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

TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31283

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, triplehorn said:

 

DoJ funds Special Counsel Investigation through next September ?

Looking at this through the lens of funding seems to add another dimension to Pelosi's remarks today about slow walking impeachment.  

That seems like a stretch.  According to the article, the Special Counsel has to submit a budget request before 10/1 of a given year for the following year.  Whatever that budget is "funds the special counsel through September," that is, until the end of the fiscal year.  It's not like they do quarterly budgeting or something.

Also wow at Preet Bharara, he's quite the media boy.  Someone needs to shit on his head for giving Wall Street a pass.  https://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2017/03/taking-of-critical-perspective-on-the-work-of-former-us-attorney-for-sdny-preet-bharara.html

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That seems like a stretch.  According to the article, the Special Counsel has to submit a budget request before 10/1 of a given year for the following year.  Whatever that budget is "funds the special counsel through September," that is, until the end of the fiscal year.  It's not like they do quarterly budgeting or something.

Also wow at Preet Bharara, he's quite the media boy.  Someone needs to shit on his head for giving Wall Street a pass.  https://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2017/03/taking-of-critical-perspective-on-the-work-of-former-us-attorney-for-sdny-preet-bharara.html

Given the deadline for current funding through next Sept was 10/1/18, I agree with you.  But, for all the chatter last week suggesting Mueller is ready to wrap it up, it again feels like this could keep going on awhile.

A thought I keep returning to re the timing of Mueller’s work is that this is an ongoing counterintelligence investigation into continuous active conduct by perps to redouble and deepen their efforts in the face of what occurred in 2016.  So I imagine there must be real time countermeasures being created based on new information from subjects, further IC observations, and more analysis to navigate going forward.  

There is something potentially invaluable to our nat sec interests in allowing certain individuals and relationships to proceed under scrutiny for some period of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
notre dame joe

notre dame joe 172

Posted
Posted
On ‎3‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 7:27 AM, Horn Dog said:

unse==What you libtards don’t seem to understand is that conservative judges are just calling balls and strikes.  They strictly inforce the constitution and follow guidlines.  They do not let their personal views influence their decisions.

Just like special counsels.  We're lucky to have proto-AI robots dispensing justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31283

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, triplehorn said:

Given the deadline for current funding through next Sept was 10/1/18, I agree with you.  But, for all the chatter last week suggesting Mueller is ready to wrap it up, it again feels like this could keep going on awhile.

A thought I keep returning to re the timing of Mueller’s work is that this is an ongoing counterintelligence investigation into continuous active conduct by perps to redouble and deepen their efforts in the face of what occurred in 2016.  So I imagine there must be real time countermeasures being created based on new information from subjects, further IC observations, and more analysis to navigate going forward.  

There is something potentially invaluable to our nat sec interests in allowing certain individuals and relationships to proceed under scrutiny for some period of time.

It seems to me, though, that a CI investigation is not as subject to conflict-of-interest as investigation of executive branch employees and family/employees of Trump, and therefore can proceed without as much fear of executive interference as the matters Mueller was engaged to investigate.  In other words, I'm not sure it's necessary to prolong the Mueller investigation to pursue that investigation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 29794

Posted
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Pretty sure both parties want to run out the clock on the Mueller probe.  Because they’re both terrified of having to act like responsible adults when the truth is revealed.  

I'm surprised that no Democrat has been implicated as far as we know. I'm guessing GOP apologists are scouring the evidence to find at least one Dem that they can use to support their both sides defense.

I don't know if Putin is the master puppeteer some claim or he just threw some rotten meat into the kennel to see what would happen. If he is a planner, doesn't it make sense that he'd find a way to compromise Dems as well?

Think of the destruction of the people's waning faith in our system if, after the GOPs are handcuffed, the NYT has a front page story that Russian money passed through a union PAC to help Dem candidates. Even if the Dems were unknowing, they'd be tarred with the same brush. 

I figure some GOPs will go down who were ignorant of the Russia corruption but received funds from legit seeming sources.  That's where even innocent Dems could be sucked into the vortex.

If no Dems are caught up in this, they can run under a new slogan.

We're the Democratic Party. We only feed at the American trough!

51I35d+PNqL._AC_UL130_.jpg

Edited by RomaVicta
Active Measures corrupted my grammar. Damn Putin!
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23356

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I don't know if Putin is the master puppeteer some claim or he just threw some rotten meat into the kennel to see what would happen. If he is a planner, doesn't it make sense that he'd find a way to compromise Dems as well?

Putin is going to try to compromise as many powerfully people in the United States as possible.  I think most people lack imagination on how Putin can compromise Americans.  It’s not always straight up bribery and blackmail and it’s not always full blown witting asset versus patriot. 

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

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

It seems to me, though, that a CI investigation is not as subject to conflict-of-interest as investigation of executive branch employees and family/employees of Trump, and therefore can proceed without as much fear of executive interference as the matters Mueller was engaged to investigate.  In other words, I'm not sure it's necessary to prolong the Mueller investigation to pursue that investigation.

I'm not sure I fully grasp your conflict of interest angle, but Mueller wasn't tasked to or limited to specifically investigate Exec branch employees or Trump/family for events in 2016.  While it is inclusive of the Trumps, any evidentiary co-mingling they face would be incidental. 

Setting aside TrumpCo involvement, Mueller's investigation is not about examining a static event in the past for potential crimes.  It's an active dynamic interface with multiple entities involved in an ongoing pattern of corruption, criminality, and emerging national security threats.  Bringing indictments, sealing them or not, timing the release of indictments, and pressuring for cooperation from witnesses to deepen other tranches of Mueller's work all become interwoven as tactical measures for combating active and emerging counterintelligence threats.  Conceivably, Trump and family could represent a "middle phase" of Mueller's investigation into Russia's role, international bank money laundering, transnational criminal organizations, and their impact on efforts to undermine our democracy and Western alliances.

Mueller may get fired in the "middle phase" and I'd expect contingencies are in place, but for Mueller to be protected and allowed to captain a very large ship could be the current optimal arrangement post-Trump/family indictments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mdhorn

Mdhorn 5911

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

I'm surprised that no Democrat has been implicated as far as we know. I'm guessing GOP apologists are scouring the evidence to find at least one Dem that they can use to support their both sides defense.

I don't know if Putin is the master puppeteer some claim or he just threw some rotten meat into the kennel to see what would happen. If he is a planner, doesn't it make sense that he'd find a way to compromise Dems as well?

Think of the destruction of the people's waning faith in our system if, after the GOPs are handcuffed, the NYT has a front page story that Russian money passed through a union PAC to help Dem candidates. Even if the Dems were unknowing, they'd be tarred with the same brush. 

I figure some GOPs will go down who were ignorant of the Russia corruption but received funds from legit seeming sources.  That's where even innocent Dems could be sucked into the vortex.

If no Dems are caught up in this, they can run under a new slogan.

We're the Democratic Party. We only feed at the American trough!

51I35d+PNqL._AC_UL130_.jpg

I hate Nancy's reaction because it undermines the threat Trump poses to our election system and national security.  She also pulls off the best card the Dems have in that it's not about likelihood of impeachment.  It's about holding the Republicans accountable for not impeaching and getting it on record.  Mueller needs support too.  Do your damn jobs for the country you serve instead of the party you serve on.    If they don't, they are accessories and they need to hear it and fully understand the concept.

Edited by Mdhorn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45560

Posted
Posted (edited)

I realize the clock is ticking, but if it becomes clear that the Trump administration is in place because of election interference, then hell yes I want Trump & Pence and them rest of the impeached or indicted.  The biggest threat I see is at the Supreme Court -- who knows how long RBG or some of the other olds will stay on, but the last thing I want is Trump or Pence nominating a 3rd justice when the Senate Republicans hold a 53-47 lead.

Edited by jimmyjazz
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89449

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

I hate Nancy's reaction because it undermines the threat Trump poses to our election system and national security.  She also pulls off the best card the Dems have in that it's not about likelihood of impeachment.  It's about holding the Republicans accountable for not impeaching and getting it on record.  Mueller needs support too.  Do your damn jobs for the country you serve instead of the party you serve on.    If they don't, they are accessories and they need to hear it and fully understand the concept.

The best thing Nancy and the Dems can do is stay away from (or out of the way of) Mueller and Co.   

Trump is already doing everything he can to convince his base that a group of lifelong Republicans investigating him are suddenly Dems, and that they are running interference for Hillary’s wrongdoing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mdhorn

Mdhorn 5911

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

The best thing Nancy and the Dems can do is stay away from (or out of the way of) Mueller and Co.   

Trump is already doing everything he can to convince his base that a group of lifelong Republicans investigating him are suddenly Dems, and that they are running interference for Hillary’s wrongdoing. 

Then she shouldn't say anything. Silence can be golden if used correctly.  But saying they're not looking to impeach because Trump isn't worth it is the wrong damn message. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
notre dame joe

notre dame joe 172

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

I'm surprised that no Democrat has been implicated as far as we know. I'm guessing GOP apologists are scouring the evidence to find at least one Dem that they can use to support their both sides defense.

 

I don't know if they were all technically Democrats but the Deep Staters involved with the Dossier humiliated themselves worse than Putin could have dreamt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted

Pelosi's full statement this week on impeachment:

“I’m not for impeachment. This is news. I’m going to give you some news right now because I haven’t said this to any press person before,” the House Speaker said. “But since you asked, and I’ve been thinking about this: Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country.”

That's a glaring qualifier.  That 'something' that is 'so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan' could drop tomorrow or two months from now.  If and when it does, it will be obvious to all non-complicit R's.  Until it does drop, shaking that tree is a distraction from the actual real work of oversight that is going well beyond attention to a disposable worthless Trump.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89449

Posted
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

Then she shouldn't say anything. Silence can be golden if used correctly.  But saying they're not looking to impeach because Trump isn't worth it is the wrong damn message. 

She did say something though.  

Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country.

Edit: what triplehorn said above

Edited by atomheartbevo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31283

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, triplehorn said:

I'm not sure I fully grasp your conflict of interest angle, but Mueller wasn't tasked to or limited to specifically investigate Exec branch employees or Trump/family for events in 2016.  While it is inclusive of the Trumps, any evidentiary co-mingling they face would be incidental. 

Setting aside TrumpCo involvement, Mueller's investigation is not about examining a static event in the past for potential crimes.  It's an active dynamic interface with multiple entities involved in an ongoing pattern of corruption, criminality, and emerging national security threats.  Bringing indictments, sealing them or not, timing the release of indictments, and pressuring for cooperation from witnesses to deepen other tranches of Mueller's work all become interwoven as tactical measures for combating active and emerging counterintelligence threats.  Conceivably, Trump and family could represent a "middle phase" of Mueller's investigation into Russia's role, international bank money laundering, transnational criminal organizations, and their impact on efforts to undermine our democracy and Western alliances.

Mueller may get fired in the "middle phase" and I'd expect contingencies are in place, but for Mueller to be protected and allowed to captain a very large ship could be the current optimal arrangement post-Trump/family indictments.

Because without a presidential/executive conflict of interest there is no justification for a special counsel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Because without a presidential/executive conflict of interest there is no justification for a special counsel.

Got it.  Well it certainly is both. Given the complexity and sensitivity of the investigation and Mueller's leadership expertise, I will defer to Mueller to make that call.  Also, there are parallel threads that are the subject of fairly intense matters like the Mystery Appellant that will likely extend beyond Trump/family considerations.  If we're talking now until Sept., it seems reasonable for Mueller to keep things in place and reassess at that time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted

Pelosi is just being smart. Right now the polling on impeachment is 41 percent against with 40 percent for. Notably independents are against it 41-34. Even a lot of dems and republicans are undecided.

To start it now would be foolhardy. While all the undecided dems would come to support it, all the undecided Republicans and independents would oppose it. The numbers in favor overall would go down and it would then of course never happen. 

That means impeachment right now is a non starter, same as trumps idiotic shutdown was a nonstarter. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mdhorn

Mdhorn 5911

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

She did say something though.  

Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country.

Edit: what triplehorn said above

they need to edit our news better--they seem to have conveniently left that out of the soundbite.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5076

Posted
Posted
I'm surprised that no Democrat has been implicated as far as we know. I'm guessing GOP apologists are scouring the evidence to find at least one Dem that they can use to support their both sides defense.
I don't know if Putin is the master puppeteer some claim or he just threw some rotten meat into the kennel to see what would happen. If he is a planner, doesn't it make sense that he'd find a way to compromise Dems as well?


There was Tony Podesta, who closed shop and may still get slapped a little. (His firm was working under Manafort under an obvious false assurance that foreign money wasn’t paying the bill.)

There is also a former Dem Congressman who is a lobbyist and was working in Rohrabacher’s orbit on some Russian shit.

But, in general, mainstream Dems were lined up behind Hillary and Putin hates Hillary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrickHorn

BrickHorn 18194

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Manafort is currently in court about to be sentenced again.

Yeah, but aside from that set of crimes, and the other ones he just got sentenced for, and all the blood on his hands in Ukraine, and pimping his handicapped wife for his own perverse gratification, the guy has lived an otherwise blameless life.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31283

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Degenerate Gardner said:

In lieu of genuine contrition, Manafort is going with the 'poor me!' approach.  Bold strategy Cotton.

I think "genuine" is where the rubber hits the road.  His lawyers know he can't pull that off, so they have to go with something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31283

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Does she announce the sentence from the bench?  Surely she already knows what she is going to say and these arguments don't move the needle at all.

Most likely.  This is actually an evidentiary hearing on the application of those guidelines that include some sort of fact question.  The standard is preponderance.  Sometimes if there is a sharp legal or factual dispute as to application of a guideline, they take it under advisement, but these are five-year max crimes, so I am not sure there is that much of that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pig Bellmont

Pig Bellmont 8692

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Fucking lawyers.  “If it weren’t for a short period during which my client was committing horrible crimes against our country, he’d be innocent!”

Rather I think it’s “if my client didn’t take such a prominent job, he could have committed crimes and no one would have cared (you know, like before)”

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31283

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Rather I think it’s “if my client didn’t take such a prominent job, he could have committed crimes and no one would have cared (you know, like before)”

It kind of reeks of "everyone on K Street does this shit," which may not be far from the truth.

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...