 

I have a hard time believing 40% of the voting population still support Trump.

[triplehorn 2,664]

VVV This newsy little twit thread pertains to the indicted Concord Management and Consulting LLC who pleaded not guilty to a charge brought by Mueller that the company was party to a conspiracy to defraud the United States.

Concord is one of three Russian companies and 13 Russians indicted in February by Mueller on charges stemming from interference in the 2016 presidential election using social media. 

I don't speak legalese, but the complexity of the evidence in hand is apparent.  Atlanta, huh.

 

 

Edited May 25, 2018 by triplehorn

[sheeeit 129]

14 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

Wrong.  

 

Good article cle on how felon Micheal Flynn got clearance despite being under investigation.  

http://www.newsweek.com/how-michael-flynn-got-security-clearance-591994

Had one or more of the vetting agents, their curiosity whetted by the mounting headlines about Flynn’s Russia contacts, asked for a green light to dig deeper, the answer from FBI headquarters might well have been silence. In the FBI’s secretive realm, the counterintelligence section, or CI, is the heavily guarded queen, to be protected at all costs. “The CI investigation would be separate from the White House security and background investigation

Stupid is as stupid does.  First, Flynn already had his security clearance from when Obama was in charge.  It never even came up for renewal under trump.  Had there been an exhaustive investigation of flynns dealing BEFORE his clearance review came up then I would think he might not have been provided clearance, but i do not know.  Second, Kushners was a new request.  Rosenstein was involved in the investigation (just google rosenstein kushner clearance).  Rosenstein is obviously aware of the entirety of the mueller investigation to date.  So, again, for any of your theories to be true, rosenstein would have had to either let a background check go to the wh that he, rosenstein, know is innacurate or it was clear enough to warrant top security clearance or the wh just ignored the report.  I would think a guy like rosenstein would not allow a person that was on the verge of being indicted for conspiracy against the US to have an unlimited security clearance with access to all of the govt secrets including those related to foreign countries.  

[kevwun 15,806]

Remember when Obama fired Flynn and warned Trump not to hire him?  I 'member.

Edited May 25, 2018 by kevwun

[Zombie 284]

2 hours ago, sheeeit said:

Stupid is as stupid does.  First, Flynn already had his security clearance from when Obama was in charge.  It never even came up for renewal under trump.  Had there been an exhaustive investigation of flynns dealing BEFORE his clearance review came up then I would think he might not have been provided clearance, but i do not know.  Second, Kushners was a new request.  Rosenstein was involved in the investigation (just google rosenstein kushner clearance).  Rosenstein is obviously aware of the entirety of the mueller investigation to date.  So, again, for any of your theories to be true, rosenstein would have had to either let a background check go to the wh that he, rosenstein, know is innacurate or it was clear enough to warrant top security clearance or the wh just ignored the report.  I would think a guy like rosenstein would not allow a person that was on the verge of being indicted for conspiracy against the US to have an unlimited security clearance with access to all of the govt secrets including those related to foreign countries.  

Why are you constantly defending Trump et al? Anytime anyone says something negative about Trump or someone in his orbit, you pop up and explain in detail how Trump or his minion couldn't possibly have done anything wrong. It's bizarre. 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

13 minutes ago, Zombie said:

Why are you constantly defending Trump et al? Anytime anyone says something negative about Trump or someone in his orbit, you pop up and explain in detail how Trump or his minion couldn't possibly have done anything wrong. It's bizarre. 

Because that’s his job. 

[Pods 7,586]

Vekelsberg is the oligarch that Mueller questioned at JFK. Mueller also imaged all of Vekelsberg's devices. There is likely a lot of documentary evidence for this charge. 

There is no way Trump didn't know about these payments into slush funds that were also being used to pay off Trump's philandering.  

[jimmyjazz 45,985]

I don't think it's a bold statement to suggest that not all of those monies were just for paying off disgruntled mistresses with or without child.  

[sheeeit 129]

15 minutes ago, Zombie said:

Why are you constantly defending Trump et al? Anytime anyone says something negative about Trump or someone in his orbit, you pop up and explain in detail how Trump or his minion couldn't possibly have done anything wrong. It's bizarre. 

If you guys just want some big, bad trump circle jerk then so be it.  I thought this was a place to exchange different ideas.  I see no need to pile on the negative trump stuff does as there are already 50 or more folks that do so on a daily basis.  I have posted, many many times, that I would have preferred a ton of people to him as potus but that hillary is not one of them.  But if hillary had won, i would not support impeaching her on unproven things or supposition in the media.  I never once suggested anything remotely like that when obama was potus and there were a ton of positions he took that i disagreed with.  On incidents like behngazi, I made only one comment at the time which was that I felt Hillary was derelict in her duties as SOS since she told us that the attack was triggered by the movie release in Egypt and that, if that was the case and tensions were hot in the ME in the weeks leading up to the anniversary of 9/11,  that we should have had all of our embassies and related facilities in the ME on high alert and extra security should have been in place.  I have said, many many times, that i will fully support whatever mueller finds.  If trump colluded then he should be impeached.  If he obstructed justice then he should be impeached.  If he has criminality in his business dealings then I think he should be impeached.

But i will not support the impeachment of any potus because he is childish, thin skinned, dumb, orange or whatever.  That is what elections are for.

I have made my theory on events very public.  I find the blind trust in media articles and twitter dorks that quote anonymous sources, to be beneath the intelligence of most of you.  They COULD be accurate but when you do some digging they almost always do not hold up to scrutiny.

But if you really just want a place to go where there is only one side of every story told then this may not be the place for you.  It certainly would not be for me.

 

[Pods 7,586]

47 minutes ago, Zombie said:

Why are you constantly defending Trump et al? Anytime anyone says something negative about Trump or someone in his orbit, you pop up and explain in detail how Trump or his minion couldn't possibly have done anything wrong. It's bizarre. 

Have you never seen sheeit post before? He'll pop in and defend Trump and Russia by asking questions that indicates he knows almost nothing about the topic. It turns out, he knows everything EXCEPT for the incriminating parts for Trump and Russia. If there's anything not inculpatory, you bet your ass he knows all about it and 50 ways to lie and insinuate it is completely exculpatory. 

If you actually respond to him with the immense amount of incriminating material, he will simply ignore it. If too many posters point it out, sheeit will leave for a few hours or a few days and repeat this process.  

Whether he is doing this for money, or because he is a pathetic, sad, little man, he's going to keep doing this as long as posters keep directly responding to him. 

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

2 minutes ago, Pods said:

Vekelsberg is the oligarch that Mueller questioned at JFK. Mueller also imaged all of Vekelsberg's devices. There is likely a lot of documentary evidence for this charge. 

There is no way Trump didn't know about these payments into slush funds that were also being used to pay off Trump's philandering.  

Hey I vaguely knew that chick at UT (Bianna).  

[Brisketexan 105,161]

4 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Hey I vaguely knew that chick at UT (Bianna).  

Do tell....

 

 

[Pods 7,586]

Her Twitter feed is good. I just got a new nugget for the Pruitt thread. 

[Pescado_Rojo 19,425]

How's her Insta? 

[DDD Dad 14,343]

Do tell....
 

 

Well hello there.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Fingernails too dirty and hands too veiny.

would not bang.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Why did these idiots always conspire with Russians in Trump Tower?

Whatever happened to committing treason in an abandoned warehouse, a low key restaurant, or the back seat of a taxi cab?

Why were they so stupid/lazy?

[Grade of D as in David 13,253]

8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Why did these idiots always conspire with Russians in Trump Tower?

Whatever happened to committing treason in an abandoned warehouse, a low key restaurant, or the back seat of a taxi cab?

Why were they so stupid/lazy?

Those taco bowls must be fucking delicious