The Robert Mueller Investigation

[DDD Dad 14,346]

32 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

I am going to just assume you (and many, many others posting about this) are unaware of the actual facts instead of just being either willfully obtuse or just really stupid.  Because everything you posted above is false.

There is SO much disinformation regarding Flynn that it is hard to even get started.  And I could not care less about flynn but it just pisses me off when people blatantly lie about stuff.  It also pisses me off that I bet a lot of this information will be new to most of the people that post here.  It is all public knowledge.

When Flynn retired form the military he signed with an outfit called Leading Authorites LLC (LA).  It is a business that partners high end speakers with groups that want them.  Been around for 30 years or so.  Some current members of LA that you might recognize include: James Clapper (Director of National Intelligence), Stan Mccrystal (Commander of US Troops in Afghanistan), Adm Mike Rogers (Director of NSA), John Allen (USMC 4 Star General) etc.  LA takes requests from groups all over the world.  They negotiate the fee and all of the details.  Every single person that signs with LA is public and all of them advertise their fees and all of them get paid for their work. 

Flynn, through LA, accepted the gig with RT.  Prior to the actual event Flynn not only told the DIA/DOD about the gig, but he actually attended DIA briefings where they coached him on potential tactics that the russians may use against him and then, after the event, the DIA debriefed Flynn on the interaction and actually admitted to learning new information.  We have idiots on here and on TV claiming he was potentially a traitor for these meetings and that he was potentially "compromised" by Russia (a certain favorite of GW).  Not only was he not a traitor or working in the dark, he actually helped the country's intelligence outfits gain new insight.  Knowing this now- read the post i quoted and realize how unbelievably stupid it is and that it is currently being parroted by elected pols and the media.  I already said I will assume the GWHaydukes of the world just do not know the facts but the media and other pols certainly do and are just blatantly lying.  

On the Turkey stuff, this is just unbelievably weak and stupid.  Flynn set up a consulting group just like 1000s of ex military and ex politicians do.  he was hired by a private business/person in Turkey.  he was paid around $600K.  Again, people keep saying things like "hiding" or "secretive" etc with Flynn's contact with the Turkish person.  The Haydukes and media and anyone else that really wanted the truth could have looked a bit harder at the actual facts.  When Flynn's company signed the contract with the Turkish individual they consulted lawyers about who to file with for compliance.  They were told not to file with FARA because the induvidual that hired them was not a part of the turkish government and the money was not coming from a government account.  Instead Flynn's group (going full brisket here) DID, IN FACT, file the contact with the fucking CONGRESS under the Lobbying Disclosures Act.  That is a fucking public filing that anyone could see.  Nothing at all hidden.  No potential for "compromise".  Nothing.  Later, Flynn was advised by counsel that he should retroactively file with FARA because it was "possible" that the turkish government could benefit from his work.  And he filed.  But, the important thing is that Flynn had already filed the work with the government in accordance with lobbying laws.  Nothing was hidden.

On his lie to the FBI, this is, again, incredibly specious and reported completely without context.  First, lying to the FBI is not a crime in itself.  For it to be a crime there are 2 factors that have to be present 1) the lie has to be intentional and 2) the lie has to materially affect an ongoing investigation.

Once Flynn was named incoming director of the nsa, he talked to (according to him and the FBI) his counterpart (ambassadors and other security people) from 30 different countries.  30.  Just had every other incoming director of the nsa in every other admin including reagan, bushes, clinton and obama.  Every single one of them. 

On the first day he is accused of lying, he had 15-18 calls with various foreign government officials and he was on vacation.  When he was interviewed by the FBI, according to the actual fbi notes, flynn was aked about discussions regarding sanctions (specifically the expulsion of certain russians) with Kislyak.  His answer, again according to the FBI notes, was (paraphrasing)" I may have, but I really do not remember, I dont think so"  That is it.  After the interview, and with full knowledge of the calls transcripts,  the fbi interviewers concluded that Flynn was not intentionally lying, was not acting under any orders from anyone in the trump team and recommended the chapter be closed.  

Later, the fbi re-opened the case against flynn and claimed he lied to them in his previous interview.  They also told the White House he lied and had, in fact talked about sanctions.  However, the fbi provided exactly zero proof of this and, to this day, have provided no proof.  The fbi went on to charge flynn and went after him for other unrelated items aggressively.  They publicly admitted they wanted him to flip on Trump and would be willing to drop all of his charges initially  if he cooperated and implicated trump.  As we now know, flynn could not implicate trump because there was nothing to implicate him on.  Also, the mueller team said Flynn did not implicate trump in anything and that he cooperated fully.

As to pleading guilty, it happens all the time and all of you know it.  Defending yourself in a federal suit can cost millions.  And even if you win the eventual case, you dont get your legal fees back.  The fbi offered probation if he cooperated and admitted to lying.  He took the deal.  Just like thousands of defendants do every day in courts all across the country.  

The amazing thing to me (and perhaps twicehorn can comment) is that the fbi can prosecute someone for lying and not have to provide the transcript of the call they claimed you lied in.  How is that even possible?  Apparently though, it is the law.  So you have Flynn looking at financial ruin based on a call he did not remember and admitted he did not remember.  Yet the fbi gets to claim he did without actually providing the proof.  How do you even defend yourself?

Now, all of the above is factual and not opinion or speculation.  Everything else is pure speculation.  Did Flynn actually ask Kislyak to tell Putin to temper a response to the santions?  No one has provided any proof of that.  There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that Flynn told Kislyak that the trump admin would ease the sanctions.  None.  All we have is what the fbi alleged and what flynn ultimately plead to.  But, as mentioned above, that is not proof at all.  

I wish the transcript were released.  If Flynn directly told Kislyak that the incoming admin would ease sanctions then he should go to jail.  If Kislyak asked flynn about sanctions and flynn said they would talk about it again after the inauguration then the fbi folks should go to jail.  

This is my opinion now.  This is from an NPR show featuring an intelligence official who has seen the transcript of the call ""I don't think [Flynn] knew he was doing anything wrong," the official said. "Flynn talked about sanctions, but no specific promises were made. Flynn was speaking more in general 'maybe we'll take a look at this going forward' terms."  I think this is closest to the truth.  The main reason I think this is because everyone who has accused flynn has never, ever, given any specific mention of what was said.  This thing is over and Flynn goes to jail if he said anything material.  Yes, technically, if Kislyak asked about sanctions and Flynn said "maybe we will talk about that later" then they talked about sanctions.  But nothing material and nothing that Flynn should have had any reason to remember or be concerned with.  Further, Comey himself, said the question of whether or nor Flynn lied in his interview was "a close call".  If Flynn directly tried to influence admin policy, there is just no way Comey would be this coy.

Look who's back!

[wildcat09 29,362]

14 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Man that all sounds pretty bad.

Almost as bad as a campaign hiring a foreign spook with financial ties to Russian oligarchs, through an intermediary law firm screen, to collect disinformation from Russians. Maybe even worse if they then took that curated stream of disinformation and leveraged a network of political and journalist connections to influence the conduct of an investigation into their political opponent. And maybe even worse if when that wasn't moving quick enough, systematically seeding to the public crazy ass conspiracy theories with no basis in reality, but creating enough smoke that the namesake for this thread was inevitable.  That investigation which, BTW, found that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the "Russian government orchestrated a successful international criminal conspiracy with members of the Trump campaign to get Trump elected in the 2016 presidential election."

 

2016 was a 100% fucking shit show. 

 

 

This continues to be the most insane take on all of this that anyone on this board has ever posited.

[David Dennison 18,943]

8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This continues to be the most insane take on all of this that anyone on this board has ever posited.

See, the thing is, it's no big deal that the Russians interfered in the election or that they were in contact with the Trump campaign because both sides.

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

46 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

I am going to just assume you (and many, many others posting about this) are unaware of the actual facts instead of just being either willfully obtuse or just really stupid.  Because everything you posted above is false.

There is SO much disinformation regarding Flynn that it is hard to even get started.  And I could not care less about flynn but it just pisses me off when people blatantly lie about stuff.  It also pisses me off that I bet a lot of this information will be new to most of the people that post here.  It is all public knowledge.

When Flynn retired form the military he signed with an outfit called Leading Authorites LLC (LA).  It is a business that partners high end speakers with groups that want them.  Been around for 30 years or so.  Some current members of LA that you might recognize include: James Clapper (Director of National Intelligence), Stan Mccrystal (Commander of US Troops in Afghanistan), Adm Mike Rogers (Director of NSA), John Allen (USMC 4 Star General) etc.  LA takes requests from groups all over the world.  They negotiate the fee and all of the details.  Every single person that signs with LA is public and all of them advertise their fees and all of them get paid for their work. 

Flynn, through LA, accepted the gig with RT.  Prior to the actual event Flynn not only told the DIA/DOD about the gig, but he actually attended DIA briefings where they coached him on potential tactics that the russians may use against him and then, after the event, the DIA debriefed Flynn on the interaction and actually admitted to learning new information.  We have idiots on here and on TV claiming he was potentially a traitor for these meetings and that he was potentially "compromised" by Russia (a certain favorite of GW).  Not only was he not a traitor or working in the dark, he actually helped the country's intelligence outfits gain new insight.  Knowing this now- read the post i quoted and realize how unbelievably stupid it is and that it is currently being parroted by elected pols and the media.  I already said I will assume the GWHaydukes of the world just do not know the facts but the media and other pols certainly do and are just blatantly lying.  

On the Turkey stuff, this is just unbelievably weak and stupid.  Flynn set up a consulting group just like 1000s of ex military and ex politicians do.  he was hired by a private business/person in Turkey.  he was paid around $600K.  Again, people keep saying things like "hiding" or "secretive" etc with Flynn's contact with the Turkish person.  The Haydukes and media and anyone else that really wanted the truth could have looked a bit harder at the actual facts.  When Flynn's company signed the contract with the Turkish individual they consulted lawyers about who to file with for compliance.  They were told not to file with FARA because the induvidual that hired them was not a part of the turkish government and the money was not coming from a government account.  Instead Flynn's group (going full brisket here) DID, IN FACT, file the contact with the fucking CONGRESS under the Lobbying Disclosures Act.  That is a fucking public filing that anyone could see.  Nothing at all hidden.  No potential for "compromise".  Nothing.  Later, Flynn was advised by counsel that he should retroactively file with FARA because it was "possible" that the turkish government could benefit from his work.  And he filed.  But, the important thing is that Flynn had already filed the work with the government in accordance with lobbying laws.  Nothing was hidden.

On his lie to the FBI, this is, again, incredibly specious and reported completely without context.  First, lying to the FBI is not a crime in itself.  For it to be a crime there are 2 factors that have to be present 1) the lie has to be intentional and 2) the lie has to materially affect an ongoing investigation.

Once Flynn was named incoming director of the nsa, he talked to (according to him and the FBI) his counterpart (ambassadors and other security people) from 30 different countries.  30.  Just had every other incoming director of the nsa in every other admin including reagan, bushes, clinton and obama.  Every single one of them. 

On the first day he is accused of lying, he had 15-18 calls with various foreign government officials and he was on vacation.  When he was interviewed by the FBI, according to the actual fbi notes, flynn was aked about discussions regarding sanctions (specifically the expulsion of certain russians) with Kislyak.  His answer, again according to the FBI notes, was (paraphrasing)" I may have, but I really do not remember, I dont think so"  That is it.  After the interview, and with full knowledge of the calls transcripts,  the fbi interviewers concluded that Flynn was not intentionally lying, was not acting under any orders from anyone in the trump team and recommended the chapter be closed.  

Later, the fbi re-opened the case against flynn and claimed he lied to them in his previous interview.  They also told the White House he lied and had, in fact talked about sanctions.  However, the fbi provided exactly zero proof of this and, to this day, have provided no proof.  The fbi went on to charge flynn and went after him for other unrelated items aggressively.  They publicly admitted they wanted him to flip on Trump and would be willing to drop all of his charges initially  if he cooperated and implicated trump.  As we now know, flynn could not implicate trump because there was nothing to implicate him on.  Also, the mueller team said Flynn did not implicate trump in anything and that he cooperated fully.

As to pleading guilty, it happens all the time and all of you know it.  Defending yourself in a federal suit can cost millions.  And even if you win the eventual case, you dont get your legal fees back.  The fbi offered probation if he cooperated and admitted to lying.  He took the deal.  Just like thousands of defendants do every day in courts all across the country.  

The amazing thing to me (and perhaps twicehorn can comment) is that the fbi can prosecute someone for lying and not have to provide the transcript of the call they claimed you lied in.  How is that even possible?  Apparently though, it is the law.  So you have Flynn looking at financial ruin based on a call he did not remember and admitted he did not remember.  Yet the fbi gets to claim he did without actually providing the proof.  How do you even defend yourself?

Now, all of the above is factual and not opinion or speculation.  Everything else is pure speculation.  Did Flynn actually ask Kislyak to tell Putin to temper a response to the santions?  No one has provided any proof of that.  There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that Flynn told Kislyak that the trump admin would ease the sanctions.  None.  All we have is what the fbi alleged and what flynn ultimately plead to.  But, as mentioned above, that is not proof at all.  

I wish the transcript were released.  If Flynn directly told Kislyak that the incoming admin would ease sanctions then he should go to jail.  If Kislyak asked flynn about sanctions and flynn said they would talk about it again after the inauguration then the fbi folks should go to jail.  

This is my opinion now.  This is from an NPR show featuring an intelligence official who has seen the transcript of the call ""I don't think [Flynn] knew he was doing anything wrong," the official said. "Flynn talked about sanctions, but no specific promises were made. Flynn was speaking more in general 'maybe we'll take a look at this going forward' terms."  I think this is closest to the truth.  The main reason I think this is because everyone who has accused flynn has never, ever, given any specific mention of what was said.  This thing is over and Flynn goes to jail if he said anything material.  Yes, technically, if Kislyak asked about sanctions and Flynn said "maybe we will talk about that later" then they talked about sanctions.  But nothing material and nothing that Flynn should have had any reason to remember or be concerned with.  Further, Comey himself, said the question of whether or nor Flynn lied in his interview was "a close call".  If Flynn directly tried to influence admin policy, there is just no way Comey would be this coy.

Check out this document and see who signed it on page 6. 

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5004939/Statement-of-Offense-12-01-2017.pdf

[Anastasis 23,481]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

This continues to be the most insane take on all of this that anyone on this board has ever posited.

I am pretty sure that I can cite every single aspect of that post with supporting evidence.

1. Steele was working for Oleg Deripaska.

2. Steele was hired by the Clinton campaign through a lawyer and contractor screen.

3. Steele was hired to package up information from Russians.  The Russians fed him disinformation. 

4. Using their political and journalist networks, Steele, Simpson, and lawyers from Perkins Coie used that information in attempt to influence an investigation against the campaigns political opponent.

5. When that failed to effect the necessary end result in the required timeframe, they escalated the narrative with their media contacts, seeding crazy conspiracy theories that have caused a great deal of psychological trauma when the weeds got pulled out over and over again.

6. Ultimately the entire operation was successful in creating public outcry for a white hat to save the day.  That white hat concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the "Russian government orchestrated a successful international criminal conspiracy with members of the Trump campaign to get Trump elected in the 2016 presidential election."

In Mueller's actual words:

Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.

 

It's quite amazing that over the arc of this entire thread and it's predecessors, you think my takes represent the most insane that anyone has posted.  Really amazing, in fact.  Among all the delusional shit on this thread.  But probably not surprising, you called me crazy when I suggested that the Steele dossier was used to tip the balance of probable cause on the surveillance application.  Which of course turns out to be supported by the final turn of the evidence. 

 

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

29 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Man that all sounds pretty bad.

Almost as bad as a campaign hiring a foreign spook with financial ties to Russian oligarchs, through an intermediary law firm screen, to collect disinformation from Russians. Maybe even worse if they then took that curated stream of disinformation and leveraged a network of political and journalist connections to influence the conduct of an investigation into their political opponent. And maybe even worse if when that wasn't moving quick enough, systematically seeding to the public crazy ass conspiracy theories with no basis in reality, but creating enough smoke that the namesake for this thread was inevitable.  That investigation which, BTW, found that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the "Russian government orchestrated a successful international criminal conspiracy with members of the Trump campaign to get Trump elected in the 2016 presidential election."

 

2016 was a 100% fucking shit show. 

 

 

Holes Shite that really is a BOTH SIDES argument.  The thing is that there is a report out there (linked below) that only supports one side.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

Edited May 19, 2020 by GW Hayduke

[Anastasis 23,481]

4 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Holes Shite that really is a BOTH SIDES argument.  The thing is that there is a report out there (linked below) that only supports one side.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

I quoted it in my follow-up post.  I do think it curious though that the things I mention are not explored at equivalent depth in the report thought. They got all the requisite juicy shit to drill down on.  Political national committee and campaign soliciting foreigners with a Russian network for political damaging information. Russians upon Russians. Disinformation. "Beyond my purview" when things start to strike a little to close for the company man. 

[TornACL 7,722]

On 5/16/2020 at 8:36 AM, Anastasis said:

Did surrogates for prior administrations clear all  their coms with foreign leaders during the transition?

It's ok to break the rules, if you can find just one instance in the course of history where the rule was previously broken. 

That's how rules and laws work. As soon as someone breaks it once, it's not applicable. 

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

2 minutes ago, TornACL said:

It's ok to break the rules, if you can find just one instance in the course of history where the rule was previously broken. 

That's how rules and laws work. As soon as someone breaks it once, it's not applicable. 

That is just one of many secret judo moves that must be perfected before one can become a true master of the art of both sides

[elfenix 34,331]

39 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The Russians interfered in the 2016 election in an effort to get Donald Trump elected president. The Russians were in contact with the Trump campaign prior to the 2016 election.

That happened.

no shit.  the russians made in kind campaign contributions to the trump campaign at the request or suggestion of the trump campaign (and, even trump himself).  that's illegal.  there's no requirement that an agreement or formal collaboration is needed.*  it's really that simple but people can't wrap their minds around it.  probably because it's so simple.  it's like the people who just can't for the life of them figure out that the government is so incompetent that 9/11 happened, and instead go looking for complex conspiracies. 

 

 

 

*which is why campaign coordination differs from conspiracy. 

Edited May 19, 2020 by elfenix

[jimmyjazz 46,012]

21 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

In Mueller's actual words:

Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.

You know as well as anyone that Mueller's conclusions were not particularly self-consistent.  Harping on one aspect of the report without acknowledging others reveals your true motives.

 

"As set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so," Mueller said. "We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime."

 

Furthermore, there is a solid evidence base that Trump and his family courted Russian interference, interference that we know happened.  Your obfuscation continues to reveal your true motives. 

[David Dennison 18,943]

30 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.

He also went out of his way to point out that that doesn't mean there was no evidence of collusion or wrongdoing.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,881]

glad I checked back in on this thread. I am so much better informed and enlightened than I was before....

[Anastasis 23,481]

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

You know as well as anyone that Mueller's conclusions were not particularly self-consistent.  Harping on one aspect of the report without acknowledging others reveals your true motives.

 

"As set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so," Mueller said. "We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime."

 

Furthermore, there is a solid evidence base that Trump and his family courted Russian interference, interference that we know happened.  Your obfuscation continues to reveal your true motives. 

That was a statement in reference to the obstruction case investigation, right?  I've agreed from first reading that Trump committed obstruction.  Try not to be such a hack. 

Edited May 19, 2020 by Anastasis

[notre dame joe 191]

21 minutes ago, elfenix said:

  the russians made in kind campaign contributions to the trump campaign at the request or suggestion of the trump campaign (and, even trump himself).  that's illegal

Somehow your theory has escaped the notice of even the tallest tales of the deep state.

[jimmyjazz 46,012]

 

8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

That was a statement in reference to the obstruction case investigation, right?  I've agreed from first reading that Trump committed obstruction.  Try not to be such a hack. 

I've always assumed he was referring to any crime, but I'd have to go back and watch his statement to be sure.  He clearly did not feel a sitting President could be charged, as per DOJ policy.

Any thinking person, which apparently does not include you, would understand that public and private solicitation of Russia for dirt on a political opponent is beyond the pale.  

In your parlance, "not to be such a hack".

[elfenix 34,331]

9 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

Somehow your theory has escaped the notice of even the tallest tales of the deep state.

how can it escape the notice of something that doesn't exist. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

This is just one never ending cover-up at this point. 

[Anastasis 23,481]

59 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I've always assumed he was referring to any crime, but I'd have to go back and watch his statement to be sure.  He clearly did not feel a sitting President could be charged, as per DOJ policy.

Any thinking person, which apparently does not include you, would understand that public and private solicitation of Russia for dirt on a political opponent is beyond the pale.  

In your parlance, "not to be such a hack".

So let me get this right.  You dropped in on the thread to call me out for failing to appreciate the full context of the Mueller report without even taking one second to figure out the context of the quote you dropped.  Jesus.  You are even lower than a hack. The context is clearly related to vol II obstruction. You seem to really struggle with this. 

Here is the context:

The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy. And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the president.

The order appointing me special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation, and we conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of the progress of our work, and as set forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.

We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. The introduction to the volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited.

[wildcat09 29,362]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

He also went out of his way to point out that that doesn't mean there was no evidence of collusion or wrongdoing.

His report did the formal lawyer version of shouting "IT SURE FUCKING LOOKS LIKE HE COLLUDED BUT HIS OBSTRUCTION KEPT US FROM OBTAINING THE EVIDENCE NECESSARY TO PROVE IT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT!"

 

[Anastasis 23,481]

8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

His report did the formal lawyer version of shouting "IT SURE FUCKING LOOKS LIKE HE COLLUDED BUT HIS OBSTRUCTION KEPT US FROM OBTAINING THE EVIDENCE NECESSARY TO PROVE IT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT!"

 

What's the formal lawyer version of "Man, we sure did completely ignore all of these other issues related to the intersection of politics, influence and manipulation,  and disinformation from Russians."? Does it rhyme with "beyond my purview?" 

[jimmyjazz 46,012]

47 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

So let me get this right.  You dropped in on the thread to call me out for failing to appreciate the full context of the Mueller report without even taking one second to figure out the context of the quote you dropped. 

Nah.  I dropped in to remind you that you're an unAmerican morally bankrupt piece of shit.

'Mission accomplished.

[Anastasis 23,481]

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Nah.  I dropped in to remind you that you're an unAmerican morally bankrupt piece of shit.

'Mission accomplished.

See how this works @bolverk.

 

 

[Anastasis 23,481]

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Nah.  I dropped in to remind you that you're an unAmerican morally bankrupt piece of shit.

'Mission accomplished.

Sad! I wish I could say that I expected more from you, but I dismissed that delusion long ago. 

[jimmyjazz 46,012]

8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

See how this works @bolverk.

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Sad! I wish I could say that I expected more from you, but I dismissed that delusion long ago. 

 

Ah.  The double response.  Is that what the cool kids call "rent free"?

[Anastasis 23,481]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Ah.  The double response.  Is that what the cool kids call "rent free"?

Project more. 

[jimmyjazz 46,012]

Oh my.  You're running out of arrows in your quiver.

[Anastasis 23,481]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Oh my.  You're running out of arrows in your quiver.

Your lack of substance is only exceeded by your repetitiveness. 

[elfenix 34,331]

34 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

What's the formal lawyer version of "Man, we sure did completely ignore all of these other issues related to the intersection of politics, influence and manipulation,  and disinformation from Russians."? Does it rhyme with "beyond my purview?" 

he narrowed his purview from what he was actually given by only looking for conspiracy. 

[Anastasis 23,481]

7 minutes ago, elfenix said:

he narrowed his purview from what he was actually given by only looking for conspiracy. 

Convenient I guess. Although that is first I recall seeing of a SCO scope narrowing to focus only on trump conspiracy but none of the actions originating from the Clinton campaign. Would be interested in the documentation around that. 

Edited May 20, 2020 by Anastasis

[jimmyjazz 46,012]

9 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Your lack of substance is only exceeded by your repetitiveness. 

Says the man who accuses others of "projection" on a fairly routine basis.  Self-reflect much?

[Anastasis 23,481]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Says the man who accuses others of "projection" on a fairly routine basis.  Self-reflect much?

This is already an overextended exchange originated from your simple inability to contextualize the quote you provided while charging me with a lack of contextualization. 

Do we really need to keep carrying on this particular sub-thread, or are you ready to disengage from your nonsense?  

I mean, I am more than happy to let you continue on with embarrassing yourself. 

[jimmyjazz 46,012]

On the off chance you actually have an interest in discussing something pertinent, do you consider the Mueller report to be 100% self-consistent?

Edited May 20, 2020 by jimmyjazz
speling

[Enchubben 5,510]

4 hours ago, sheeeit said:

I am going to just assume you (and many, many others posting about this) are unaware of the actual facts instead of just being either willfully obtuse or just really stupid.  Because everything you posted above is false.

There is SO much disinformation regarding Flynn that it is hard to even get started.  And I could not care less about flynn but it just pisses me off when people blatantly lie about stuff.  It also pisses me off that I bet a lot of this information will be new to most of the people that post here.  It is all public knowledge.

Well thought out, organized and reasonable post based on publicly available information and facts that doesn’t result in orange man bad?

You won’t last a week here. 

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

13 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Convenient I guess. Although that is first I recall seeing of a SCO scope narrowing to focus only on trump conspiracy but none of the actions originating from the Clinton campaign. Would be interested in the documentation around that. 

You are having a hard time with the situation because both sides aren't the same.  Hillary's campaign didn't request help from a foreign advisory, didn't work with that advisary, and then when elected, didn't obstruct the investigation into those activities.

Edited May 20, 2020 by GW Hayduke

[notre dame joe 191]

53 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

What's the formal lawyer version of "Man, we sure did completely ignore all of these other issues related to the intersection of politics, influence and manipulation,  and disinformation from Russians."? Does it rhyme with "beyond my purview?" 

prosecutorial discretion

 

When they indubitably disregard the rules it becomes a good faith mistake.

[Anastasis 23,481]

7 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

You are having a hard time with the situation because both sides aren't the same.  Hillary's campaign didn't request help from a foreign advisory, didn't work with that advisary, and then when elected, didn't obstruct the investigation into those activities.

They engaged a individual versed in foreign espionage to collect disinformation from Russians, leveraged the connections to the FBI and journalists to influence the conduct of an FBI investigation and a media influence campaign. They used that network to seed crazy conspiracy theories that still rot the brains of certain posters here, and influenced public opinion broadly. This really isn't that hard, and it is hard to fathom why some of your otherwise intelligent individuals struggle so hard with this. Team sports. 

[Anastasis 23,481]

12 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

On the off chance you actually have an interest in discussing something pertinent, do you consider the Mueller report to be 100% self-consistent?

LOL. The Mueller report is a shit show of inconsistency. Please pay attention. 

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

They engaged a individual versed in foreign espionage to collect disinformation from Russians, leveraged the connections to the FBI and journalists to influence the conduct of an FBI investigation and a media influence campaign. They used that network to seed crazy conspiracy theories that still rot the brains of certain posters here, and influenced public opinion broadly. This really isn't that hard, and it is hard to fathom why some of your otherwise intelligent individuals struggle so hard with this. Team sports. 

This is some literally crazy trumpkin shit.  You have brought nothing but dishonor on yourself in this life and the next. 

My advise it to stop following Trump's twitter feed and turn off Hannity. 

[wildcat09 29,362]

39 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Convenient I guess. Although that is first I recall seeing of a SCO scope narrowing to focus only on trump conspiracy but none of the actions originating from the Clinton campaign. Would be interested in the documentation around that. 

Why the fuck would a special counsel have been needed to investigate the Clinton campaign?

[Anastasis 23,481]

Just now, GW Hayduke said:

This is some literally crazy trumpkin shit.  You have brought nothing but dishonor on yourself in this life and the next. 

My advise it to stop following Trump's twitter feed and turn off Hannity. 

Once again. I can cite every single one of those claims with primary source material. My advice to you to is step away from twatter conspiracy theory and to actually dive into the primary source material, maybe engaging your brain somewhere in the process. 

[Anastasis 23,481]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

Why the fuck would a special counsel have been needed to investigate the Clinton campaign?

Maybe to trace down down the influence of the DNC and HRC campaign hiring a foreign spook to collect disinformation from russians, insert that disinformation into the FBI to influence their investigation activities, and seed crazy conspiracy theories intended to influence American politics? Are you serious?

[wildcat09 29,362]

Just now, Anastasis said:

Maybe to trace down down the influence of the DNC and HRC campaign hiring a foreign spook to collect disinformation from russians, insert that disinformation into the FBI to influence their investigation activities, and seed crazy conspiracy theories intended to influence American politics? Are you serious?

...man you've spent all this time on this and you don't even understand the purpose of a special counsel?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Bill Barr will get to the bottom of this for Anastasis.

[Anastasis 23,481]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

...man you've spent all this time on this and you don't even understand the purpose of a special counsel?

Clearly the purpose was not to understand the extent and breadth of political operations intersecting with Russian sources to influence the outcome of the 2016 election. 

[wildcat09 29,362]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Bill Barr will get to the bottom of this for Anastasis.

The fact that Bill Barr has never publicly pursued this is the clearest evidence that Anastasis has concocted a conspiracy theory that's based on less evidence than anything he's derided in this thread.

[TexArcher 37,999]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

His report did the formal lawyer version of shouting "IT SURE FUCKING LOOKS LIKE HE COLLUDED BUT HIS OBSTRUCTION KEPT US FROM OBTAINING THE EVIDENCE NECESSARY TO PROVE IT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT!"

 

But that's all they care about.

You can't prove it.

Same with the rapes.

I've never heard a single Republican try to argue that Donald Trump is a good man.

That's why all they have is, "Well look at what Obama did and look at what Hillary did."

They compare storing emails in the wrong place and using executive orders to get around an obstructionist Congress to rape and treason.  And that's the best defense they have.  It makes reasonable people throw their hands up in the air and walk away.  And that's good for them.  Anything to end the conversation before they have to actually try to defend the fact that they are supporting a bad man, and they know it.

[wildcat09 29,362]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Clearly the purpose was not to understand the extent and breadth of political operations intersecting with Russian sources to influence the outcome of the 2016 election. 

What was Mueller's mandate?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

“There’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump. Swear to God.”

-Current Republican House Leader circa July 15, 2016.  
 

Those crazy democrats and their conspiracies...

[Anastasis 23,481]

It's amazing a series of posters that have been consistently and demonstrably wrong on just about everything feel the need to chime in yet again when an opportunity presents to clown themselves.