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

SKJ

SKJ 1317

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/documents-suggest-possible-coordination-between-cia-fbi-obama-wh-and-dem-officials-early-in-trump-russia-probe-investigators/ar-AAvdFJ5

Hmmm

Fucking Fox news bullshit with an msn domain.

Nobody really believes anything at Fox that says "suggests" or "possible."

Get the fuck outta here with that propaganda

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pyrohornIII

pyrohornIII 4844

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/documents-suggest-possible-coordination-between-cia-fbi-obama-wh-and-dem-officials-early-in-trump-russia-probe-investigators/ar-AAvdFJ5

Hmmm

Strawman argument.  Cutting through the smoke and mirrors Fox crap, someone in the Obama WH suspected there might have been some collusion between Trump and Russia.  I guess Fox would have rather had them keep their suspicions to themselves and not reached out to, I dunno, the people who should be investigating this kind of stuff. 

I suppose the leap we are supposed to make is that these documents (texts) show an effort by the Dems to frame Trump for collusion, using the FBI, CIA, et al.  But they couldn't have been texting, emailing, etc to make sure whatever investigations done would be unimpeachable. 

It's just a more elaborate "But Obama!"  "But Hillary!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pyrohornIII

pyrohornIII 4844

Posted
Posted
Just now, WhatTheBuck said:

Trump supporters start attacking Mueller, the Mueller camp starts leaking. 

This is a little like watching Braveheart.  Everytime Longshanks sends out an attack, Wallace has not only anticipated it, but has used it to his advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15664

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Trump supporters start attacking Mueller, the Mueller camp starts leaking. 

I don't see how you reach that conclusion.  It appears that every "leak" comes from the witnesses who have been questioned, not the investigators doing the questioning. 

I say that for two reasons.  First, every story is careful not to say that the source is inside the OSC; it always says something along the lines of "according to one source familiar with the investigation" or "according to sources with knowledge of the investigation's direction."  Second, we never learn anything about the investigation until after witnesses are questioned about something. 

The Reuters report is a case in point, as set forth in the first sentence: "Investigators probing whether Donald Trump’s presidential campaign colluded with Russia have been questioning witnesses about events at the 2016 Republican National Convention, according to two sources familiar with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s inquiries."

So--the sources are "familiar" with the "inquiries"--i.e., the questions--and not the underlying evidence.  And once again, we only learn about what the OSC is investigating based on what they "have been questioning witnesses about."

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I don't see how you reach that conclusion.  It appears that every "leak" comes from the witnesses who have been questioned, not the investigators doing the questioning. 

I say that for two reasons.  First, every story is careful not to say that the source is inside the OSC; it always says something along the lines of "according to one source familiar with the investigation" or "according to sources with knowledge of the investigation's direction."  Second, we never learn anything about the investigation until after witnesses are questioned about something. 

The Reuters report is a case in point, as set forth in the first sentence: "Investigators probing whether Donald Trump’s presidential campaign colluded with Russia have been questioning witnesses about events at the 2016 Republican National Convention, according to two sources familiar with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s inquiries."

So--the sources are "familiar" with the "inquiries"--i.e., the questions--and not the underlying evidence.  And once again, we only learn about what the OSC is investigating based on what they "have been questioning witnesses about."

I agree.  I pay careful attention to how stories are sourced.  In hundreds and hundreds of articles I've read I've NEVER seen one that appeared to come from the Mueller camp.  I find this astounding.

There is something special about organizations that can keep secrets.  Dishonest people can't get people - honest or dishonest - to keep secrets.

 

There is enormous interest in learning what Mueller investigators know, and yet nobody appears to have been successful in getting this info.  This speaks volumes to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14571

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I don't see how you reach that conclusion.  It appears that every "leak" comes from the witnesses who have been questioned, not the investigators doing the questioning. 

I say that for two reasons.  First, every story is careful not to say that the source is inside the OSC; it always says something along the lines of "according to one source familiar with the investigation" or "according to sources with knowledge of the investigation's direction."  Second, we never learn anything about the investigation until after witnesses are questioned about something. 

The Reuters report is a case in point, as set forth in the first sentence: "Investigators probing whether Donald Trump’s presidential campaign colluded with Russia have been questioning witnesses about events at the 2016 Republican National Convention, according to two sources familiar with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s inquiries."

So--the sources are "familiar" with the "inquiries"--i.e., the questions--and not the underlying evidence.  And once again, we only learn about what the OSC is investigating based on what they "have been questioning witnesses about."

This.  I would be shocked if any of the leaks have come from Mueller's team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 46061

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

I agree.  I pay careful attention to how stories are sourced.  In hundreds and hundreds of articles I've read I've NEVER seen one that appeared to come from the Mueller camp.  I find this astounding.

There is something special about organizations that can keep secrets.  Dishonest people can't get people - honest or dishonest - to keep secrets.

 

There is enormous interest in learning what Mueller investigators know, and yet nobody appears to have been successful in getting this info.  This speaks volumes to me.

What it speaks to me is that Mueller knows he and his team are responsible for uncovering the greatest political conspiracy in American history and they know damn well that they have to get it right.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pods

Pods 7622

Posted
Posted (edited)

This one is definitely from witnesses that were questioned. The leaks almost always come after witnesses are asked questions, or to prepare for questions. I don't think any of it has ever come from Mueller's team.

That's a layup for Fox News and Trump if they anyone on Mueller's team were to leak info to the media. I suspect if anyone on the investigation did leak something, Mueller would can them immediately. 

Edited by Pods
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

What it speaks to me is that Mueller knows he and his team are responsible for uncovering the greatest political conspiracy in American history and they know damn well that they have to get it right.

I think you may be right and you may be wrong, and you have almost no evidence.  Everybody's just guessing.  And that's how it should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106628

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

What it speaks to me is that Mueller knows he and his team are responsible for uncovering the greatest political conspiracy in American history and they know damn well that they have to get it right.

I tend to lean this way, and that's because it's EXACTLY what I would do in his shoes.

You're an attorney-investigator.  You've been handed a case that doesn't involve the fate of a defendant, or the fate of a drug ring, or something like that.  It involves perhaps the fate of the entire Republic.  You have to get it right.  More than anything you've done in your life, or will ever do again, you have to get this right.  By the book.  Every step.  Don't fail to turn over ANY stone.  Put together the COMPLETE AND TOTAL story.  And do so with regard for only one thing: the integrity of the investigation and the rule of law that it seeks to follow and preserve.

Yes, we're all guessing at this point.  But knowing guys like Mueller....I think that's a pretty good guess.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28904

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I don't see how you reach that conclusion.  It appears that every "leak" comes from the witnesses who have been questioned, not the investigators doing the questioning. 

I say that for two reasons.  First, every story is careful not to say that the source is inside the OSC; it always says something along the lines of "according to one source familiar with the investigation" or "according to sources with knowledge of the investigation's direction."  Second, we never learn anything about the investigation until after witnesses are questioned about something. 

The Reuters report is a case in point, as set forth in the first sentence: "Investigators probing whether Donald Trump’s presidential campaign colluded with Russia have been questioning witnesses about events at the 2016 Republican National Convention, according to two sources familiar with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s inquiries."

So--the sources are "familiar" with the "inquiries"--i.e., the questions--and not the underlying evidence.  And once again, we only learn about what the OSC is investigating based on what they "have been questioning witnesses about."

Only one of the two sources was said to be a Mueller interviewee according to Reuters. This strikes me as more leaky than what we've seen up until now. And it comes coincidentally with more direct attacks on Mueller since Trump mentioned him by name in an angry Tweet not too long ago. Maybe it's a coincidence. Maybe it's not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
deech

deech 2381

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Only one of the two sources was said to be a Mueller interviewee according to Reuters. This strikes me as more leaky than what we've seen up until now. And it comes coincidentally with more direct attacks on Mueller since Trump mentioned him by name in an angry Tweet not too long ago. Maybe it's a coincidence. Maybe it's not. 

Honestly, Mueller gives 0 shits about Trump twitter.  I've never met or talked to the guy - but I am 100% confident Mueller's not responding to Trump tweets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15664

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Only one of the two sources was said to be a Mueller interviewee according to Reuters. This strikes me as more leaky than what we've seen up until now. And it comes coincidentally with more direct attacks on Mueller since Trump mentioned him by name in an angry Tweet not too long ago. Maybe it's a coincidence. Maybe it's not. 

The second source is introduced in the third paragraph thusly: "Another issue Mueller’s team has been asking about is how and why Republican Party platform language hostile to Russia was deleted from a section of the document related to Ukraine, said another source who also requested anonymity."  It doesn't say specifically that that s/he was questioned.  But the only thing the source talks about is what "Mueller's team has been asking about."

There is no reason to infer that such a source came from inside the OCS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pig Bellmont

Pig Bellmont 8867

Posted
Posted
51 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

I think you may be right and you may be wrong, and you have almost no evidence.  Everybody's just guessing.  And that's how it should be.

“Almost no evidence” save 19 people indicted, five guilty pleas, 100 criminal counts, and that’s only what’s public. But yeah sure. Everyone is guessing 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
Quote

(CNN)Special counsel Robert Mueller's team last year made clear it wanted former Trump campaign deputy Rick Gates' help, not so much against his former business partner Paul Manafort, but with its central mission: investigating the Trump campaign's contact with the Russians. New information disclosed in court filings and to CNN this week begin to show how they're getting it.

In a court filing earlier this week, the public saw the first signs of how the Mueller team plans to use information from Gates to tie Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman, directly to a Russian intelligence agency. Mueller's team alleges that Gates was in contact with a close colleague of Manafort's who worked for a Russian intelligence agency -- and that Gates knew of the spy service ties in September and October 2016, while he worked on the Trump campaign. Gates would have to talk about the communication with the man if prosecutors wanted, according to his plea deal.

That's in line with what prosecutors told Gates months ago during high-stakes negotiations, CNN has learned. They told him they didn't need his cooperation against Manafort, according to a person familiar with the investigation, and instead wanted to hear what he knew about contact between the Trump campaign and Russians. 

The extent of Gates' knowledge about any such contact or what he told prosecutors hasn't been made public. 

As part of Gates' agreement to cooperate with the special counsel a month ago, he earned a vastly reduced potential sentence and had several charges dropped in two criminal cases against him.

Gates' plea also adds to mounting pressure on his co-defendant Manafort -- who so far the government is making a central player in the investigation -- to change his plea and potentially help investigators. Under his plea agreement, Gates still could be called to testify against Manafort.

Mueller's court filing Tuesday night, in a separate case for a lawyer whose firm did legal work for Gates and Manafort, made public the most direct effort yet by Mueller's team to draw a line between Manafort and the Trump campaign to Russian operatives. Prosecutors called the details of Gates' contact with the Russian intelligence officer during the campaign "pertinent to the investigation."

 

Russian contact

 

The alleged Russian intelligence agent, referred to as "Person A" in the court filing, appears to be Konstantin Kilimnik, a former employee who worked with Manafort's firm and lived in Kiev and Moscow, according to sources familiar with the investigation. In December, the Mueller prosecutors made a similar unnamed reference to Kilimnik, saying he is "assessed to have ties to a Russian intelligence service." That was related to a Kiev newspaper op-ed that Kilimnik helped edit in consultation with Manafort late last year, which prosecutors said could violate a court-imposed gag order on Manafort. 

The criminal allegations facing Gates and Manafort encompass work they did in the years prior to the 2016 election. Manafort has pleaded not guilty in two federal criminal cases stemming from Mueller's prosecution, one in Washington, DC, and another one in Virginia.

A chief criticism from President Donald Trump and his defenders has been that the charges brought so far by the special counsel don't relate directly to Mueller's central mission investigating possible illegal coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, which the President and others often shorthand using the term collusion. The accusation related to Kilimnik and ties to Russian intelligence, made in Mueller's Tuesday filing, begins to answer that criticism, but so far without actually making the charge in Manafort's case. 

A lawyer for Manafort declined to comment. Kilimnik didn't comment. Last year, Kilimnik told The Washington Post he has "no relation to the Russian or any other intelligence service."

Gates' current lawyer also declined to comment for this story.

Gates may have information of value to prosecutors beyond his business dealings with Manafort, according to sources familiar with his role. He never grew close to Trump, but he had ties with other members of Trump's inner circle, including Manafort and Tom Barrack, a fundraiser and close friend of Trump's. He also developed a reputation for keeping tabs on what others were up to, one source said.

Gates worked alongside Manafort during the critical summer of 2016 when senior campaign officials, including Manafort, met at Trump Tower in New York with a group of Russians who had promised damaging information on Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. 

"Was he in the strategy meetings? No. But he was an implementer," one person said of Gates. So while he may not have participated in the Trump Tower meeting with the Russians, he may still have knowledge of the meeting or whether those Russians were ever introduced to Trump himself.

"He would be the kind of person who would probably know that," this person said.

Even after Manafort was fired from the campaign, Gates stuck around. He then went on to work with Barrack, while Barrack ran the presidential inaugural committee following the election.

 

Legal team troubles

 

Before the indictment, prosecutors had told Gates he faced the risk of criminal charges -- the beginning of a strategy to pressure him, according to two sources.

Gates' various legal teams -- and there have been many -- kept in touch with Mueller's office throughout the investigation. 

Once prosecutors made a plea offer following Gates' indictment, that offer never changed: He could plead guilty to a conspiracy count if he helped the investigation.

In all, Gates held out for almost four months. He initially pleaded not guilty with the help of a public defender after he split with his previous attorney.

He then hired three lawyers, who each worked in their own small firms, to take him to trial. 

But the financial stress on Gates mounted. He failed to pay some of his legal bills.

"The reality of how long this legal process will likely take, the cost, and the circus-like atmosphere of an anticipated trial are too much," Gates told friends and family in an email the morning he pleaded guilty.

Despite the risk for Manafort and the cost, Gates engaged a third set of private attorneys, led by Thomas Green of the large law firm Sidley Austin, to negotiate his plea deal with Mueller in January and February.

Even as Green finalized Gates' plea throughout February, Gates wavered on his willingness to cooperate with the prosecutors. For months, he held on-and-off conversations with a fourth option for a private defense attorney to take him to trial: Barry Pollack. Pollack had previously worked closely with Manafort's attorneys.

At least three other well-known criminal defense law firms tried to help Gates over the past several months, according to multiple sources. One law partner made calls to find him lawyers, another two lawyers reviewed the financial allegations, and a third firm offered to get involved. Manafort's attorneys were engaged in some of the efforts but not all.

More recently, the Republican National Committee promised it would help defendants in the Mueller investigation fight their charges by establishing a legal defense fund.

Yet it wasn't enough. Gates never hired Pollack nor any other attorney to take him to trial after he was released from house arrest in early January.

Prosecutors revealed after one of his interviews with the Mueller team, on February 1, that they believed he had lied to them about a detail of Manafort's lobbying efforts. The lie resulted in a second charge added to his possible plea. Gates chose to cooperate and plead guilty eight days later.

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

WhatTheBuck 28904

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

The second source is introduced in the third paragraph thusly: "Another issue Mueller’s team has been asking about is how and why Republican Party platform language hostile to Russia was deleted from a section of the document related to Ukraine, said another source who also requested anonymity."  It doesn't say specifically that that s/he was questioned.  But the only thing the source talks about is what "Mueller's team has been asking about."

There is no reason to infer that such a source came from inside the OCS.

Two sources, one referred to as a Trump interviewee, the other not. The one not identified as an interviewee could be anyone. We don't know. If it was an interviewee then it seems they would have said so like they did with the first source. But it's someone familiar with the investigation. I can't rule out that it was someone from the Mueller camp.

You'd have to agree that if it was someone from the Mueller camp then that would be a signicant development. One that would hardly seem to be a coincidence given the recent advance of personal attacks against Mueller himself. 

Just stating my first impression. If it was accurate then we'll see further examples. I'm done litigating it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted
7 minutes ago, ShaggyBevo RIP said:

He likely a lot safer in the US now that he's a Russian loose end.

Not if he’s a legit Russian agent.  

The kremlin would only whack him if he betrayed them. 

Dead Russians out front should have told ya.

Hitting Manafort after staying so steadfastly loyal sends the wrong message, loose ends be damned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14571

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, Tennesseehorn said:

Hmmmm I guess Robert "The Perfect Reputation" Mueller has plumb fucking run out of collusion ideas/crimes.  Hopefully he's on his last legs with this investigation.

Wut?

Who's the asshole who told you where to find the new site?  Dammit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 30501

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

What it speaks to me is that Mueller knows he and his team are responsible for uncovering the greatest political conspiracy in American history and they know damn well that they have to get it right.

Completely agree. The deep, systemic implications go beyond the mere lunacy, selfishness, and treason of Donald Trump. Tendrils of this corruption have found holds in many places. I'd be surprised if no Democrats are dirty. I think it's that far reaching.

Of course if five Dems are indicted with half the Republican party, all we're hear is "both sides."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15664

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Two sources, one referred to as a Trump interviewee, the other not. The one not identified as an interviewee could be anyone. We don't know. If it was an interviewee then it seems they would have said so like they did with the first source. But it's someone familiar with the investigation. I can't rule out that it was someone from the Mueller camp.

You'd have to agree that if it was someone from the Mueller camp then that would be a signicant development. One that would hardly seem to be a coincidence given the recent advance of personal attacks against Mueller himself. 

Just stating my first impression. If it was accurate then we'll see further examples. I'm done litigating it. 

I can't rule it out, but you have absolutely no basis to rule it in.

I think the much safer reading, based on Mueller's history of non-leaking and the subject-matter of the information provided by the source (i.e., the topic of Mueller's questions), is that the source isn't an interviewee but is instead somebody outside the OSC who knows what the interviewee was asked (e.g., the interviewee's lawyer).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
achooloco

achooloco 1086

Posted
Posted

so slightly off topic, but since the investigation is heating up (figure it'll be popping up in water cooler talk more often) and due to the fact I don't "hear" it that often because I don't have cable, do y'all say mUH-ler or myoo-ler like the old austin airport?  have i been mispronouncing our airport my whole life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted

A controversial London-based academic with close ties to 

Nigel Farage has been detained by the FBI upon arrival in the US and issued a subpoena to testify before Robert Mueller, the special counsel who is investigating possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.

Ted Malloch, an American touted last year as a possible candidate to serve as US ambassador to the EU, said he was interrogated by the FBI at Boston’s Logan airport on Wednesday following a flight from London and questioned about his involvement in the Trump campaign.

In a statement sent to the Guardian, Malloch, who described himself as a policy wonk and defender of Trump, said the FBI also asked him about his relationship with Roger Stone, the Republican strategist, and whether he had ever visited the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where the Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has resided for nearly six years.

In a detailed statement about the experience, which he described as bewildering and intimidating at times, Malloch said the federal agents who stopped him and separated him from his wife “seemed to know everything about me” and warned him that lying to the FBI was a felony. In the statement Malloch denied having any Russia contacts.

 

This sounds serious. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hefeweizen

Hefeweizen 5416

Posted
Posted

Sounds like the curtains closing when these sessions are so well prepared. I think they have it all wrapped up and are doing extra backup to make sure anyone who perjures themselves is busted by multiple sources.

It feels like a tsunami approaching the shoreline where no one can see the wave itself.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 18092

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, Tennesseehorn said:

Hmmmm I guess Robert "The Perfect Reputation" Mueller has plumb fucking run out of collusion ideas/crimes.  Hopefully he's on his last legs with this investigation.

It's funny you think this is what's happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chooky

Chooky 13337

Posted
Posted

About 3 weeks ago Sam was professing his love for his life mentor and father figure, Roger Stone.  His only concern about any of the investigation was to protect Roger.  What a herd of stable and healthy folks.  These are the people who make Stephen Miller look sturdy and dependable.  What a fucking clown college.  

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...