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

Tuco

Tuco 5076

Posted
Posted
Why exactly did Republicans push for these to be released? 



Two potential non-idiotic reasons: 1) it’s always better to get in front of news you know will be released eventually. 2) they aren’t really on the same side as Trump.

I don’t think the first explanation seems plausible. It’s not great timing to regards to the midterms, and it seems the drip-drip aspect is more damaging.

The second possibility seems unlikely as well, mainly because of the “who “ was pushing on this. If this had been Grassley, I could see it. But Nunes is certainly on Trump’s side.

The most reasonable explanation is that they are idiots. Maybe the thought they could win the discussion by innuendo: basically asking for the release would imply Comey’s weakness.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 minutes ago, Tuco said:

 

 


Two potential non-idiotic reasons: 1) it’s always better to get in front of news you know will be released eventually. 2) they aren’t really on the same side as Trump.

I don’t think the first explanation seems plausible. It’s not great timing to regards to the midterms, and it seems the drip-drip aspect is more damaging.

The second possibility seems unlikely as well, mainly because of the “who “ was pushing on this. If this had been Grassley, I could see it. But Nunes is certainly on Trump’s side.

The most reasonable explanation is that they are idiots. Maybe the thought they could win the discussion by innuendo: basically asking for the release would imply Comey’s weakness.

 

 

The real reason I believe was they didn't expect Rosenstein to capitulate to their demands.  This would have given Trump some cause to fire Rosenstein. 

However, if Rosenstein did capitulate, they could use that as a precedent to demand other documents sensitive to the ongoing investigation. 

The Republicans have reached a point where they have very little left to lose in all this.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pig Bellmont

Pig Bellmont 8715

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The real reason I believe was they didn't expect Rosenstein to capitulate to their demands.  This would have given Trump some cause to fire Rosenstein. 

However, if Rosenstein did capitulate, they could use that as a precedent to demand other documents sensitive to the ongoing investigation. 

The Republicans have reached a point where they have very little left to lose in all this.   

I think this, coupled with a perceived benefit of giving trump some evidence against him in the obstruction of justice issue. Much of the content of the memos was discussed in Comey’s book, so not too harmful for DOJ to release at this time. 

I do particularly enjoy how this strategy backfired for Trump supporters 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pods

Pods 7552

Posted
Posted

New revelations from Comey's memos

1) There was a FISA warrant on Flynn. We'd already figured that out, but I don't think it's been confirmed. It's redacted in this document, but the answer that fits in the space according to specialists is "was yes".

2) Trump lied repeatedly about whether he stayed in Moscow the night of the alleged pee tape.

    He said he didn't.

    Multiple witnesses, including his own body guard Schiller, have confirmed that Trump did stay at the Ritz that night.

    Witnesses (again including Schiller) have also confirmed that he was offered prostitutes for that same night.

    The BBC and Guardian reported months ago that they have witnesses who say they were in the lobby of the Ritz the night of the allege pee tape and confirm that there was a scene between Trump and his people versus security at the front desk. Trump was trying to get women up to his room without signing them in. One of the witnesses is a Trump Org employee. 

3) Trump's defense is that he's a germaphobe and wouldn't watch people pee on each other. 

    First, urine is sterile, but Don isn't smart enough to know that. Second, as Comey points out, the Presidential suite is probably fairly large and he wouldn't be in the splash radius. 

4) Trump claims he doesn't know Sergei Millian, but he does. 

5) Putin may have called Trump to congratulate him and Flynn took 6 days to tell Trump this, pissing Trump off.  This is redacted, but fits in the space for the redaction and fits the rest of the context. 

6) The Steele Dossier had already been found credible by the FBI. It was "coroborated by other intelligence" and the FBI considered Steele highly credible. The White House was told about this no later than Feb 8, 2017 and has been lying about it for more than a year.

7) The White House knew Flynn was under a FISA warrant. They found out about it no later than Feb 8, 2017. 

8) Trump and Putin talked about hookers on the phone. Putin told Trump Russia had some of the most beautiful hookers in the world. 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted (edited)

Trump's claim to being a germaphobe went out the window the second we found out that he raw-dogged Stormy Daniels.  He might not want to touch poors out in the world, but that goes out the window with women in a sexual situation. 

Edited by Mojo Hand
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89656

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Pig Bellmont said:

I think this, coupled with a perceived benefit of giving trump some evidence against him in the obstruction of justice issue. Much of the content of the memos was discussed in Comey’s book, so not too harmful for DOJ to release at this time. 

I do particularly enjoy how this strategy backfired for Trump supporters 

It didn’t just backfire. It has probably made them gun-shy about future requests.  What if they do this again and get something as bad or worse.  They know this kind of stuff is bad for the midterms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, Pods said:

1) There was a FISA warrant on Flynn. We'd already figured that out, but I don't think it's been confirmed. It's redacted in this document, but the answer that fits in the space according to specialists is "was yes".

SNL satirically reported on Michael Flynn’s wiretaps three months ago.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sheeeit

sheeeit 129

Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, triplehorn said:

Maybe Trump finds some false security in this.  I do not want anything to happen to this DAG.  

Interesting.  Could be bullshit from Trumps own people.  Anonymous sources suck going both ways.

But, if true, I wonder what this does to the supposed obstruction charges.  I get the "subject" versus "target" semantics, although I believe that is a bit of wishful thinking, but it could be accurate that Rosenstein is being coy with Trump and his lawyers.  But for obstruction, there can only be one target.  Only trump could fire Comey right?  In any investigation there has to be a target or supposed crime.  I have never heard of anyone else in this deal being investigated for obstruction.  Only trump.  We shall see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

21 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Interesting.  Could be bullshit from Trumps own people.  Anonymous sources suck going both ways.

But, if true, I wonder what this does to the supposed obstruction charges.  I get the "subject" versus "target" semantics, although I believe that is a bit of wishful thinking, but it could be accurate that Rosenstein is being coy with Trump and his lawyers.  But for obstruction, there can only be one target.  Only trump could fire Comey right?  In any investigation there has to be a target or supposed crime.  I have never heard of anyone else in this deal being investigated for obstruction.  Only trump.  We shall see.

It's the same reassurance Trump has been getting since January 2017, initially from Comey and now others in the DoJ.  Recall Comey's opening statement in Senate testimony last Spring.  Transcript:

 

Quote

I first met then-President-Elect Trump on Friday, January 6 in a conference room at Trump Tower in New York. I was there with other Intelligence Community (IC) leaders to brief him and his new national security team on the findings of an IC assessment concerning Russian efforts to interfere in the election. At the conclusion of that briefing, I remained alone with the President-Elect to brief him on some personally sensitive aspects of the information assembled during the assessment.

The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious and unverified. Among those reasons were: (1) we knew the media was about to publicly report the material and we believed the IC should not keep knowledge of the material and its imminent release from the President-Elect; and (2) to the extent there was some effort to compromise an incoming President, we could blunt any such effort with a defensive briefing.

The Director of National Intelligence asked that I personally do this portion of the briefing because I was staying in my position and because the material implicated the FBI’s counter-intelligence responsibilities. We also agreed I would do it alone to minimize potential embarrassment to the President-Elect. Although we agreed it made sense for me to do the briefing, the FBI’s leadership and I were concerned that the briefing might create a situation where a new President came into office uncertain about whether the FBI was conducting a counter-intelligence investigation of his personal conduct.

It is important to understand that FBI counter-intelligence investigations are different than the more-commonly known criminal investigative work. The Bureau’s goal in a counter-intelligence investigation is to understand the technical and human methods that hostile foreign powers are using to influence the United States or to steal our secrets. The FBI uses that understanding to disrupt those efforts. Sometimes disruption takes the form of alerting a person who is targeted for recruitment or influence by the foreign power. Sometimes it involves hardening a computer system that is being attacked. Sometimes it involves “turning” the recruited person into a double-agent, or publicly calling out the behavior with sanctions or expulsions of embassy-based intelligence officers. On occasion, criminal prosecution is used to disrupt intelligence activities.

Because the nature of the hostile foreign nation is well known, counterintelligence investigations tend to be centered on individuals the FBI suspects to be witting or unwitting agents of that foreign power. When the FBI develops reason to believe an American has been targeted for recruitment by a foreign power or is covertly acting as an agent of the foreign power, the FBI will “open an investigation” on that American and use legal authorities to try to learn more about the nature of any relationship with the foreign power so it can be disrupted.

In that context, prior to the Jan. 6 meeting, I discussed with the FBI’s leadership team whether I should be prepared to assure President-elect Trump that we were not investigating him personally. That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him. We agreed I should do so if circumstances warranted. During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower, based on President-elect Trump’s reaction to the briefing and without him directly asking the question, I offered that assurance.

 
Regarding obstruction of justice, you can have a conspiracy to obstruct involving multiple others.  POTUS is not clear of that though he is not a named target at this time.
 
The distinction between subject and target is real and in this case appears to be serving an important purpose for DoJ/FBI to assuage a grossly meddling Trump so they can proceed with their investigation.  You can sense the shared awkwardness of IC leadership revealed by Comey as they attempted to figure out the best way to handle an incoming president-elect in over his ears in treason-y conduct.
 
 
Edited by triplehorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105108

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:
15 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:
No. Yes.
It's the one good thing that will eventually come of this Presidency, stripping away the facade of decency these people have.
Lmao, who am I kidding? Nothing matters. 

Brisket endorsed, brisket approved

Man, more and more of y'all are coming around.  I'm gonna have to pick up some more scotch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sheeeit

sheeeit 129

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, triplehorn said:

 

It's the same reassurance Trump has been getting since January 2017, initially from Comey and now others in the DoJ.  Recall Comey's opening statement in Senate testimony last Spring.  Transcript:

 

 
Regarding obstruction of justice, you can have a conspiracy to obstruct involving multiple others.  POTUS is not clear of that though he is not a named target at this time.
 
The distinction between subject and target is real and in this case appears to be serving an important purpose for DoJ/FBI to assuage a grossly meddling Trump so they can proceed with their investigation.  You can sense the shared awkwardness of IC leadership revealed by Comey as they attempted to figure out the best way to handle an incoming president-elect in over his ears in treason-y conduct.
 
 

Well when people suggested that it meant something when Comey said it, the reply was it is still very early and the investigation is ongoing.  Which was a reasonable response.

After an entire year, I have to believe the obstruction stuff has been fleshed out.  There are only 3 or 4 people involved.  One of which is the current deputy attorney general, Rosenstein, who is overseeing the investigation.  

I realize there can be a conspiracy involving multiple people.  But this is not some crime scene with no suspects.  We already know everyone involved and all of them, except Trump, have testified.

You honestly think Rosenstein, who wrote the memo suggesting Comey be fired, could tell Trump that he was not a target of any investigation while there still being a chance that Trump is charged/accused/recommended for obstruction?  Who else could be the target?  Sessions?  Rosenstein?  

And even if the Bloomberg story is made up bullshit, I still think it is hilarious that people think there will be a case for obstruction when the man who is overseeing the actual investigation of all things Trump/collusion/obstruction/mob ties/pee tapes etc, Rosenstein, wrote a memo that Comey should be fired a few days before Trump fired him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31456

Posted
Posted

Greenwald has a point.

 

Quote

The DNC’s suit, as it pertains to WikiLeaks, poses a grave threat to press freedom. The theory of the suit – that WikiLeaks is liable for damages it caused when it “willfully and intentionally disclosed” the DNC’s communications (paragraph 183) – would mean that any media outlet that publishes misappropriated documents or emails (exactly what media outlets quite often do) could be sued by the entity or person about which they are reporting, or even theoretically prosecuted for it, or that any media outlet releasing an internal campaign memo is guilty of “economic espionage” (paragraph 170):

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31456

Posted
Posted (edited)

It is, but he has a valid point.  DNC alleges misappropriation of trade secrets/confidential information, essentially.  The gravamen of that tort is misappropriation, not publication.  Meaning, the material was wrongfully (in breach of a confidential relationship or possibly otherwise unlawfully) acquired and it is the wrongful acquisition that gives rise to the civil cause of action.  If that information qualifies for protection, which could be a question unto itself, the damage was caused by its wrongful acquisition by Rooskies or whomever and the decision to deliver it to Wikileaks for publication, but not by the publication itself.  Unless Wikileaks was complicit in the wrongful acquisition, it shouldn't be liable for this aspect of it.

 

That is a straightforward application of the law.  However, Greenwald's point is larger:  journalistic entities have always had protection from liability for publishing non defamatory (and even then -- public figure doctrine) information for criticism and comment.  If the straightforward application of the law didn't "get them off," consideration of a First Amendment defense/limitation might be worthwhile.

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

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I’ve said many negative things about Greenwald but I’ve come to believe he views the United States as something of an Evil Empire that can’t be destroyed fast enough.

Greenwald is smart an he makes good points sometimes but he’s rarely if ever on the side of protecting democratic institutions in the United States.

Imagine for a second a hostile foreign power stole all your personal information and handed it to Wikileaks which then put your shit on blast for the world to see making you vulnerable to identity theft and persecution.

Greenwald is essentially arguing that should be protected under freedom of the press.

Seriously, fuck him.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31456

Posted
Posted
Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’ve said many negative things about Greenwald but I’ve come to believe he views the United States as something of an Evil Empire that can’t be destroyed fast enough.

Greenwald is smart an he makes good points sometimes but he’s rarely if ever on the side of protecting democratic institutions in the United States.

Imagine for a second a hostile foreign power stole all your personal information and handed it to Wikileaks which then put your shit on blast for the world to see making you vulnerable to identity theft and persecution.

Greenwald is essentially arguing that should be protected under freedom of the press.

Seriously, fuck him.

 

No he isn't.  He's arguing that the publication by a non-complicit entity is protected by the First Amendment.  And it probably is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31456

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


This. The publication isn’t the problem.

If the NYT engaged someone to steal your private emails and then published them, they should get popped. For the theft.

Agreed, and that's my point.  The complaint does not allege that wikileaks did anything wrong with respect to obtaining the material other than vague allegations of conspiracy to publish or disseminate the information, which is most certainly not a misappropriation of trade secrets under conventional law.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31456

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

If knowledge doesn't imply complicity, an amended complaint should do the trick.

A fair reading of the complaint is that the Rooskies stole the shit, then offered it to wikileaks.  There isn't even an information and belief that wikileaks participated in the original hack in any form or fashion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18856

Posted
Posted
Just now, TwiceHorn said:

A fair reading of the complaint is that the Rooskies stole the shit, then offered it to wikileaks.  There isn't even an information and belief that wikileaks participated in the original hack in any form or fashion.

If they knew it was stolen, they are in some doo doo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31456

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

If they knew it was stolen, they are in some doo doo.

They aren't or they shouldn't be.  At least for trade secrets.  Possibly for the wiretap thing, but I don't think that applies.

Edited by TwiceHorn
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...