The Robert Mueller Investigation

[TornACL 7722]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

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

For starters, the difference is that you wouldn't be consistently misrepresenting the statement.

[HenryJames 66160]

10 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

I was in middle school during the Starr investigation, so I was too busy busting sweet tricks on my rollerblades to pay attention. 

The hardest part of rollerblading is telling your parents that you're gay.

[GSU&UT 1798]

2 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

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. 

Most experts in law and security seem to think it would be terribly stupid to name any Americans right now for fear of causing them to flee or worse (not sure if this is what you're specifically getting at). Mueller has also filed several sealed indictments and is in no way finished with this, I don't get why people are acting as if no Americans will ever be charged in relation to these hackings.

[TwiceHorn 31529]

2 minutes ago, Tuco said:

The portion of his statement:

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. 

But see my original question.  Did he say that because it's generally true of the indictment, or was the indictment drafted so he could say it?  And if the latter, to what end?

[TornACL 7722]

Just now, GSU&UT said:

Most experts in law and security seem to think it would be terribly stupid to name any Americans right now for fear of causing them to flee or worse (not sure if this is what you're specifically getting at). Mueller has also filed several sealed indictments and is in no way finished with this, I don't get why people are acting as if no Americans will ever be charged in relation to these hackings.

It's called wishful thinking or being willfully obtuse.

[TwiceHorn 31529]

2 minutes ago, TornACL said:

For starters, the difference is that you wouldn't be consistently misrepresenting the statement.

Im not misrepresenting shit, friendo. Read my fucking questions about it.  It's rather a subtle question, perhaps it escaped you.

[Tuco 5077]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

But see my original question.  Did he say that because it's generally true of the indictment, or was the indictment drafted so he could say it?  And if the latter, to what end?

I think he is making it clear that no Americans are getting arrested today.  I'm sure there were people in the audience who were expecting a perp walk.  Whether Mueller has enough to indict Stone or Congressman candidate is not stated nor implied.

[jimmyjazz 46099]

[jimmyjazz 46099]

Jesus C on a cracker that's big.  (That's what he said.)

[TwiceHorn 31529]

9 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Most experts in law and security seem to think it would be terribly stupid to name any Americans right now for fear of causing them to flee or worse (not sure if this is what you're specifically getting at). Mueller has also filed several sealed indictments and is in no way finished with this, I don't get why people are acting as if no Americans will ever be charged in relation to these hackings.

I don't  disagree with the premise that they might flee or destroy evidence or something.  But if the evidence is there to indict and convict Americans, why sniff around them in an indictment against Russians.  I'm not saying there is or isn't, I'm just asking the strategic question.

And a sealed indictment would support an arrest warrant and arrest (that's most often why they're sealed).

So Mr. "Pretty Standard" is now tipped off, if not cooperating, and so is Org1/Wikileaks, and now also the Congressman (presumably he knows who he is).  So I am just curious about the strategery.

Edited July 13, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Lagunamadre 1975]

4 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

The hardest part of rollerblading is telling your parents that you're gay.

That probably would have been easier than asking my dad to buy me a pair of Jncos. Being a white kid in a public middle school in Corpus Christi was difficult, you really needed baggy jeans and lucas mexican salt to fit in. 

[TornACL 7722]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Im not misrepresenting shit, friendo. Read my fucking questions about it.  It's rather a subtle question, perhaps it escaped you.

You can obfuscate all you want, but your original question is built on an incorrect premise that misrepresented his statement. Words matter.

Quote

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?

When you posted the above, I provided you the actual direct source of the statements so that you could plainly see that Rosenstein never issued a broad and sweeping statement that "no Americans were involved". Your question was based on the blonde-o's purposefully inaccurate tweet summary. I suggested that you go to the source to have your answers.

You asked what's the difference. If you don't understand the difference, what's the point of providing you answers? You won't understand them anyway.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13587]

 

I'm a dentist and can read facial expressions. We need some pics of Nunes from today to gauge his Super Nervous Beaver Level.

[Huckleberry 33073]

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

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.

Occam's Razor actually says that Rosenstein and others involved with the investigation are doing their best to directly address the American people with facts at every turn when doing so will not hurt the investigation. Also that they're tired of all the stupid bullshit being flung about the investigation. And that is also supported by his actual statements:

(Not using the jacked up quote function):

"The indictment was returned today because prosecutors determined that the evidence was sufficient to present these allegations to a federal grand jury. Our analysis is based on the facts, the law, and Department of Justice policies.

...

In my remarks, I have not identified the victims. When we confront foreign interference in American elections, it is important for us to avoid thinking politically as Republicans or Democrats and instead to think patriotically as Americans. Our response must not depend on who was victimized.

...

The partisan warfare fueled by modern technology does not fairly reflect the grace and dignity of the American people.

The blame for election interference belongs to the criminals who committed election interference. We need to work together to hold the perpetrators accountable, and keep moving forward to preserve our values, protect against future interference, and defend America."

Edited July 13, 2018 by Huckleberry

[Tuco 5077]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't  disagree with the premise that they might flee or destroy evidence or something.  But if the evidence is there to indict and convict Americans, why sniff around them in an indictment against Russians.  I'm not saying there is or isn't, I'm just asking the strategic question.

Because the President has the power to pardon and to fire Mueller.  That wouldn't be the end of it, but it would certainly complicate matters. I don't think Mueller wants to show his hand until he can say "gin."

[GSU&UT 1798]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't  disagree with the premise that they might flee or destroy evidence or something.  But if the evidence is there to indict and convict Americans, why sniff around them in an indictment against Russians.  I'm not saying there is or isn't, I'm just asking the strategic question.

Given that Mueller has rolled out things at various times, my assumption that this is in no way finished and would be foolish to think Americans aren't getting charged to this at some point. Several have in fact already been charged and we know Mueller isn't finished obviously.

[SaucyJack 3500]

26 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

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. 

[Pods 7586]

 

[Tuco 5077]

A couple of items to note, as they fit in with previous information:

- The Russians launched DCLeaks the day before the Trump Tower meeting.

- Previously Wikileaks had claimed they received the data from someone meeting with someone in the US and being given a flash drive.  The indictments indicate Wikileaks was given a key to download the data from a server.  (I'll need to go back and check to make sure that wasn't a different chunk of data.)  

 

Edited July 13, 2018 by Tuco

[Jograves 357]

If there aren't any Americans charged, we're going to look even more stupid(er). Instead of some evil assholes working with a foreign government to steal an election, a bunch of gullible idiots won the fucking thing. 

[Chad Fuck 17743]

1 minute ago, Jograves said:

If there aren't any Americans charged, we're going to look even more stupid(er). Instead of some evil assholes working with a foreign government to steal an election, a bunch of gullible idiots won the fucking thing. 

This is squarely within the realm of possibility.  

[Gengs1 2583]

These indictments are probably done to get the rats panicking and start communications to get more people involved. 

[Tuco 5077]

2 minutes ago, Jograves said:

If there aren't any Americans charged, we're going to look even more stupid(er). Instead of some evil assholes working with a foreign government to steal an election, a bunch of gullible idiots won the fucking thing. 

Why not both?

[Pods 7586]

Roger Stone is clearly going to get charged, if he hasn't flipped. Mueller is keeping his powder dry and watching the sinking ship to see which way the rats jump off. 

[wildcat09 29376]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't  disagree with the premise that they might flee or destroy evidence or something.  But if the evidence is there to indict and convict Americans, why sniff around them in an indictment against Russians.  I'm not saying there is or isn't, I'm just asking the strategic question.

And a sealed indictment would support an arrest warrant and arrest (that's most often why they're sealed).

So Mr. "Pretty Standard" is now tipped off, if not cooperating, and so is Org1/Wikileaks, and now also the Congressman (presumably he knows who he is).  So I am just curious about the strategery.

It's probably intended to scare the unidentified Americans into flipping.

[zork 629]

4 minutes ago, Jograves said:

If there aren't any Americans charged, we're going to look even more stupid(er). Instead of some evil assholes working with a foreign government to steal an election, a bunch of gullible idiots won the fucking thing. 

while spending about half of what the other side spent.(give or take a few percentage points)

[Lagunamadre 1975]

5 minutes ago, Jograves said:

If there aren't any Americans charged, we're going to look even more stupid(er). Instead of some evil assholes working with a foreign government to steal an election, a bunch of gullible idiots won the fucking thing. 

I think this is the most likely scenario. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing. 

[Anastasis 23481]

Does anyone want to give me a line on the Congressional candidate who approached Guccifer on Aug 15 2016 (paragraph 43a) being from Florida, and separately, being a Democrat. Cause I would probably bet the parlay and the Florida line. The lobbyist in 43b is a Florida Republican lobbyist who writes under the name Mark Miewurd.  The debate being discussed in the article below, related to deployment of the DCCC materials during a democratic party primary debate, took place on Monday Aug 15 2016.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article95966337.html

Quote

During the debate itself, Garcia and Taddeo, whose tone has gotten increasingly combative on the campaign trail, did not hold back. The one-time friends and former political allies are competing in the Aug. 30 primary to challenge incumbent Republican Rep. Carlos Curbelo, who represents the Westchester-to-Key West 26th congressional district.

“The reality is that people know my character,” Garcia said during the debate, “and they know my service.”

Garcia, considered the leading primary contender, portrayed Taddeo as a Democratic Party patsy and serial failed candidate who sought his endorsement as recently as December — and then agreed to run a positive race against him once he announced his candidacy. He accused her of instead resorting to a “dirty” campaign using “Trump tactics,” referring to Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

He also held up a thick folder representing the 76-page opposition-research book her campaign wrote on him — a document released online just hours before the debate by an anonymous hacker who obtained records from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Other party documents also cast Garcia — and, in one case, Taddeo — in a negative light.

Edited July 13, 2018 by Anastasis

[TwiceHorn 31529]

20 minutes ago, TornACL said:

You can obfuscate all you want, but your original question is built on an incorrect premise that misrepresented his statement. Words matter.

When you posted the above, I provided you the actual direct source of the statements so that you could plainly see that Rosenstein never issued a broad and sweeping statement that "no Americans were involved". Your question was based on the blonde-o's purposefully inaccurate tweet summary. I suggested that you go to the source to have your answers.

You asked what's the difference. If you don't understand the difference, what's the point of providing you answers? You won't understand them anyway.

 

My question has nothing to do with the precise wording of Rosenstein's comments, just the fact that he took pains to emphasize that

 

Quote

The conspirators corresponded with several Americans through the internet. There is no allegation in the indictment that the Americans knew they were communicating with Russian intelligence officers.

and

Quote

There is no allegation in this indictment that any American citizen committed a crime. There is no allegation that the conspiracy altered the vote count or changed any election result.

So, my question stands.  Was the indictment drafted so he could say that?  Or is he simply stating a truism about the indictment?  And here I'm differentiating between indicted defendants and "unindicted co-conspirators" or others whose conduct is described in the indictment.

 

You fucking people are so anxious to attribute something to someone when there's nothing there.

Edited July 13, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Gil Bang 25999]

2 hours ago, retread said:

Sens. Schiff and Warner calling for the cancellation of the Russia meeting. 

Not to pick nits, but Schiff's not a Senator

1 hour ago, qwertyu1234 said:

This investigation is taking forever. What's the endgame here?

You're an idiot.  As SC investigations go, it's moving fast

1 hour 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.

She works for the RNC.

1 hour 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.

 

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

See above. 

[SaucyJack 3500]

This is just a stop along the way until the shoe falls on Americans involved.

[Bruh Man 3160]

2 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Let's play a game called "How transparent is Incredulity"?

In Act I, he just asks a question on if Voter ID laws would help:

Then multiple point out how stupid that question is for the obvious reason.

 

Incredulity completely ignores his leading question being destroyed by logic and starts calling out EVIL LIBERALS.

Then Incredulity later posts that we can't do anything about election integrity because THE EVIL LIBERALS will start calling names. Despite the fact that, you know, he was the one who started calling names.

In short, he's very transparent.

these are the people we're supposed to be civil with. a party of cucks and trolls.

[Dolemite 143]

19 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Occam's Razor actually says that Rosenstein and others involved with the investigation are doing their best to directly address the American people with facts at every turn when doing so will not hurt the investigation. Also that they're tired of all the stupid bullshit being flung about the investigation. And that is also supported by his actual statements:

(Not using the jacked up quote function):

"The indictment was returned today because prosecutors determined that the evidence was sufficient to present these allegations to a federal grand jury. Our analysis is based on the facts, the law, and Department of Justice policies.

...

In my remarks, I have not identified the victims. When we confront foreign interference in American elections, it is important for us to avoid thinking politically as Republicans or Democrats and instead to think patriotically as Americans. Our response must not depend on who was victimized.

...

The partisan warfare fueled by modern technology does not fairly reflect the grace and dignity of the American people.

The blame for election interference belongs to the criminals who committed election interference. We need to work together to hold the perpetrators accountable, and keep moving forward to preserve our values, protect against future interference, and defend America."

Occam's Razor says that there is nothing to this with the only objective being to delay any investigation into Crooked Hillary until after the next presidential election.

[yaqdum 182]

18 minutes ago, Tuco said:

I don't think Mueller wants to show his hand until he can say "gin."

right.  mueller and gang won't show broadsides until they are for sure in range.

[Francisco 2.0 32416]

 

[Huckleberry 33073]

Occam's Razor says that there is nothing to this with the only objective being to delay any investigation into Crooked Hillary until after the next presidential election.

No, that's not what Occam's Razor says. That's what rubes from Alabama who believe 9/11 was an inside job say.

[Brisketexan 105275]

No, that's not what Occam's Razor says. That's what rubes from Alabama who believe 9/11 was an inside job say.

If that’s what his occam’s razor says, he must cut himself shaving. A lot.

[Hornius Emeritus 12482]

3 hours ago, VRHorn said:

12 Russian hackers for hacking the DNC/Hillary. GRU folks, it appears.

Pure nothingburger 

 

I like my nothingburgers with special subpeona sauce.

[sidis 9832]

6 minutes ago, Dolemite said:

Occam's Razor says that there is nothing to this with the only objective being to delay any investigation into Crooked Hillary until after the next presidential election.

here come the chemtrails!

[TwiceHorn 31529]

30 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Because the President has the power to pardon and to fire Mueller.  That wouldn't be the end of it, but it would certainly complicate matters. I don't think Mueller wants to show his hand until he can say "gin."

 

29 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Given that Mueller has rolled out things at various times, my assumption that this is in no way finished and would be foolish to think Americans aren't getting charged to this at some point. Several have in fact already been charged and we know Mueller isn't finished obviously.

 

21 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It's probably intended to scare the unidentified Americans into flipping.

 

22 minutes ago, Gengs1 said:

These indictments are probably done to get the rats panicking and start communications to get more people involved. 

Thank you.  These are the things I was driving at. One the one hand, "pretty standard," Org1, and Congressman are all clearly within Mueller's sights.  Perhaps Rosenstein's comments were geared in part to quell their rising panic.  Or, take the paranoid view and pretty standard and the congressmen are on their way to the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

3-D chess.

Edited July 13, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[hayden_horn 11365]

that's the dude that claimed the government has an antigravity machine, and has for some time.

[VRHorn 718]

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

that's the dude that claimed the government has an antigravity machine, and has for some time.

What, we're so innocent?

[TwiceHorn 31529]

3 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

that's the dude that claimed the government has an antigravity machine, and has for some time.

It doesnt?

Edited July 13, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Dolemite 143]

Please, stop embarrassing yourselves. So "smart" but so dumb.

 

 

 

[Tuco 5077]

13 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Does anyone want to give me a line on the Congressional candidate who approached Guccifer on Aug 15 2016 (paragraph 43a) being from Florida, and separately, being a Democrat. Cause I would probably bet the parlay and the Florida line. The lobbyist in 43b is a Florida Republican lobbyist who writes under the name Mark Miewurd.  The debate being discussed in the article below, related to deployment of the DCCC materials during a democratic party primary debate, took place on Monday Aug 15 2016.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article95966337.html

I'd say Florida is looking very likely. 

In the FL-26, we've got Garcia (D, who apparently eats his earwax), Taddeo (D), and Curbelo (R).  It's a district that went 56/40 for Clinton in 2016, so certainly Curbelo benefitted from a divided Dem base.  Even though Garcia appears to be a fucking idiot, I don't think he would release information that talked about him eating his earwax.  So, even odds.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Nothing is stopping an investigation into Crooked Hillary, save the absence of sufficient evidence of a crime.  Sessions could seek to indict her tomorrow. That he hasn't done so makes clear there is no case. And I've changed my mind on this — I thought otherwise when Comey cleared her.  But the Trump DOJ not even trying to lock her up speaks volumes. 

[Dolemite 143]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

It doesnt?

Don't take their weather balloons away.

[JBJ 3664]

The way to figure out the congressional candidate is to find all the candidates who were "hacked anonymously" during the campaign.

Edited July 13, 2018 by JBJ

[Anastasis 23481]

1 minute ago, Tuco said:

I'd say Florida is looking very likely. 

In the FL-26, we've got Garcia (D, who apparently eats his earwax), Taddeo (D), and Curbelo (R).  It's a district that went 56/40 for Clinton in 2016, so certainly Curbelo benefitted from a divided Dem base.  Even though Garcia appears to be a fucking idiot, I don't think he would release information that talked about him eating his earwax.  So, even odds.

Yep, I'd use the FL bet to cover the risk on the parlay. Given the timing of the request with the debate and deployment of the material, I would wager heavy on Garcia.  The same DCCC info was later used against Garcia by the R, but if it came from an R on Aug 15 it was a total divided dem base play; Garcia's interest is more direct and immediate.  I'm going with Garcia push come to shove. 

[jimmyjazz 46099]

18 minutes ago, Dolemite said:

Occam's Razor says that there is nothing to this with the only objective being to delay any investigation into Crooked Hillary until after the next presidential election.

I don't think you know what Occam's Razor is.