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

Captainant

Captainant 27467

Posted
Posted

Gaetz got clapped back in Cohen's statement lmao, and this was probably submitted before gaetz opened his dumb mouth 

"I never imagined that he would engage in vicious, false attacks on my 
family – and unleash his TV-lawyer to do the same. I hope this committee 
and all members of Congress on both sides of the aisle will make it clear: 
As a nation, we should not tolerate attempts to intimidate witnesses before 
congress and attacks on family are out of bounds and not acceptable.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23394

Posted
Posted
On 4/16/2018 at 9:56 PM, Anastasis said:

So back to the Prague Cohen thing for a moment, has that gained any traction or confirmation by any other news agencies beside McClatchy Report?  Cause that's kind of a big deal that doesn't appear to be getting confirmation by additional sources. 

 

On 4/17/2018 at 8:11 AM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

McClatchy has been reliable on their information thus far and has broken some serious bombshells no one else can confirm. 

The way I read this:  Mueller could be using low profile McClatchy exclusively as an outlet for limited information they want to get out to the public without formally disclosing anything about the investigation.  

In this case, they are actually doing Michael Cohen a favor by saying, "Hey, we know you were in Prague so the more you lie about it, the worse it's going to go for you."

 

 

On 4/17/2018 at 9:03 AM, Mojo Hand said:

I hold the opposite view, though I agree the source isn't on Mueller's team. McClatchy has been credible in the past.  And there have been a number of stories reported and then confirmed months later only when Mueller files charges, because Mueller typically doesn't leak.  I don't think they got the Prague story from Mueller, but rather from the same intelligence source that gave the info to Mueller.   Perhaps a European source.  But that doesn't mean we should necessarily expect other leaks on the same story. 

 

On 4/17/2018 at 3:56 PM, Mojo Hand said:

Plus he didn't even show any stamp pages — just the cover.  He might as well have a big fat Czech stamp inside, for all he's shown. 

 

On 8/22/2018 at 9:17 PM, hayden_horn said:

That's the thing. I traveled to Prague twice, once in the late 90s and once in the early Aughts. Both times an overnight train from Switzerland. Both times rolled out of bed for a passport check by from faced men with guns. Those days are long over after the EU formed. Cohen traveled to Prague. He did so from some plausibly denial city in Europe. I do not doubt it. It's so easy to travel in Europe. Trump's base would never know or believe it because they ain't been out of bugtussle. 

 

On 12/27/2018 at 10:53 PM, BrickHorn said:

Both sides have been to Prague!  

 

On 12/28/2018 at 7:38 AM, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

Is it possible Cohen's phone was in Prague but he wasn't?

 

On 12/28/2018 at 9:23 AM, bolverk said:

Are you sure about that? So far as I know, he hasn't publicly said shit about it in a long, long time. And his former lawyer, Lanny Davis, who denied it, hasn't represented him for months.

All we know is that he's been cooperating with the investigation, purportedly fessed up, corrected previous lies from earlier interviews, and now it's reported his phone was pinged in or around Prague.

Given how you openly mocked those of us who started posting about all the Russian shit early in this administration, I wouldn't be making such bold predictions against the veracity of the dossier if I were you.

 

On 12/28/2018 at 12:52 PM, Brisketexan said:

It may be "checked," but it isn't stamped as there is no formal requirement for passage in the Schengen area.  I had it checked when I boarded a train in Germany heading for Austria, but that was along the lines of an ID check, not an immigration/passport checkpoint, because those aren't a thing in the Schengen area.  So, someone may have LOOKED at Cohen's passport if he traveled into Prague, but there wouldn't be a stamp.  Which was his point -- "look, see, no stamp!"  I have been to Austria, but I don't have an "Austria" stamp in my passport.  Because Schengen.

 

On 12/27/2018 at 11:44 PM, Anastasis said:

To be honest, nothing at this point would surprise me. Pee pee tape in play. 

 

But Cohen is still disputing the Prague claim. And he has no reason to lay cover at this point for Trump.

 

If you want me on record, Cohen to Prague didn't happen. 

 

On 12/27/2018 at 10:44 PM, Anastasis said:

We're really doing the McClatchy Prague thing again?

 

On 12/28/2018 at 11:22 AM, suddenly shaggy said:

Spoiler alert, Cohen is lying.

He told David Corn in 2016- "I was in Prague [Czech Republic] for one afternoon 14 years ago."

 

 

 

He also apparently told the Washington Post he'd been in Prague for one afternoon in 2001, which is right around that same time period.

He's either been to Prague, at a minimum sometime around 2001, or he lied about it inexplicably to two different reporters separated by about 15 years in time. 

 

 

On 4/14/2018 at 5:18 PM, Anastasis said:

I must have missed something.  When did we establish that Mueller has placed Cohen in Prague?

 

On 4/18/2018 at 12:15 AM, TDunk said:

So you posted two articles from almost a year ago for your confirmation.   I'll wager I never post here again if it is proven that Cohen never in fact went to Prague.   If he did, you can shuuuuuutttt the fuck up here forever.  

 

On 4/18/2018 at 10:42 AM, hayden_horn said:

he could have officially been anywhere in europe and easily made a side trip to prague, paying cash for a train. once in the eurozone, you're IN the eurozone. i don't get passport stamped going from amsterdam to cologne.

 

On 4/18/2018 at 11:57 AM, sheeeit said:

Lulz.  Really? From the NSA?  They can re-route international cell towers?  You guys realize that Mueller can get about any info he wants.  NSA, Nat Sec, Customs, IRS, phone companies, aviation records, hotel records, credit card records, bank records, etc.  They can interview Cohen's receptionist, secretary, co workers, friends that may have texted or called him, neighbors, virtually anyone except, I assume his wife and kids.  If Cohen disappeared for a few days and went all the way to prague, there is a record.

 

 

On 5/8/2018 at 6:30 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Also, going back to The Dossier.

Cohen supposedly went to Prague to set up deniable cash payments to the hackers.  The money was to come from both the Trump Campaign and the Russians with the hacker loyalty still beholden to the Kremlin.

A Russian oligarch giving Cohen a large lump sum of money around the time he was supposedly setting up these payment plans could further corroborate the allegations in the Dossier.

Last page of the Dossier:

03E6B871-475A-4D7E-925A-521F9FC49E02_zps

 

 

On 6/13/2018 at 1:52 PM, GW Hayduke said:

It is separate from the Mueller investigation; however, if Cohen is cooperating with federal prosecutors, he will be sharing everything about Prague.

 

On 4/11/2018 at 1:38 PM, triplehorn said:

The response to Wyden has to do with altering the number of foreign (Russian) contributions to the NRA.  However, go back to the initial McClatchy article reporting on this and you see the massive hidden dimension to this.  It's notable that they're shifting their stance with Wyden given his limited ability to look behind the curtain.  What a multi-agency U.S. law enforcement and counterintelligence investigation into Russia’s intervention has been able to access is likely a very different matter:

see bolded text:

FBI investigating whether Russian money went to NRA to help Trump

Evidence the money was there exists.  Now where'd it come from and where did it go ?

 

On 4/17/2018 at 3:12 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Mueller can get information out without leaking through cooperating witnesses and/or their attorneys, pending approval.

For example, McClatchy’s sources could be one or more of the following witnesses and/or their attorneys:

Rick Gates

Felix Sater

Misha Flynn

George Papadopoulos 

 

 

 

On 4/17/2018 at 3:15 PM, wildcat09 said:

McClatchy is typically very solid, and Cohen hasn't put forth an actual alibi ("here's a picture of the front of my passport" doesn't count), so I see no reason to doubt their story. 

 

On 4/18/2018 at 12:51 PM, WhatTheBuck said:

According to the McClatchy report he entered through Germany. 

 

On 8/2/2018 at 1:57 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

His activities in Prague will also be of interest because if the Dossier proves true there, that is ball fucking game. 

 

On 8/22/2018 at 4:00 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

If the Cohen/Prague/Hackers/$$$ part of the Dossier is legit and Cohen can corroborate it with people like Gates, Sater, and Flynn... Ball game.

Gates would be the most likely to have info on that because Cohen was assigned cleanup duty on Manafort’s mess in Europe, according to the Dossier.

It’s odd that Gates was so close to Manafort and the Trump campaign but he never comes up by name in the Dossier. 

 

On 3/31/2018 at 4:02 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me what inspired Paul Ryan to go to Prague to get this fuckface hacker extradited.

Any theories?

 

On 4/13/2018 at 7:31 PM, Mojo Hand said:

With the news that Mueller can prove that Cohen lied about going to Prague, the odds have shot way up on proving Trump conspired with Russia.  I don't know if Trump did it, but if he did, I'm pretty sure now that it will come out.

 

On 4/14/2018 at 3:45 PM, David Dennison said:

Cohen is digging in on the Prague denial. 

 

On 4/14/2018 at 4:06 PM, Mojo Hand said:

But there's nothing we yet know of tying Cohen to a meeting with anyone in particular, right?   We just know Mueller can place Cohen in Prague and that Cohen is lying about that. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
suddenly shaggy

suddenly shaggy 929

Posted
Posted

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/04/michael-cohen-says-hes-never-been-to-prague-he-told-me-a-different-story/

He also apparently told the Washington Post he'd been in Prague for one afternoon in 2001, which is right around that same time period. 

He's either been to Prague, at a minimum sometime around 2001, or he lied about it inexplicably to two different reporters separated by about 15 years in time.

 

My post is still true, Cohen told two reporters separated by 15 years that he'd been to Prague in 2001, but don't let that interrupt your self-congratulatory circle jerk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
retread

retread 2951

Posted
Posted

^ hadn't seen that

Quote

Longtime Donald Trump associate Roger Stone likely violated a strict gag order imposed by a federal judge last week with his latest comment about Michael Cohen and WikiLeaks.

Stone pushed back against allegations made by the president’s former personal attorney during his public testimony before the House Oversight and Reform Committee on Wednesday morning. Cohen told lawmakers, under penalty of perjury, that Stone had informed Trump about plans to dump damaging emails about Hillary Clinton at the height of the 2016 campaign.

“Mr. Trump responded by stating, ‘Wouldn’t that be great,’” Cohen said.

In a statement to multiple news outlets, including Newsweek, Stone refuted the account. “Mr. Cohen’s statement is not true,” he said.

https://www.newsweek.com/roger-stone-gag-order-michael-cohen-1346256

Link to comment
Share on other sites
yaqdum

yaqdum 182

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Pelosi clearly has no sense of urgency on impeachment meaning it ain’t happening until it’s politically advantageous. 

are you suggesting she thinks it wise to have visual contact with the target before squeezing off our one round?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Junior Miller

Junior Miller 1502

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Pelosi clearly has no sense of urgency on impeachment meaning it ain’t happening until it’s politically advantageous. 

It probably wouldn't make sense until the full extent of Muller's work is known. Republican Senate won't have much pressure on it if they do it now. Need max pressure on them to either vote to impeach or vote supporting obvious and corroborated corruption. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23359

Posted
  • Author
Posted
39 minutes ago, yaqdum said:

are you suggesting she thinks it wise to have visual contact with the target before squeezing off our one round?

 

23 minutes ago, Junior Miller said:

It probably wouldn't make sense until the full extent of Muller's work is known. Republican Senate won't have much pressure on it if they do it now. Need max pressure on them to either vote to impeach or vote supporting obvious and corroborated corruption. 

Here’s the deal, Mueller isn’t going to come out and say Trump committed crimes. There isn’t going to be some earth shattering revelation in the Mueller report to convince republicans to remove Trump.   

The impeachment process is NOT a legal process. High crimes and misdemeanors are whatever Congress says they are.

From Pelosi’s position it depends on what her priority goal is:

1.  Is the goal to successfully remove Trump from office because he is a clear and present danger to everything?  If so, the impeachment process would have already begun.  There’s more than enough evidence to at least begin the process for obstruction, fraud, and campaign finance violations.

2.  Is the goal to maximize the democratic gains in 2020?  If that’s the case, just keep Benghazing Trump with hearing after hearing damning Trump for the corrupt lying fraud he is. 

Pelosi is going with option #2 unless republicans start publicly calling for impeachment. 

Pelosi is going to bleed the GOP to death. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
yaqdum

yaqdum 182

Posted
Posted

regarding impeachment, i can't envision it not being a wasted effort as long as the senate is full of shit.

my bet is this thing is being tried in front of the general public.  if the gp continues to move against the coup and it becomes hot enough, the part of the senate that isn't doomed forever will find religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23359

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

And possibly the country while we're at it.

Elections have consequences.   

I see valid arguments both for and against impeachment.  If it were up to me I’d begin the impeachment process ASAP simply because it’s the right thing to do per the constitution. 

However, America needs to pay the price for electing Trump.  The best way to prevent another Trump from happening is to allow everyone to realize the consequences of electing him.  Letting the voters off the hook by removing him only emboldens disgruntled Americans to repeat the same mistake. 

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

jimmyjazz 45560

Posted
Posted
57 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:


Here’s the deal, Mueller isn’t going to come out and say Trump committed crimes.

Where do you come up with these bizarre theories?  If Trump committed crimes, the odds that Mueller will not lay them out in detail are zero.

 

Quote

There isn’t going to be some earth shattering revelation in the Mueller report to convince republicans to remove Trump.   

Now that I agree with, mostly because the vast majority of Republican politicians are traitors and there is nothing so bad as to actually convince them do the right thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23359

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Just now, jimmyjazz said:

If Trump committed crimes, the odds that Mueller will not lay them out in detail are zero.

How is that going to happen?  Trump has insulted himself with Barr.  

The best we can hope for is Rosenstein, Mueller, or Barr to report evidence of Trump’s criminal activity to the House Judiciary Committee.

The Mueller report isn’t going to say, “Trump committed crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The report, if we get it, will tell us what happened which could outline criminal behavior by Trump but it won’t be a legal charging document like an indictment.   It will be up to Congress to determine if the behavior outlined in the report is egregious enough to justify removal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45560

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

How is that going to happen?  Trump has insulted himself with Barr.  

The best we can hope for is Rosenstein, Mueller, or Barr to report evidence of Trump’s criminal activity to the House Judiciary Committee.

The Mueller report isn’t going to say, “Trump committed crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.”.

I'm sorry, but you're arguing two different points.  If Robert Mueller thinks Trump committed crimes, his report is going to say so.  Barr might keep that report sealed within the DOJ, but that's a different issue.

What's also a different issue is testimony Mueller might give in front of the House.  Will it be public?  That depends -- some of it probably will.  Much likely won't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23359

Posted
  • Author
Posted
10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

If Robert Mueller thinks Trump committed crimes, his report is going to say so

It's going to be left up to interpretation.  I don't expect Mueller to say anything like, "Trump violated 18 USC 371 when he clandestinely worked a Trump Tower Moscow deal while asking Russia to hack Hillary in exchange for sanctions relief upon being elected president." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45560

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It's going to be left up to interpretation.  I don't expect Mueller to say anything like, "Trump violated 18 USC 371 when he clandestinely worked a Trump Tower Moscow deal while asking Russia to hack Hillary in exchange for sanctions relief upon being elected president." 

Why on earth not?  What makes you think this man does not take his charter seriously?  And how are you so bloody confident in your oddball position?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31285

Posted
Posted

The rules require Mueller's report to explain any prosecution or declination decisions.  Obviously, he has declined to prosecute Teh Donald.  I think the rules require him to state something to the effect of "there is probable cause to believe the President committed the following offenses  . . . .  My office declined to prosecute based on 24 Op. OLC 222 (2000)"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23359

Posted
  • Author
Posted
4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Why on earth not?  What makes you think this man does not take his charter seriously?  And how are you so bloody confident in your oddball position?

I could be wrong and I hope I am but reading the tea leaves from all the documents Mueller has put out and Rosenstein's public statements leads me to believe they're not going to dunk all over Trump in the report.  Mueller will give a fair telling of what happened, that's it. Which is his job. 

The big tell for me is how they framed the language in the Manafort documents not to including anything to do with Russia. They tied all his foreign agent crimes to Ukraine with no mention of Russia anywhere. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45560

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The rules require Mueller's report to explain any prosecution or declination decisions.  Obviously, he has declined to prosecute Teh Donald. 

Well, sure.  Indicting a sitting President is a dicey proposition at best.  His failure to do so is hardly indicative of a lack of findings.

 

Quote

I think the rules require him to state something to the effect of "there is probable cause to believe the President committed the following offenses  . . . .  My office declined to prosecute based on 24 Op. OLC 222 (2000)"

And that would seem reasonable.  Hugo is implying a level of discretion that I simply don't think is consistent with Mueller's behavior to date -- I mean, the guy was Top Cop for 12 years.  I think he's very unlikely to not report on crimes he uncovers, even those he referred to SDNY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23359

Posted
  • Author
Posted
4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

And that would seem reasonable.  Hugo is implying a level of discretion that I simply don't think is consistent with Mueller's behavior to date -- I mean, the guy was Top Cop for 12 years.  I think he's very unlikely to not report on crimes he uncovers, even those he referred to SDNY.

My fear is whatever we are shown will be through a Rosenstein or Barr filter and we aren't going to get the unfiltered Muelller assessment. 

Hopefully Mueller will be able to testify and assuage those concerns, but we'll see. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45560

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

My fear is whatever we are shown will be through a Rosenstein or Barr filter and we aren't going to get the unfiltered Muelller assessment. 

And as I said, that's a different thing entirely.  The head honchos at the DOJ might redact or seal, but I fully expect Mueller's report to be appropriately detailed.

The fact that the DOJ can't stop the House from having Mueller testify is a fairly good safety net for the truth, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23359

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

And as I said, that's a different thing entirely.  The head honchos at the DOJ might redact or seal, but I fully expect Mueller's report to be appropriately detailed.

The fact that the DOJ can't stop the House from having Mueller testify is a fairly good safety net for the truth, too.

I wonder if Mueller knows the full gravity of his report.  

He gets to literally write a huge piece of American and world history here.

Talk about pressure to get it right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 17567

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I wonder if Mueller knows the full gravity of his report.  

He gets to literally write a huge piece of American and world history here.

Talk about pressure to get it right. 

I feel confident he's fully aware.

  • 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...