Jump to content

The Robert Mueller Investigation

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

yoladu

yoladu 4067

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Jim Tom Pinch said:

Russia was trying to generally fuck with us like they have for decades. Anyone with at least half a brain knows this. Apparently that excludes all the anti-Trumpets around here.

Good morning

Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.

The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.

What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?

I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.

Best

Rob Goldstone

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

EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/25/john-brennan-ex-cia-chief-offers-mea-culpa-on-trum/

John Brennan:  "I don't know if I received bad information."

 

You were the head of the CIA.  What do you mean you don't know if you received bad information?  Seems to me that being able to tell bad information from good information is one of the qualifications for that job.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thetexashammer

Thetexashammer 1062

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, yoladu said:

What?

Did Ken Starr get disbarred?

Image result for ken starr report

you can get it on Amazon for $0.99

I suppose I wasn't clear. If you are pursuing charges, it's awfully hard to keep your charges out of the public domain. In fact, the public has an intrinsic right to know. It's only when you don't charge someone that they remain undisclosed.

So if you are charging someone, there's no obligation to keep your report secret. Indeed, what your proposing is mildly insane. How would you even do such a thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31283

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

I suppose I wasn't clear. If you are pursuing charges, it's awfully hard to keep your charges out of the public domain. In fact, the public has an intrinsic right to know. It's only when you don't charge someone that they remain undisclosed.

So if you are charging someone, there's no obligation to keep your report secret. Indeed, what your proposing is mildly insane. How would you even do such a thing?

You actually raise a valid point.  The Starr Report was prepared under a defunct law that gave a court panel the authority to release, redact, or withhold the report entirely.  It mostly disclosed.

The current regs were drafted leaving disclosure obligations subject to DOJ policy, which is not to identify uncharged individuals.  According to Neal Katyal, that was done purposely to avoid/minimize collateral damage like Monica Lewinsky

People that are under ongoing investigation by another office aren't going to be identified because ongoing investigation.

However, I might expect the evidence against Trump, uncharged because of immunity, to be discussed.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcar00

dcar00 14036

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/25/john-brennan-ex-cia-chief-offers-mea-culpa-on-trum/

John Brennan:  "I don't know if I received bad information."

 

You were the head of the CIA.  What do you mean you don't know if you received bad information?  Seems to me that being able to tell bad information from good information is one of the qualifications for that job.

 

the crawfishin' is epic.  watching Cuomo have moronic dinner table arguments with Guliani on CNN is a riot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcar00

dcar00 14036

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Jim Tom Pinch said:

Russia was trying to generally fuck with us like they have for decades. Anyone with at least half a brain knows this. Apparently that excludes all the anti-Trumpets around here.

90's...foreign policy....wants it back

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/25/john-brennan-ex-cia-chief-offers-mea-culpa-on-trum/

John Brennan:  "I don't know if I received bad information."

Brennan said that on Tue March 5.  Later that week on March 9, the Spectator USA persona Cockburn wrote a column about hearing Mueller was ready to bring charges against Trump and Trump kids.  Then in the last 24hrs we learn Barr first knew about Mueller having made a determination on charges 3 weeks ago - right when Brennan came out with that prediction. 

It looks like a lot was peaking that week and initial rumors began but were inconsistent or wrong.  Then a week ago Trump flipped his biscuit for an entire weekend.  What was that about ?  Could have been revelations about the depth and breadth of basic evidence presented in the Mueller report, devastating even if uncharged.  But I'd like to think both Brennan and Cockburn had it partially right - that Trump kids and Trump as un-indicted co-conspirator are facing 'conspiracy' charges.  The hitch is that it's not from Mueller, but SDNY.  Trump's freakout a week ago may have been his grasping that Mueller being done doesn't mean the specter of severe consequences for him and his family is over.

 

Edited by triplehorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
El Diablo

El Diablo 4232

Posted
Posted
58 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/25/john-brennan-ex-cia-chief-offers-mea-culpa-on-trum/

John Brennan:  "I don't know if I received bad information."

 

You were the head of the CIA.  What do you mean you don't know if you received bad information?  Seems to me that being able to tell bad information from good information is one of the qualifications for that job.

 

I guess you weren't around during the Clinton years and also aren't familiar with the run up to the Iraqi war. CIA had a lot of bad intel. Fog of war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31283

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Brennan said that on Tue March 5.  Later that week on March 9, the Spectator USA persona Cockburn wrote a column about hearing Mueller was ready to bring charges against Trump and Trump kids.  Then in the last 24hrs we learn Barr first knew about Mueller having made a determination on charges 3 weeks ago - right when Brennan came out with that prediction. 

It looks like a lot was peaking that week and initial rumors began but were inconsistent or wrong.  Then a week ago Trump flipped his biscuit for an entire weekend.  What was that about ?  Could have been revelations about the depth and breadth of basic evidence presented in the Mueller report, devastating even if uncharged.  But I'd like to think both Brennan and Cockburn had it partially right - that Trump kids and Trump as un-indicted co-conspirator are facing 'conspiracy' charges.  The hitch is that it's not from Mueller, but SDNY.  Trump's freakout a week ago may have been his grasping that Mueller being done doesn't mean the specter of severe consequences for him and his family is over.

 

Where did we learn that Barr knew of conclusions three weeks ago? 

 

And can we quit talking about "conspiracy" charges? Unless someone specifies what the conspiracy was to accomplish (bank fraud, money laundering, obstruction of justice) , then they probably don't know what they're talking about. And 371 is almost never brought by itself. Its a cheap add-on catchall crime. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Where did we learn that Barr knew of conclusions three weeks ago? 

 

And can we quit talking about "conspiracy" charges? Unless someone specifies what the conspiracy was to accomplish (bank fraud, money laundering, obstruction of justice) , then they probably don't know what they're talking about. And 371 is almost never brought by itself. Its a cheap add-on catchall crime. 

On the first question : https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/mueller-told-barr-rosenstein-3-weeks-ago-he-would-not-n987041

Don’t believe Brennan specified type of conspiracy, unsurprising given it was an initial ill formed rumor.  The Trump ‘family’ appears to run a corrupt enterprise that didn’t hit pause when it entered the WH.

—> but SDNY

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
notre dame joe

notre dame joe 172

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Where did we learn that Barr knew of conclusions three weeks ago? 

 

And can we quit talking about "conspiracy" charges? Unless someone specifies what the conspiracy was to accomplish (bank fraud, money laundering, obstruction of justice) , then they probably don't know what they're talking about. And 371 is almost never brought by itself. Its a cheap add-on catchall crime. 

It was pretty obvious someone tipped off Pelosi last week.  But I want to give a shout out to Victor Davis Hanson who over a year ago said Mueller would end with unrelated indictments of some minor officials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
williemackgarza

williemackgarza 1826

Posted
Posted

So a 2 year investigation by a real team of gmen clears Trump and only leaves obstruction, which is really weak given no crime occurred in the first place, yet the dems wont let it go.
Move on, say they are glad hes not a traitor and continue the other investigations into his taxes and business deals.
They are basically handing trump a softball talking point and gonna gift wrap him the election, AGAIN
Cant make,this shit up

  • Like 2
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29405

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

It wasn't meaningless platitude.

By help I mean psychological counciling.

If you tell me what city you live in I will point you toward assistance.

You won't, because you don't think you need help. As such, this is my last stoking of your psychological issues.

He's like the 20th iteration of ADHD. There is indeed something wrong with him. He'll act normal for a few hours, then lose his shit, and start spamming the board.

Someone once mentioned they knew who is IRL and what his handle was from TOS but I can't remember what it is now. I think it was said he lives in Los Angeles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23357

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Went back and looked at my posts just before Friday and the Sunday Barr letter.

Sorry guys, I was way off.

On 3/22/2019 at 7:42 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I know we shouldn’t speculate but it’s possible Mueller concludes Trump and his campaign were the victims of a very sophisticated Russian intelligence operation.  The fact that Trump and his campaign were complete morons made them easy prey for the Russians to compromise during the election. 

That’s one narrative no one really talks about but it’s plausible. 

 

On 3/21/2019 at 12:40 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s also because the Republicans create the political reality they want while the democrats sit back and adjust to the reality the Republicans create.  

The Stormy Daniels scandal and cover up alone is an impeachable offense.  Individual 1 is an on the record unindicted felon that committed his crimes in pursuit of the presidency.   There’s also the very public conspiracy to obstruct the Russia investigation.  But the democrats have just let that go because....

But we have to wait for Mueller?!?  

“Democrats only get one shot.”  Says who? Why can’t they take multiple shots?  How much criminality and malfeasance is needed?  The republicans would never ask these questions, they would make the slightest criminal act (like lying about a BJ) an impeachable offense, wouldn’t think twice about it, and suffer minimal political consequences if it didn’t work out.

The GOP has weaponized not giving a fuck and it works.

 

On 3/21/2019 at 1:32 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I don’t even necessarily disagree with how the dems are playing this.  They’re playing for maximum impact in 2020, and not to get rid of Trump via removal.  It’s a real gamble though.  

I’m just making the observation that if they wanted to get rid of Trump they could do it with enough political will and coordinated influence. They’re holding enough cards right now.

But where does that leave them? With Pence?  Apparently they’ve made the calculation that Trump isn’t dangerous enough and he’s not worth it.  

We shall see.

On 3/21/2019 at 3:15 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

There is a difference between what I’d like to see happen versus what I think will happen versus what the democrats could make happen.

Mueller does have this. He’s going to give us the truth as he knows it and it will be damning.  All the literature Mueller has already put out is damning.  Trump’s team is going to prison already.  The report will make a difference to me because I care in a historical sense.  

When it comes to removing Trump from office, it’s not going to matter. 

Ive said from the beginning Mueller’s job is not to remove Trump and we shouldn’t expect that. 

That doesn’t mean this isn’t the biggest criminal conspiracy in US history. It is by a long shot. 

 

So so to clarify: 

What I’d like to see happen:  Trump removed

What I think will happen:  Trump isn’t impeached or removed unless the republicans decide to remove him (lol)

What could the democrats do:  they could remove him but they don’t want to because it’s politically advantageous to run against him in 2020.

 

On 3/21/2019 at 3:33 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The House is going to put Trump’s shit on blast anyway.  No report needed for that. 

The democrats aren’t interested in impeachment otherwise they would have prepared better over the last few months pushing public opinion towards the idea of impeachment.  They haven’t been doing that. 

That’s why I said they should have started the process long ago if they were serious about impeachment.

 

On 3/22/2019 at 8:06 AM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I feel like we’re all getting played by the media again.  There’s no way we’re going to see a Mueller Report today.  At best, we learn the report is turned in to the AG, and that seems like a possibly maybe.  The media is milking this shit for everything it’s worth.  We ain’t seeing anything in the Mueller Report for at least a month. 

I’m still crossing my fingers for indictments though.

 

On 3/22/2019 at 9:46 AM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Mueller was never going to link Trump to collusion because how would he do that? What would that look like? What would be the criminal charge? You can't indict a sitting president therefore "no crime took place". 

Trump colluded with Russia in broad daylight, I don't know if that's a crime but everyone could see it if they looked. 

I never understood why we needed Mueller to come out and be some minister of truth to tell us what most of us already know. 

People chose to ignore overwhelming evidence pre-Mueller, they will choose to ignore overwhelming evidence post-Mueller. 

/active measures works

ETA:  Trump's biggest Mueller threat is OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted

So who's gonna show up first this morning sock 1 or sock 2, Hugo or Dennison.  This whole things smells like shit.  Dennison fucked up yesterday or Did Hugo fuck up ?

Which one is slipping their smelly foot in a sock ?  More than one poster caught the slip up.  

Dennison posts and calls himself Hugo, multiple posters see it, post gets either deleted or just edited (yes editing is possible beyond 15 minutes).  Suspicions confirmed, they're one in the same poster, which makes him quite lame for having 2 personalities spewing the same line of shit.

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14252

Posted
Posted
So who's gonna show up first this morning sock 1 or sock 2, Hugo or Dennison.  This whole things smells like shit.  Dennison fucked up yesterday or Did Hugo fuck up ?
Which one is slipping their smelly foot in a sock ?  More than one poster caught the slip up.  
Dennison posts and calls himself Hugo, multiple posters see it, post gets either deleted or just edited (yes editing is possible beyond 15 minutes).  Suspicions confirmed, they're one in the same poster, which makes him quite lame for having 2 personalities spewing the same line of shit.
 
 

And

(Not in)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, williemackgarza said:

So a 2 year investigation by a real team of gmen clears Trump and only leaves obstruction, which is really weak given no crime occurred in the first place, yet the dems wont let it go.
Move on, say they are glad hes not a traitor and continue the other investigations into his taxes and business deals.
They are basically handing trump a softball talking point and gonna gift wrap him the election, AGAIN
Cant make,this shit up

Should the Dems let it go like the Republicans let it go after the FBI cleared Hillary?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Armybrat

Armybrat 40744

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

This is exactly the kind of person who ends up being a mass shooter.

I find nothing amusing in it.

I didn’t say the political corruption is amusing, just this thread and you people shitting all over each other as usual.

I did say it is all entertaining, which doesn’t necessarily mean amusing. Rather it is like a massive train wreck, none of which bodes well for the country. A pox on all the houses, so to speak.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
seven

seven 1366

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Be careful or he will bring back Kevin and Seven. 

Simply put on ignore and the cloak room becomes semi-readable. And no worries as Jimmy James more than picks up the slack with the faux outrage and fanatical ranting. 

I've been telling Onboard he's the stupidest person on this blog long before Hugo or DD's nonsense showed up. It's interesting that despite multiple mods proving I'm not a sock, you still bang that drum. You make a perfect maga. 

Oh, BTW, Onboard, you are the stupidest person on both shag and surl, I have no idea how you function daily. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elguapo

elguapo 4583

Posted
Posted

I'm interested to see if the Mueller Report offers an opinion on whether Trump is compromised in some way by Russia.  I've never believed there was some coordinated conspiracy within the Trump campaign to collude with the Russians, because they aren't competent enough to pull something like that off without everyone already knowing about it.  I believe that Trump's obstruction into the investigation had much more to do with him being compromised by Russia, most likely with his business interests and money laundering.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31283

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, triplehorn said:

On the first question : https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/mueller-told-barr-rosenstein-3-weeks-ago-he-would-not-n987041

Don’t believe Brennan specified type of conspiracy, unsurprising given it was an initial ill formed rumor.  The Trump ‘family’ appears to run a corrupt enterprise that didn’t hit pause when it entered the WH.

—> but SDNY

Thanks. and sorry to go bananas on "conspiracy."  But seriously, if you see an article that says XX is going to bring "conspiracy" charges in some speculation or reportage, they probably don't know what they're talking about.  If they knew, they'd probably use "bank fraud" as a shorthand rather than "conspiracy" or even conspiracy to commit bank fraud.

I don't know whether to think it's insidious that Barr had advance notice or not.  Nor am I entirely sure I believe an article based on "a source." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23357

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I don’t know whether to be offended or flattered by the “David Dennison is Hugo’s sock” accusation.

First of all, I post way too much already to have time for an alternate account. 

Second, David Dennison is a partisan Democratic Party team player.  Me, not so much. I’m more opposed to Trumpism than anything else.  In my ideal American political system, both parties are healthy and educated enough to identify and solve the same problems with competing approaches, in good faith.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, EMAWesome said:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/25/john-brennan-ex-cia-chief-offers-mea-culpa-on-trum/

John Brennan:  "I don't know if I received bad information."

 

You were the head of the CIA.  What do you mean you don't know if you received bad information?  Seems to me that being able to tell bad information from good information is one of the qualifications for that job.

 

It was apparent for a while that Brennan was too far out of the loop to know significantly more than any of us.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23394

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, elguapo said:

I'm interested to see if the Mueller Report offers an opinion on whether Trump is compromised in some way by Russia.  I've never believed there was some coordinated conspiracy within the Trump campaign to collude with the Russians, because they aren't competent enough to pull something like that off without everyone already knowing about it.  I believe that Trump's obstruction into the investigation had much more to do with him being compromised by Russia, most likely with his business interests and money laundering.

I think it's a virtual certainty that Mueller uncovered financial crimes and potentially compromising material related to international real estate transactions. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GW Hayduke

GW Hayduke 1952

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Should the Dems let it go like the Republicans let it go after the FBI cleared Hillary?

This is a good question. Congress has a big job ahead of them.

Obviously we need the report released ASAP and testimony from the investigators and witnesses in public. There are too many unanswered questions.

- What is the rationale that led to the determination that the trump tower meeting and exchange of polling data were not considered criminal? Are new laws needed to keep this from happening in the future?

- Did the investigation find any other acts of collusion, similar to the trump tower meeting or exchange of polling data with Russians or other countries? If so, why were they not considered criminal? New laws needed?

- Why was the messaging between the troll farm and Trump aligned? Was it coincidence?

- Why was Wikileaks and assange not indicted in connection with the release of hacked materials? 

- What is behind the bizarre obstruction language in Barr’s letter? What acts by Trump occurred outside of the public? Too many questions behind this.

- Why did Flynn get such a good plea deal? What cooperation did he provide? Why has it not led to any indictments?

- What happened with the influx of foreign money into PACs, NRA, inauguration, etc.? What happened and who is accountable? Are new laws needed to keep it from happening again?

- What was behind the reports that some voter rolls may have been penetrated? Why do some elections (like In Texas) still not have paper backups with audits?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

But she does have celiac disease and you chose gluten free as a reason you hate her. It was right there next to your check of hate. 

I can see why you love a president who made fun of someone in a wheelchair. 

Are you ever not an insufferable cunt?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

- What is behind the bizarre obstruction language in Barr’s letter?

When I read it I thought there must be some discussion in Mueller's report about how to infer intent when the 'criminal' acts are in the open -- they are more about politics than an attempt to commit a crime.  If he was secretive about his attempts to influence testimony, attack the prosecution, and bury press stories that could impact the investigation, all of those could be thought as obstruction.  But he was open about his attempts to do so, which in my mind blur the line between crime and politics.  Maybe his acts of obstruction are just him trying to create this image of a fighter for the public.  He just wants the appearance of obstruction and does not care about actual obstruction.  It's good for his brand.  My guess is there is zero law on this point, and so Mueller just said 'here is what he did.  you guys decide if this is indictable because it is truly blazing new ground.'

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...