Jump to content

The Robert Mueller Investigation

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 34.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    3238

  • Anastasis

    2088

  • David Dennison

    1559

  • triplehorn

    1384

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Goredho
Goredho

Just to make sure I have the alternative facts straight...  Our government -- but I'm guessing only the deep state part of it --- is now guilty of torturing a poor, naive Russian exchange student who

Incredulity
Incredulity

liberals suddenly being terrified of Russia and manic for election integrity is just pure comedy gold.

Chooky
Chooky

I don't believe for a moment that any of this is entertaining to you.  I think it gives you a bit of anxiety knowing that your best weapon against a group who you despise is a bumbling fraud as a busi

Posted Images

SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Gengs1 said:

It’s trully amazing how well the internet can spot shit like her in that photo 

Yeah, after something big comes out I like to go reddit.  They have thousands of wannabe sleuths racing to say ah ha first for the glory of some upvotes.  It usually works and someone gets some random connection.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13706

Posted
Posted

interesting opinion piece from a former WH stenographer and how Trump changed the policy of having many interviews and discussions recorded to prevent uncertainty of what was said.  

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/17/opinion/trump-recording-press-news.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region&region=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region

Especially shocking in regards to how on-the-record press interviews are always recorded (by every other previous admin) by the WH to prevent reporters from misstating the interview.  Fox News interviews could be 1-on-1 with Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 86929

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

interesting opinion piece from a former WH stenographer and how Trump changed the policy of having many interviews and discussions recorded to prevent uncertainty of what was said.  

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/17/opinion/trump-recording-press-news.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region&region=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region

Especially shocking in regards to how on-the-record press interviews are always recorded (by every other previous admin) by the WH to prevent reporters from misstating the interview.  Fox News interviews could be 1-on-1 with Trump.

Of course he doesn't want to be recorded.  Remember, he always has "tapes" that don't exist.  He doesn't need any actual recordings conflicting with his narrative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13706

Posted
Posted

I would bet Trump's one on one meetings served him well at some points in his business career.  He demands a meeting with the other top guy without anyone else.  They come to some high level agreement that Trump can claim was something else later on.  And if he's in the position of power, he can basically renegotiate after the fact.   "No I didn't agree to X, I agreed to Y.  Let's meet again."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5093

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The random pics of the suspected Russian spy with various elected officials isn’t too big of a deal.  In some events, the elected officials get hit up for pics every 5 seconds and they don’t know who they are posing with.  It looks bad for the official but explainable.

BUT the DOJ-indicted Russian spy was in the Oval Office?    Hopefully we can get more info on that to ensure it’s her.  

I think it all goes to support the evidence that she was acting to influence US politics.  But she wasn't exactly secretive about that fact. Frankly, the fact that Kislyak is in the picture is probably a bigger deal than Trump being there, evidence-wise, because it establishes her relationship with the Russian government, and specifically with Russian intelligence. (Optics-wise, being pictured with Trump is the bigger deal.)

Edit: But the biggest issue is what the politicians did, not what she was trying to do.  Regardless, the clear evidence of what she was trying to do should be enough for justification of the Mueller probe and Russian sanctions, even if there is (currently) no proof of American culpability.  

Edited by Tuco
Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Tuco said:

I think it all goes to support the evidence that she was acting to influence US politics.  But she wasn't exactly secretive about that fact. Frankly, the fact that Kislyak is in the picture is probably a bigger deal than Trump being there, evidence-wise, because it establishes her relationship with the Russian government, and specifically with Russian intelligence. (Optics-wise, being pictured with Trump is the bigger deal.)

Butina and Kisylak were also both involved in setting up "backchannels" - Kisylak with Kushner.

 

VVV Now take a look at the next few points made about Butina.  VVV

Spoiler

 

Good chance Trump "The Second Pozner" referenced by Butina.  damn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Judge Roybeanbag

Judge Roybeanbag 11856

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Butina and Kisylak were also both involved in setting up "backchannels" - Kisylak with Kushner.

 

VVV Now take a look at the next few points made about Butina.  VVV

  Hide contents

 

Good chance Trump "The Second Pozner" referenced by Butina.  damn.

Be even better if the second Pozner was Hannity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 86929

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Guess what time it is? Time for another IG investigation! And Jim Jordan is just the man to demand it.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/leading-republicans-urge-ig-to-probe-rosenstein-over-alleged-threats-to-congressional-staffers/ar-AAAc1qS?ocid=spartanntp

 

 

LOL they know the impeachment isn't going to work. So time to try something different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90544

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Js1 said:

LOL they know the impeachment isn't going to work. So time to try something different.

Wonder how much money Jordan took from the GUN RIGHTS ORGANIZATION.

That dude has been scared extra shitless since the 12 GRU officers were mentioned publicly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5093

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Wonder how much money Jordan took from the GUN RIGHTS ORGANIZATION.

That dude has been scared extra shitless since the 12 GRU officers were mentioned publicly.

Per Open Secrets, $2000 in 2016.  But "contributions" is a minor part.  In 2016, they had $1,085,000 in contributions, but $54,400,000 in outside spending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5093

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Who is US person 1?

 

I believe someone who traveled to Moscow to meeting with Torshin in 2015, so this would be the shortlist:

Quote

In 2015, a collection of NRA officials flew over to attend Butina's annual gun conference. Among them was Erickson; former NRA and ACU chief David Keene; gun manufacturer and NRA first vice president Pete Brownell; and Milwaukee County sheriff David Clarke, a Trump supporter and sensation among the conservative grassroots.

Erickson is the main speculation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I wonder if Bama Chick's boy Rick Dearborn is going to get tied up in this NRA angle.  Seems like he was a point person in the Trump Campaign.

 

WASHINGTON — A conservative operative trumpeting his close ties to the National Rifle Association and Russia told a Trump campaign adviser last year that he could arrange a back-channel meeting between Donald J. Trump and Vladimir V. Putin, the Russian president, according to an email sent to the Trump campaign.

A May 2016 email to the campaign adviser, Rick Dearborn, bore the subject line “Kremlin Connection.” In it, the N.R.A. member said he wanted the advice of Mr. Dearborn and Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, then a foreign policy adviser to Mr. Trump and Mr. Dearborn’s longtime boss, about how to proceed in connecting the two leaders.

Russia, he wrote, was “quietly but actively seeking a dialogue with the U.S.” and would attempt to use the N.R.A.’s annual convention in Louisville, Ky., to make “ ‘first contact.’ ” The email, which was among a trove of campaign-related documents turned over to investigators on Capitol Hill, was described in detail to The New York Times.

Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel investigating Russian interference in the election and possible collusion with the Trump campaign, secured a guilty plea on Friday from President Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, for lying to the F.B.I. about contacts with Moscow’s former ambassador to the United States. But those contacts came after Mr. Trump’s improbable election victory.

The emailed outreach from the conservative operative to Mr. Dearborn came far earlier, around the same time that Russians were trying to make other connections to the Trump campaign. Another contact came through an American advocate for Christian and veterans causes, and together, the outreach shows how, as Mr. Trump closed in on the nomination, Russians were using three foundational pillars of the Republican Party — guns, veterans and Christian conservatives — to try to make contact with his unorthodox campaign.

 

Both efforts, made within days of each other, centered on the N.R.A.’s annual meeting and appear to involve Alexander Torshin, a deputy governor of the Russian central bank and key figure in Mr. Putin’s United Russia party, who was instructed to make contact with the campaign.

“Putin is deadly serious about building a good relationship with Mr. Trump,” the N.R.A. member and conservative activist, Paul Erickson, wrote. “He wants to extend an invitation to Mr. Trump to visit him in the Kremlin before the election. Let’s talk through what has transpired and Senator Sessions’s advice on how to proceed.”

It is not clear how Mr. Dearborn handled the outreach. He forwarded a similar proposal, made through Rick Clay, an advocate for conservative Christian causes, to Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and a top campaign aide. Mr. Kushner rebuffed the proposal at the time, according to two people who have seen Mr. Kushner’s email.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/03/us/politics/trump-putin-russia-nra-campaign.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 18088

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, triplehorn said:

Probably too late to outpace the bloodhounds, but someone convince me the intent here isn't corrupt:

 

 

So much slimy, terrible shit going on from day to day in this administration it's impossible to keep it all straight.  The unfucking of this mess will take a decade at least. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

 

Lulz.  Trump supporters like Zork have continually argued that the Mueller investigation is tougher on Trump than the FBI was on Hillary because the FBI gave immunity to witnesses.   Which is, of course, the opposite of reality, because immunity facilitates testimony against the target.   Lo and behold, immunity in the Mueller probe too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90544

Posted
Posted

That Bridges, LLC shell company that Erickson and Butina set up in South Dakota.  People/organizations are saying it was to fund her graduate studies. 

Why am I having a hard time believing that a guy heavily connected to NRA leadership would help setup a shell company to fund some  Russian girl’s graduate studies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 18088

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

That Bridges, LLC shell company that Erickson and Butina set up in South Dakota.  People/organizations are saying it was to fund her graduate studies. 

Why am I having a hard time believing that a guy heavily connected to NRA leadership would help setup a shell company to fund some  Russian girl’s graduate studies?

Undefeated.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Francisco 2.0

Francisco 2.0 32543

Posted
Posted

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/17/mueller-asks-for-immunity-for-five-witnesses-in-manafort-case.html

 

Quote

The five individuals would either refuse to take the witness stand, or refuse to answer questions because of their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination if they are not granted immunity and compelled to testify with that protection from prosecution, according to Mueller's filing in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va.

Mueller has also asked Judge T.S. Ellis to seal from public view the court motions detailing the witnesses' identities.

"The five individuals identified in the motions at issue are third parties who have not been charged in this matter, and who have not been identified publicly with the case," Mueller's team argued in a filing asking for that sealing order. "Disclosing the motions would reveal those individuals’ involvement in the investigation and the trial, thereby creating the risk of their undue harassment.'

Prosecutors also said that the witnesses could suffer "reputational harm" if their claim of Fifth Amendment protection and grant of immunity were to be revealed publicly.

"Sealing is also appropriate because the information contained in the motions could lead to reputational harm," prosecutors wrote.

Mueller's team noted that if the individuals do testify at Manafort's trial, their identities would become public.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106615

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

That Bridges, LLC shell company that Erickson and Butina set up in South Dakota.  People/organizations are saying it was to fund her graduate studies. 

Why am I having a hard time believing that a guy heavily connected to NRA leadership would help setup a shell company to fund some  Russian girl’s graduate studies?

Asked.....

Just now, Chad Fuck said:

Undefeated.

 

....and answered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Francisco 2.0

Francisco 2.0 32543

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

That Bridges, LLC shell company that Erickson and Butina set up in South Dakota.  People/organizations are saying it was to fund her graduate studies. 

Why am I having a hard time believing that a guy heavily connected to NRA leadership would help setup a shell company to fund some  Russian girl’s graduate studies?

Chad answered it, but nifty way of funding a sugar daddy relationship.  Much cleaner than handing her a debit card.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5093

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

I hope the sex was worth creating a serious paper and money trail to Russia.

Reading the emails quoted in the affidavit, I think there was either political ideology or money involved.  It seems very professional.  And that's not a compliment. It's worth noting that Erickson has had multiple lawsuits against him for misleading investors on projects which didn't pan out.  He appears to be ambitious and unethical. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zork

zork 629

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Lulz.  Trump supporters like Zork have continually argued that the Mueller investigation is tougher on Trump than the FBI was on Hillary because the FBI gave immunity to witnesses.   Which is, of course, the opposite of reality, because immunity facilitates testimony against the target.   Lo and behold, immunity in the Mueller probe too.

We'll see how it shakes out.  Are you saying same/same wrt the immunity given?(even with this latest revelation)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zork

zork 629

Posted
Posted

List of immunity given to Hillary's investigation vs Russiagate investigation, is it same/same to you at this point? 

Edit:  we don't know who the 5 are at this point for manafort's trial which is for money laundering from years ago, right?  (I haven't spent the time to keep up on manafort's deal since the early indictment)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 19440

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, zork said:

List of immunity given to Hillary's investigation vs Russiagate investigation, is it same/same to you at this point? 

Edit:  we don't know who the 5 are at this point for manafort's trial which is for money laundering from years ago, right?  (I haven't spent the time to keep up on manafort's deal since the early indictment)

So what if they were given immunity? That means they could be compelled to testify. They can no longer use the Fifth Amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 34404

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

So what if they were given immunity? That means they could be compelled to testify. They can no longer use the Fifth Amendment.

He has a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of immunity in the investigative and prosecutorial process. He's been told as much and still doesn't get it. zork is the most confounding poster on the boards because after years I still haven't figured out if he's playing games or if he really is as naive as he portrays himself to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, zork said:

List of immunity given to Hillary's investigation vs Russiagate investigation, is it same/same to you at this point? 

Edit:  we don't know who the 5 are at this point for manafort's trial which is for money laundering from years ago, right?  (I haven't spent the time to keep up on manafort's deal since the early indictment)

You're the one who continually makes the vague, unsupported assertion that the FBI went easy on Hillary because they gave immunity to witnesses, and you're asking me for details necessary to your own argument?  That's pathetic. 

Unless the FBI gave immunity to Hillary herself — and they didn't — the distinction is irrelevant.   Immunity facilitates testimony against the target. It is not a basis for arguing the FBI went easier on Hillary than Mueller is going on Trump.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kevwun

kevwun 16269

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

He has a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of immunity in the investigative and prosecutorial process. He's been told as much and still doesn't get it. zork is the most confounding poster on the boards because after years I still haven't figured out if he's playing games or if he really is as naive as he portrays himself to be.

I am convinced he's just a moron.

  • Like 4
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...