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

hobbes2702

hobbes2702 13065

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Fairly hard.  Audibly for sure.  It's just a matter of time.  

Let’s say the report is less than a bombshell... how does that square with all of the known contacts with Russian officials and giving of polling data to Russian oligarchs? What about the Trump team working with Russia on a Trump Tower deal? Are you saying that none of that matters at all if Mueller can’t prove that it was treasonous?

If your answer to the last question is yes, do you feel we should eliminate the emoluments clause?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
Just now, hobbes2702 said:

Let’s say the report is less than a bombshell... how does that square with all of the known contacts with Russian officials and giving of polling data to Russian oligarchs? What about the Trump team working with Russia on a Trump Tower deal? Are you saying that none of that matters at all if Mueller can’t prove that it was treasonous?

If your answer to the last question is yes, do you feel we should eliminate the emoluments clause?

lol this investigation has nothing to do with treason.  c'mon dude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
Just now, Hank Kingsley said:

We already know what's going to happen with the investigation reports

The left will treat it as a huge deal

Republicans will think it's a nothingburger

Fozz and Michael Tracey will giggle and have a tickle fight. 

 

Quit comparing me to Tracey.  Tracey wanted to make Jim Webb happen during the 2016 primary for God's sake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted

"people who are closest to the investigation, interacting with the Special Counsel..."

Individuals like Roger Stone, Jerome Corsi and those in their legal circles - people who want to influence public perception and sentiment - are the closest ones to the investigation interacting with Mueller.  Team Mueller doesn't leak.

Also note, after George Steph challenged him by drawing together Manafort sharing polling info with Russia, and Don Jr's Trump Tower meeting with Russian actors, etc., how he started stammering.  He was trying to stick to his compartmentalized narrative and got wobbled by a more full contextual picture.  

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
Just now, hobbes2702 said:

And you know that as a member of the investigation?

Feel free to answer the questions. What’s your opinion on emoluments?

Trump is certainly using his office to enrich himself and his family.  Whether anything actually comes of that, no se.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Glenn Greenwald has proven himself over and over again completely clueless and wrong when comes to the Russia investigation.  He has as much credibility on the subject as Giuliani and Trump.  Especially when he tweets his hot takes from other reporters to fit his narrative.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 13065

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Trump is certainly using his office to enrich himself and his family.  Whether anything actually comes of that, no se.  

 

That wasn’t what I asked. I know he is violating the emoluments clause. I’m asking you how you feel about it. You ok with it? You think he should be impeached? You seem to think it doesn’t matter that he was working to violate the emoluments clause while a candidate, with the country that tried to undermine this election. So will you laugh about that if it goes unpunished?

Edited by hobbes2702
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 7/23/2018 at 3:27 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I got to thinking about the Mueller report concluding Trump is an unregistered foreign agent of the Russian government.  It wouldn’t be hard to do if there is money involved.

I wonder if it would move the needle with Trump?

I suggested this in July and it sounded insane then, not so insane now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

How did Obama violate the emoluments clause?  Hell, how did W do it?  

You don't think that it's common for elected officials to use their office for personal gain?  When Ballotpedia looked at the change in net wealth among members of Congress, they found that the average increase among the top 20 was 422% (top 100 was 114%).  You think all of that is on the up and up? lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HenryJames

HenryJames 66169

Posted
Posted
Just now, Fozzz said:

You don't think that it's common for elected officials to use their office for personal gain?  When Ballotpedia looked at the change in net wealth among members of Congress, they found that the average increase among the top 20 was 422% (top 100 was 114%).  You think all of that is on the up and up? lol

No, the question he asked was: "How did Obama violate the emoluments clause?  Hell, how did W do it?"

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, HenryJames said:

No, the question he asked was: "How did Obama violate the emoluments clause?  Hell, how did W do it?"

I think Obama waited until after he left office to cash in.  I never made a claim to any particular politician, just that it's not uncommon for elected officials to use their office for personal gain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 13065

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

You don't think that it's common for elected officials to use their office for personal gain?  When Ballotpedia looked at the change in net wealth among members of Congress, they found that the average increase among the top 20 was 422% (top 100 was 114%).  You think all of that is on the up and up? lol

So you can’t answer the question? Shocking. You, as usual, resort to vague accusations of government in general. 

But here’s a question, it’s still against the law, should we simply ignore it?

 Your argument is basically that it’s ok for Trump to do it because someone else did it? Does that seem like a sound legal defense?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Fozzz said:

I think Obama waited until after he left office to cash in.  I never made a claim to any particular politician, just that it's not uncommon for elected officials to use their office for personal gain.

lulz.  It is unusual to direct the policy of the United States for personal gain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46124

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I think Obama waited until after he left office to cash in.  I never made a claim to any particular politician, just that it's not uncommon for elected officials to use their office for personal gain.

There's a huge difference between cashing in once one is out of office and hanging out the "open for business" sign the first day in the White House.

But you knew that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Francisco 2.0

Francisco 2.0 32426

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I think Obama waited until after he left office to cash in.  I never made a claim to any particular politician, just that it's not uncommon for elected officials to use their office for personal gain.

Oh bullshit.

Using the office for personal gain = personally gaining while in office.

Using your Obama example, sure he cashed in after his Presidency was over.  Now, you can question all day long if those opportunities would be available to him if he wasn't elected President---that's fair.  But in the context of this thread, the assumption Trump is profiting while being in office is fair and reasonable, given news accounts of foreign nationals renting rooms at his properties, his raising the fees and dues at his golf courses, etc.  Obama (and W) didn't while they were in office.  Huge fucking difference.

And spare this bullshit you are going to come up with next (his family is running it!) Just shut the fuck up with that drivel.

 

 

 

Edited by Francisco 2.0
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MaybeACoordinator

MaybeACoordinator 8349

Posted
Posted
Quote

What are the scenarios for how Moscow could be running Trump, if they are?

I would give you three. To start with one extreme, if he is an absolute entrapped or recruited agent of the Kremlin, you would be trying to make sure you got the most bang for your buck, which is exactly why you'd have tried to get him to play it cool, so you could use him at a crucial moment. You'd also be wanting him to be as deeply involved in intelligence matters as possible, reading more briefing materials, not less. None of that seems to be present.

Let's assume, though, that you have his metaphorical private parts in a vice, but nevertheless you don't feel you can trust him, whether in terms of his personality or how much leverage you have on him, which is a bit more plausible. Then in a way you'd be seeking to find ways, without making it obvious, you could use him most effectively. There, I think you'd pick a few specific cases where you think he could deliver something. He's not really delivering much that's real [so far], but it could well be that he's working in that direction.

The third option is you don't control him but you do have lines into him, maybe through people in his entourage, or whatever. You have a pretty good sense of him, more than just the usage that you can do when he comes to a summit with Putin. And in that case, again, Trump being Trump, someone who is erratic and self-centered, your best use of him would be in some ways as a hand grenade. You toss the pin and you throw it in a particular direction. And this is why—I don't believe Trump is recruited and controlled—I don't think one can say flatly that there is no chance of any kind of management. Because if you wanted to use him as a grenade, you'd want him to blow apart the American polity and also the whole Western political–economic structure. The problem of course is it seems to be that this is what Trump himself wants to do. Is this Trump? Is this Putin? is this a bizarre Trump-Putin hybrid? It's hard to tell. From their point of view, what Trump is doing as disruptor in the West absolutely fits in with Russian aims. But I think, I'll be honest, I think they're just lucky rather than claiming any great credit.

Vice ran the quoted article back in July. The rest of it is here -- same USSR / Russia expert as in the article I linked upthread. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, hobbes2702 said:

So you can’t answer the question? Shocking. You, as usual, resort to vague accusations of government in general. 

But here’s a question, it’s still against the law, should we simply ignore it?

 Your argument is basically that it’s ok for Trump to do it because someone else did it? Does that seem like a sound legal defense?

If you would like a more specific example then look at Tom Price's questionable pharmaceutical investments, or the recent indictment of Chris Collins for insider trading.  If this isn't really an issue, as you seem to suggest, then why does Senator Merkley want to pass legislation banning members of Congress from owning stock?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 13065

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Fozzz said:

If you would like a more specific example then look at Tom Price's questionable pharmaceutical investments, or the recent indictment of Chris Collins for insider trading.  If this isn't really an issue, as you seem to suggest, then why does Senator Merkley want to pass legislation banning members of Congress from owning stock?

I’m not saying it’s not an issue. You are because you seem to think that trump shouldn’t be held accountable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
deech

deech 2291

Posted
Posted

I get that the Mueller report is going to struggle to live up to social media expectations.  I get that it is going to be very, very difficult to link the President himself to each of the individual persons who worked for him or for the campaign.  I get that the President will blame Flynn, Manafort, Cohen, and others and claim he himself has no knowledge of what these individuals were all doing on his behalf or on behalf of his campaign.

I think the ABC white house correspondent is just playing the $9.95 game.  He has no source from Mueller or his team. He's just reading the same tea leaves as anyone can read above.

Again - Fozz - whomever - what is your justification for a campaign manager sharing internal polling data with a known Russian agent?  There is none.  Other than a conspiracy to help the President get elected.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 13065

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Fozzz said:

Sure, why not.  I don't know why my opinion matters though.

Because all you do is obfuscate. You don’t take any stances. You’re just here to own the libz. That’s all that matters to you mouth breathers. I’m attempting to get you to actually take a stance on, well anything really. Have some courage of your conviction.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Vice ran the quoted article back in July. The rest of it is here -- same USSR / Russia expert as in the article I linked upthread. 

Regarding the grand Trump-Russia theory, it’s my opinion Trump’s worldview has been cultivated and molded by multiple Russians he’s done business with and kept close over a number of years.  

All the Soviets doing business abroad were trained in the art of ideological subversion, co-opting fellow travelers and useful idiots.  The more ignorant and morally bankrupt the target the better. Trump was a perfect mark for the Russians.

 You see a similar thing with Carter Page who is a total dumbass but his worldview somehow aligns perfectly with Russia’s interest.

I have no idea if Putin is giving Trump direct orders but I believe Trump has been so well conditioned over many years to respond to any situation in a way that favors the interests of the Kremlin.  Whether it’s shaking down NATO, pissing on our allies, starting trade wars, wanting better relations with Russia, decimating the FBI/State Dept, or withdrawing the United States into isolationism; subconsciously somewhere in Trump’s brain he knows his behavior will earn him endless praise from the people he most wants to impress...Rich ass Russians.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
achooloco

achooloco 1084

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, deech said:

I get that the Mueller report is going to struggle to live up to social media expectations.  I get that it is going to be very, very difficult to link the President himself to each of the individual persons who worked for him or for the campaign.  I get that the President will blame Flynn, Manafort, Cohen, and others and claim he himself has no knowledge of what these individuals were all doing on his behalf or on behalf of his campaign.

That’s all true and probably how it will go down. But if we can get some jail time out of any of the trump family, I’ll consider it a win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goredho

Goredho 17419

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

I'm going to laugh so hard if the report turns out to be a nothingburger.  Better lock this thread if that happens because i'm gonna be runnin all y'all down otherwise. 

Just don't forget to show up for your flogging in the "Donald Trump will never finish a single term" thread if he leaves office early.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14348

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Because all you do is obfuscate. You don’t take any stances. You’re just here to own the libz. That’s all that matters to you mouth breathers. I’m attempting to get you to actually take a stance on, well anything really. Have some courage of your conviction.

I'm not sure you've been paying close attention to Fozzz's posts.  He has takes that come from lots of different perpectives; owning the libs is not one I'd typically assign to him.  

I expect he is trolling you all but he's more of an Anastasis troll than a Chrispy troll.

  • Like 2
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...