The Robert Mueller Investigation

[TwiceHorn 30716]

8 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

You don’t think a criminal indictment from the federal government carries more weight than a public statement? “Are you retarded?”

To a credulous public perhaps.  I'd be inclined to think that they'd invest the same amount of "weight" in a report from Mueller, and be more likely to be aware of it and in particular to read the details, than a criminal indictment.

 

Edited July 13, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Steamboat1874 4008]

Meanwhile Fox debuts their new reporter who is live on the scene................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TwiceHorn 30716]

43 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

This.

He might as well indict Sasquatch and The Tooth Fairy.  Does anyone believe that VIKTOR BORISKOVICH NETYKSHO is actually someones real identity that could ever be found.

This is not what I mean, for the record.  Granted, to someone knowledgeable, an indictment may be levied against a ham sandwich, and is completely subject to subsequent proof.  I assume that the indictments are filed in good faith, and supported by evidence that would support a conviction, if they ever got that far.

But press release or progress reportage by indictment is strangely dissatisfying to me.  And to Biff, if you prefer hearing the same message from someone more reliably on your team.

Edited July 13, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[zork 629]

1 minute ago, VRHorn said:

Oh boy, the "just asking questions" brigade is out in full force this afternoon.

Sorry to be a layperson who uses this forum to gain greater knowledge to generally high level legalese.  

 

1 minute ago, Mojo Hand said:

It means that no Americans are accused of a crime in today's indictment, and does not address one way or the other whether Americans will be at another time in the future. 

That is the way I interpreted it, on the fly, but was not sure given I was doing other things today with just skimming and not seeing it discussed here.  Thanks for your opinion.

[Lagunamadre 1975]

47 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Like Biff, I'm a little disappointed by the indictment.  It's great that it lays bare a Russian conspiracy to affect the election, but it's a total bummer that this particular indictment will go exactly nowhere.

Incidentally, the indicted Russians will be going exactly nowhere. I hope they didn't have any vacations planned. Also, it would be unfortunate if they have any international investments. 

[TornACL 7652]

5 minutes ago, Mr. Drummond said:

Both sides are reading into it what they want.   Rinse and repeat.

 

He said no american's did anything wrong, that means Trump is innocent !!!!- Rs

He said YET, i bet next time is really when he nails them - He just HAS to be guilty of something bad, i just know it.-  Ds

 

You have a child-like view of the world.

[ShaggyBevo RIP 3827]

51 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

The Congressional candidate was Nunes. 100%. 

Would explain his sudden ducking out of the Strzok charade yesterday instead of piling on.

[Incredulity 11141]

Just now, Lagunamadre said:

Incidentally, the indicted Russians will be going exactly nowhere. I hope they didn't have any vacations planned. Also, it would be unfortunate if they have any international investments. 

Those GRU hackers that are international business men on the side are truly fucked.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

1 minute ago, zork said:

Sorry to be a layperson who uses this forum to gain greater knowledge to generally high level legalese.  

 

That is the way I interpreted it, on the fly, but was not sure given I was doing other things today with just skimming and not seeing it discussed here.  Thanks for your opinion.

People like Kayleigh McInany and Rudy Giuliani should, and actually do, know better and are intentionally misleading you and other Americans.

[Francisco 2.0 31568]

 

 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

1 minute ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

I don't know... Sound to me like Mueller just got the DMs from Twitter.   What's there that Stone would have had to give to Mueller himself? 

[Pig Bellmont 8637]

2 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

I don't know... Sound to me like Mueller just got the DMs from Twitter.   What's there that Stone would have had to give to Mueller himself? 

Agree. My only caveat is that we know Mueller interviewed ppl who worked closely with Roger Stone - one of whom said he won’t go to jail for Roger. So someone close could be cooperative 

[TwiceHorn 30716]

1 minute ago, Mojo Hand said:

I don't know... Sound to me like Mueller just got the DMs from Twitter.   What's there that Stone would have had to give to Mueller himself? 

That was my first impression.  Kind of curious that the only quoted reply to Guccifer was "pretty standard."  Mueller sandbagging here?

Still one might imagine that Stone or whomever the person is could give more information than simply the DMs.  Like with whom did they discuss it and for what purpose and what happened next?

[Tuco 5003]

23 minutes ago, zork said:

I haven't read much about the revelations from Rosenstein's press party today but while scanning the posts on this thread today I saw no mention of the quote in the tweet above.  Is that quote significant, is it wrong?  Surely it is just one indictment of an avalanche to follow?

From the very start, the Russian government was identified as the culprit.  That was in the Washington Post article on June 14th 2016.  It's impossible to peer into the minds of Roger Stone or the Congressional candidate, but certainly they had to know it was a strong possibility they were communicating with Russian operatives.  So, yeah, plausible deniability was maintained.  You'll need to judge for yourself whether to believe people like Trump, who still, to this day, claim that he doesn't believe in was the Russian government.

[hayden_horn 11311]

28 minutes ago, zork said:

I haven't read much about the revelations from Rosenstein's press party today but while scanning the posts on this thread today I saw no mention of the quote in the tweet above.  Is that quote significant, is it wrong?  Surely it is just one indictment of an avalanche to follow?

who signs her paychecks? is it the rnc?

also, will she whore herself out physically as enthusiastically as she's done here? asking for myself.

[zork 629]

8 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

who signs her paychecks? is it the rnc?

also, will she whore herself out physically as enthusiastically as she's done here? asking for myself.

If you will notice, I used the tweet to point out the quote within it and asked a question about that specific part.  She is harvard law with nice titties so there is that, as well.

 

edit: she worked for cnn and then moved to fox if I read it right while looking for some images of her tits.

Edited July 13, 2018 by zork

[Mojo Hand 4580]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That was my first impression.  Kind of curious that the only quoted reply to Guccifer was "pretty standard."  Mueller sandbagging here?

Still one might imagine that Stone or whomever the person is could give more information than simply the DMs.  Like with whom did they discuss it and for what purpose and what happened next?

The interesting thing about that "pretty standard" quote, to me, is that it was in response to a question about voter turnout models.  If there was egregious collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, as opposed to collusion in the form of tacit approval (which would still be bad), I think the most likely scenario would be the Trump campaign helping Russia target its efforts at states or voting districts where it would do the most damage to the Clinton campaign.   While we're a long way from proving this from evidence that is public, voter turnout models would certainly fit that bill. 

Edited July 13, 2018 by Mojo Hand

[Lagunamadre 1975]

6 minutes ago, zork said:

If you will notice, I used the tweet to point out the quote within it and asked a question about that specific part.  She is harvard law with nice titties so there is that, as well.

For my own research into this Russian investigation, do you mind supplying evidence for this assertion?  

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

1 hour ago, Mapache said:

The collusion has been right out front the whole time. It was already under way and he knew it!

He told the nation he was willing to collude. It REALLY IS JUST THAT FUCKING SIMPLE. 

[Chad Fuck 17259]

Just now, Lagunamadre said:

For my own research into this Russian investigation, do you mind supplying evidence for this assertion?  

Seconded.  We're known for our citations around here, not just making blind assumptions.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33695]

30 minutes ago, VRHorn said:

Oh boy, the "just asking questions" brigade is out in full force this afternoon.

no shit. seem to be a lot of low-count posters too. sperm count, that is. but also posts.

[CO Horn 151]

1 minute ago, Chad Fuck said:

Seconded.  We're known for our citations around here, not just making blind assumptions.

McEnany carries a mutated BRCA2 gene.^[22] In 2016, conservative radio host Dana Loesch caused a small controversy by mocking McEnany's "flat-chested" and "bleach blonde" appearance, not knowing about her BRCA2 mutation that factored into her decision to undergo a double mastectomy .^[23]

[TwiceHorn 30716]

17 minutes ago, Tuco said:

From the very start, the Russian government was identified as the culprit.  That was in the Washington Post article on June 14th 2016.  It's impossible to peer into the minds of Roger Stone or the Congressional candidate, but certainly they had to know it was a strong possibility they were communicating with Russian operatives.  So, yeah, plausible deniability was maintained.  You'll need to judge for yourself whether to believe people like Trump, who still, to this day, claim that he doesn't believe in was the Russian government.

Related to this, from a strategeric point of view.  This indictment seems to be crafted (or maybe it's only what the evidence shows) to support Rosenstein's comments that "no Americans were involved."  What's the end game with that? 

On the one hand, you have people insisting that these indictments show a tightening of the noose around the necks of the guilty, on the other you have Rosenstein emphasizing that no Americans were involved.  Are we lulling them into complacency or letting them know they're fucked?

Edited July 13, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[retread 2951]

3 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

He told the nation he was willing to collude. It REALLY IS JUST THAT FUCKING SIMPLE. 

It's disheartening to know that, even with that knowledge, 35-40% of Americans will believe him when he says he's gonna give Putin a good talking to next week.

[Chad Fuck 17259]

1 minute ago, CO Horn said:

McEnany carries a mutated BRCA2 gene.^[22] In 2016, conservative radio host Dana Loesch caused a small controversy by mocking McEnany's "flat-chested" and "bleach blonde" appearance, not knowing about her BRCA2 mutation that factored into her decision to undergo a double mastectomy .^[23]

This is not what I expected.

[Tuco 5003]

I haven't read Rosenstein's comments about no Americans being involved.

[zork 629]

7 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

For my own research into this Russian investigation, do you mind supplying evidence for this assertion?  

buzzkill lite: It turns out she had some form of breast cancer, but did have implants as a result.  They aren't as big as I imagined but with her figure they stand out quite well.(from a purely visual female as art perspective, not diminishing her harvard law cred one nth of a degree)(looks like CO Horn beat me to the breast cancer part)

 

when she was with cnn:

more puppy pictures:

Edited July 13, 2018 by zork

[JimmyJames 12267]

I’m starting to actually think this Incredulity guy might be a troll. 

[hayden_horn 11311]

2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

I’m starting to actually think this Incredulity guy might be a troll. 

starting?

[Chad Fuck 17259]

Miracles of modern medicine.  That's more like it.

 

[TwiceHorn 30716]

9 minutes ago, Tuco said:

I haven't read Rosenstein's comments about no Americans being involved.

I was referring to the quotations in her tweet.  I assume those are accurate quotes, despite her Trumpy-ness.  And they are reported elsewhere as accurate, e.g. Time and Vox.

Edited July 13, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Message Board User 12382]

Mueller is one of the only individuals in DC who is doing his job with any kind of dignity and integrity.

[Lagunamadre 1975]

1 minute ago, Message Board User said:

Mueller is one of the only individuals in DC who is doing his job with any kind of dignity and integrity.

Got to respect Mueller in this deal, if he comes out and gives a conference on his ultimate findings it will be the first time most Americans hear his voice. 

[TwiceHorn 30716]

Just now, Lagunamadre said:

Got to respect Mueller in this deal, if he comes out and gives a conference on his ultimate findings it will be the first time most Americans hear his voice. 

I wonder if he ever will?  I could see him just issuing a report.  Did Starr mount the bully pulpit any?  I don't remember.

[shnsajax 3589]

47 minutes ago, Steamboat1874 said:

Meanwhile Fox debuts their new reporter who is live on the scene............

I'm actually shocked foxnews.com is actually covering this on the front page.

[Lagunamadre 1975]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I wonder if he ever will?  I could see him just issuing a report.  Did Starr mount the bully pulpit any?  I don't remember.

I could see Rosenstein doing it if he hasn't been fired yet. I was in middle school during the Starr investigation, so I was too busy busting sweet tricks on my rollerblades to pay attention. Good question though. 

[BurntOrange&White 38710]

If that's true and that's what today is about, I honestly don't give a fuck.  We know Russia fucked with us.  Indicting them doesn't make a shit.  It's not like they are going to be extradited.  Start fucking indicting the American players.  We can actually do something about that.

Do you not understand that these indictments are part of a much larger case being built, right?

[Biff Tannen 44921]

Yes, I'm just impatient.

[TornACL 7652]

16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I was referring to the quotations in her tweet.  I assume those are accurate quotes, despite her Trumpy-ness.  And they are reported elsewhere as accurate, e.g. Time and Vox.

Here's an idea. Why don't you read the actual Rosenstein statement, which is plastered all over the place. And is available right here. On the DOJ's own website.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/deputy-attorney-general-rod-j-rosenstein-delivers-remarks-announcing-indictment-twelve

 

[VRHorn 718]

Yeah, but if you're trying to link Guccifer 2.0 to Stone to Trump team, it's helpful to lay out that Guccifer 2.0 is a state actor first.

[Huckleberry 32144]

1 minute ago, TornACL said:

Here's an idea. Why don't you read the actual Rosenstein statement, which is plastered all over the place. And is available right here. On the DOJ's own website.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/deputy-attorney-general-rod-j-rosenstein-delivers-remarks-announcing-indictment-twelve

 

Yeah, just finished reading that. For some reason the tweet above didn't include the very next paragraph after the statement about this indictment not alleging any crimes by any American.

"The Special Counsel's investigation is ongoing. There will be no comments from the Special Counsel at this time."

I guess her internet cut out before that part loaded.

[zork 629]

That is why we ask questions.  Thanks for the clarification Huck.

[VRHorn 718]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

Yeah, just finished reading that. For some reason the tweet above didn't include the very next paragraph after the statement about this indictment not alleging any crimes by any American.

"The Special Counsel's investigation is ongoing. There will be no comments from the Special Counsel at this time."

I guess her internet cut out before that part loaded.

Was she on Swam's boat?

[Gengs1 2583]

The more I learn about cases like this the more you go, don’t get a federal case under any circumstances 

[TornACL 7652]

It's just god damn mindblowing in this day and age that we sit around parsing the second hand quote of a statement written by some mouthpiece tv bimbo, when the god damn fucking original source is just as easy to find and read.

[TwiceHorn 30716]

2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Yeah, just finished reading that. For some reason the tweet above didn't include the very next paragraph after the statement about this indictment not alleging any crimes by any American.

"The Special Counsel's investigation is ongoing. There will be no comments from the Special Counsel at this time."

I guess her internet cut out before that part loaded.

Even with that caveat, I find it interesting that Rosenstein made those remarks, and have to figure that the indictment was crafted to permit him to do so.  Or maybe it just didn't so that's what he said.  Occam and all.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

11 minutes ago, shnsajax said:

I'm actually shocked foxnews.com is actually covering this on the front page.

Which is perhaps a good reason to indict the Russians first.   You're establishing the central crime.   If Trump people are next, the only question will be their involvement with the established crime. 

[TwiceHorn 30716]

7 minutes ago, TornACL said:

Here's an idea. Why don't you read the actual Rosenstein statement, which is plastered all over the place. And is available right here. On the DOJ's own website.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/deputy-attorney-general-rod-j-rosenstein-delivers-remarks-announcing-indictment-twelve

 

What difference does it make?  My question about it still stands.

[Tuco 5003]

27 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I was referring to the quotations in her tweet.  I assume those are accurate quotes, despite her Trumpy-ness.  And they are reported elsewhere as accurate, e.g. Time and Vox.

The portion of his statement:

Quote

In addition to releasing documents directly to the public, the defendants transferred stolen documents to another organization that is not identified by name in the indictment, and they used that organization as a pass through to release the documents. They discussed the timing of the release in an attempt to enhance the impact on the election. In an effort to conceal their connections to Russia, the defendants used a network of computers around the world, and they paid for it using cryptocurrencies. The conspirators corresponded with several Americans during the course of the conspiracy through the internet. There’s no allegation in this indictment that the Americans knew they were corresponding with Russian intelligence officers.

So, I think he makes a statements (...corresponded with several Americans..) and then immediately qualifies it so the audience doesn't freak out.  I wouldn't say he stated that "no Americans were involved" just trying to make it clear that this indictment deals with charges against Russians. 

Edit: keep in mind, the audience hasn't read the indictment yet when Rosenstein is talking. 

Edited July 13, 2018 by Tuco

[zork 629]

1 minute ago, TornACL said:

It's just god damn mindblowing in this day and age that we sit around parsing the second hand quote of a statement written by some mouthpiece tv bimbo, when the god damn fucking original source is just as easy to find and read.

harvard law mouthpiece tv bimbo with big fake titties to you, sir.