The Robert Mueller Investigation

[EastTexan 662]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

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

Sorry guys, I was way off.

 

 

 

 

 

 

tldr

[Anastasis 23,394]

2 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

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

 

This is a major outstanding questions.  What the fuck did Flynn proffer?

 

My hypothesis, Mueller needed a win towards ends of 2017. Flynn's proffer was weak wrt organized campaign collusion with Russia, but his plea politically protected the investigation by taking down a big scalp and provided useful information to pull on other threads of corruption. 

[EastTexan 662]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

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.

 

 

But they do speak different languages.

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

You are the biggest racist on this board.

That is a pretty poor attempt at a come back there.  Who am I racist against exactly?  I know it's tough for you to form an argument since you actually know you are racist. 

Maybe tell the story again about how you like Latino tenants more than white tenants in your slumlord apartments. 

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

That is a pretty poor attempt at a come back there.  Who am I racist against exactly?  I know it's tough for you to form an argument since you actually know you are racist. 

Maybe tell the story again about how you like Latino tenants more than white tenants in your slumlord apartments. 

You are a big racist and everyone knows it.  Racist, racist, racist.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,547]

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

False. Crimes occcured. The Mueller Special Counsel resulted in 30+ indictments, guilty pleas, and convictions. The president's campaign manager is going to prison, the president's National Security Advisor is going to prison, and the president's personal lawyer/deputy RNC finance chair are going to prison. There are still sealed indictments yet to be resolved, cases farmed out to federal courts yet to be resolved, state cases yet to be resolved, and ongoing House and Senate investigations.

What happened 2 days ago is the head of the DOJ which currently has a policy that a sitting president can't be indicted, reported that there will be no additional indictments and that the president is not exonerated.


Sent from my LM-X210CM using Tapatalk

[David Dennison 18,661]

13 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Are you ever not an insufferable cunt?

Are you?

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

You are a big racist and everyone knows it.  Racist, racist, racist.

You are really terrible at comebacks, Mr. Duke

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

You are really terrible at comebacks, Mr. Duke

I am sure you look up to Duke and Grand Dragon Byrd

[EastTexan 662]

25 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

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.  

Said like a true patriot, comrade.

[David Dennison 18,661]

25 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

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.  

It's really funny. They think I'm you because of an ironic post clearly intended to be a joke.

I'm pretty sure they're all old.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

7 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.

Yeah, seems to me the Trump campaign had a few malicious bad actors (Manafort, Gates, Stone) and a bunch of useful idiots/fellow travelers (Papadopoluos, Cohen, Flynn, Carter Page, Kushner, Trump, and Trump jr.).

Trump might not have been obstructing justice to conceal his underlying crimes (because there wasn’t much).  However, he could have been obstructing justice on behalf of the Kremlin because he is compromised.   It’s the most logical explanation if Trump is innocent of conspiracy during the election. It also explains why Trump isn’t upset about what Russia did to him and his campaign.   

This investigation really took off with exposing Flynn as a compromised foreign agent.  Perhaps that’s why all these jokers are getting rung up for lying about Russia, to conceal the fact they’re compromised and not because they are involved in some nefarious well coordinated conspiracy to win the election.

Perhaps that explains all the contacts between Russians and the campaign staff during the election process.  Perhaps the Russians weren’t coordinating, they were compromising; because that’s what Russians do.  I fear we will never get the full story until they declassify files in 20 years or so.

The only thing we can do is take these scattered jigsaw pieces of information and try to put something together ourselves.  

What a mess. 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I am sure you look up to Duke and Grand Dragon Byrd

They are racist relics just like you. Funny how your daddy byrd's title just flew naturally off your keyboard.  Who is grand dragon now?  Is that you, Johnny Sack of shit?  Did you finally reach the pinnacle?

[CowboyFred 1,151]

5 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

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.

not really minor officials if you think about their position in the trump crew.

 

Also: Jesus OnBoard get some help man this shit isn't that serious.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

2 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

They are racist relics just like you. Funny how your daddy byrd's title just flew naturally off your keyboard.  Who is grand dragon now?  Is that you, Johnny Sack of shit?  Did you finally reach the pinnacle?

You democrats have been destroying blacks for centuries.  Your tactics may shift, but harm you cause persists.  Democrat = racist.  Always has, always will.

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Yeah, seems to me the Trump campaign had a few malicious bad actors (Manafort, Gates, Stone) and a bunch of useful idiots/fellow travelers (Papadopoluos, Cohen, Flynn, Carter Page, Kushner, Trump, and Trump jr.).

Trump might not have been obstructing justice to conceal his underlying crimes (because there wasn’t much).  However, he could have been obstructing justice on behalf of the Kremlin because he is compromised.   It’s the most logical explanation if Trump is innocent of conspiracy during the election. It also explains why Trump isn’t upset about what Russia did to him and his campaign.   

This investigation really took off with exposing Flynn as a compromised foreign agent.  Perhaps that’s why all these jokers are getting rung up for lying about Russia, to conceal the fact they’re compromised and not because they are involved in some nefarious well coordinated conspiracy to win the election.

Perhaps that explains all the contacts between Russians and the campaign staff during the election process.  Perhaps the Russians weren’t coordinating, they were compromising; because that’s what Russians do.  I fear we will never get the full story until they declassify files in 20 years or so.

The only thing we can do is take these scattered jigsaw pieces of information and try to put something together ourselves.  

What a mess. 

So you have a dotard surrounded by crooks, yet none of those crooks rip off the dotard. All of their activities benefit the dotard instead. 

We know what this is. It's a mafia organization. 

[Cheeseweasel 26,437]

16 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

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.'

I think that's a reasonable take. And Mueller is right--obstruction is a difficult thing to prove because it usually relies on intent (which is subjective). Had they proven collusion, I think obstruction would have been easier to prove also. (IE, you have a crime, Trump is trying to cover the crime). But once the collusion went away, the impetus to obstruct goes away. 

[jimmyjazz 45,560]

1 hour ago, tjhooker said:

Yeah, he was bitching about APD and them not treating him right being homeless and all. Then something about Brackenridge being shutdown and them not allowing him in the hospital or something.  It was hard to follow. 

So Texas666 is Kiss or am I incorrectly connecting the dots?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

3 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

So you have a dotard surrounded by crooks, yet none of those crooks rip off the dotard. All of their activities benefit the dotard instead. 

We know what this is. It's a mafia organization. 

Yeah, but that falls outside of Mueller’s narrow scope.  He’s specifically tasked with 2016 Russian election interference and the nature of their links with the Trump campaign. 

[David Dennison 18,661]

3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

You democrats have been destroying blacks for centuries.  Your tactics may shift, but harm you cause persists.  Democrat = racist.  Always has, always will.

Says the guy who supports the party of the Southern Strategy, Lee Atwater, and welfare queens.

 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

You democrats have been destroying blacks for centuries.  Your tactics may shift, but harm you cause persists.  Democrat = racist.  Always has, always will.

Oh you mean like how we made it illegal for you to discriminate when renting out your slum?  We sure don't do enough though because you still openly admit to discrimination when seeking renters. 

Or do you mean how we try to increase public school funding and override racist zoning.

Or maybe you mean how we work to make sure children are fed and have access to healthcare. 

Or how we fight discrimination in hiring.

 

 

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

Just now, FondrenRoad said:

Oh you mean like how we made it illegal for you to discriminate when renting out your slum?  We sure don't do enough though because you still openly admit to discrimination when seeking renters. 

Or do you mean how we try to increase public school funding and override racist zoning.

Or maybe you mean how we work to make sure children are fed and have access to healthcare. 

Or how we fight discrimination in hiring.

 

 

I don't own slums and my only discrimination is ability to pay.  I did state once that I like my Hispanic renters as they tend to pay on time and keep the property nicer than other groups, including whites.  

But you white libs have been doing a bang up job "helping" blacks.  Seriously, great work.

[David Dennison 18,661]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

I don't own slums and my only discrimination is ability to pay.  I did state once that I like my Hispanic renters as they tend to pay on time and keep the property nicer than other groups, including whites.  

But you white libs have been doing a bang up job "helping" blacks.  Seriously, great work.

The Republican Party: Helping those who already have the means to help themselves.

[Biff Tannen 45,499]

15 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Perhaps that’s why all these jokers are getting rung up for lying about Russia, to conceal the fact they’re compromised and not because they are involved in some nefarious well coordinated conspiracy to win the election.

This was always my bugaboo about the conspiracy to win the election angle.  It's very clear he did not want to win and was distressed and dismayed when he did.  I think people around him wanted to win, but not him so much.  

[jimmyjazz 45,560]

36 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Are you ever not an insufferable cunt?

It's like raiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn . . .

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

I don't own slums and my only discrimination is ability to pay.  I did state once that I like my Hispanic renters as they tend to pay on time and keep the property nicer than other groups, including whites.  

But you white libs have been doing a bang up job "helping" blacks.  Seriously, great work.

We sure have. Crime is down.  Discrimination is down.  Access to education is up. Employment is up. 

Still a long way to go though.  And constant viligance is required when we have people like you always trying to close the door and roll back gains.  And it's always gonna be a struggle when you and your frat bros are trying desperately to keep the white good old boys network intact and closed. 

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

Just now, David Dennison said:

The Republican Party: Helping those who already have the means to help themselves.

Yet New York and California are both in the top 5 of income inequality.

Weird, huh?

[Anastasis 23,394]

Will you guys STFU and get [serious]. 

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

22 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It's really funny. They think I'm you because of an ironic post clearly intended to be a joke.

I'm pretty sure they're all old.

Liar......  liar...... pants on fire....  

You were caught, and you can deny it all you'd like but you're a liar or just a sock, which makes you not even real.

 

EDIT:  You even trying to make a joke is a joke in an of itself.  The post has now been edited, so if it was a joke why would you change it ?

Edited March 26, 2019 by Onboard 2.0

[yoladu 4,067]

58 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.

yes, i am very curious about what exactly Mueller unearthed, if anything, that isn't already public knowledge.

Take the e-mail correspondence between Don Jr and Goldstone and the Trump Tower meeting. Is there more to that? A meeting Trump, et al, concocted a lie about the subject matter of once it was revealed. Is that explained?

Why all the lying about Russian contacts? Manafort, Flynn, Sessions, etc.

FISA warrants were issued, but bore no fruit?

Gates, Flynn, Cohen were awarded reduced sentences for their cooperation, yet nothing comes of it? That seems to be a bad return on that investment. Convicted felons getting reduced sentence for offering what exactly?

There was so much smoke. I would like to know exactly how and why Mueller determined there was no fire, according to AG Barr.

Edited March 26, 2019 by yoladu

[jimmyjazz 45,560]

32 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

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.'

I'm not trying to diminish your point, but how would this be any different than (say) Trump walking up to someone on 5th Avenue and shooting them in broad daylight?  I don't understand how the brazenness of the crime should somehow exonerate the criminal.

[David Dennison 18,661]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Liar......  liar...... pants on fire....  

You were caught, and you can deny it all you'd like but you're a liar or just a sock, which makes you not even real.

"I'm right here."

LOL

You're over 50, aren't you?

[BrickHorn 18,194]

27 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

 

 

False. Crimes occcured. The Mueller Special Counsel resulted in 30+ indictments, guilty pleas, and convictions. The president's campaign manager is going to prison, the president's National Security Advisor is going to prison, and the president's personal lawyer/deputy RNC finance chair are going to prison. There are still sealed indictments yet to be resolved, cases farmed out to federal courts yet to be resolved, state cases yet to be resolved, and ongoing House and Senate investigations.

What happened 2 days ago is the head of the DOJ which currently has a policy that a sitting president can't be indicted, reported that there will be no additional indictments and that the president is not exonerated.


Sent from my LM-X210CM using Tapatalk
 

 

Great post.  And I’m also sick of everyone falling all over themselves claiming the Mueller report found “no evidence” of a conspiracy.  That is not what Barr’s summary states.  It says Mueller reports that the investigation did not “establish” (under the beyond a reasonable doubt standard) that Trump or his campaign conspired with Russia to commit two specific crimes.  That is a very circumscribed conclusion.  

Too many people let Trump and his surrogates goad them into a debate exclusively about collusion vs no collusion.  That was an overreaction to just one potential finding (perhaps the most troubling, but not even remotely the only possible concerning behavior).  And now everyone’s overreacting and misreading a very narrow conclusion on that one issue.  

[triplehorn 2,664]

39 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

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." 

NBC, Reuters, Guardian all reported it 

Here's the Reuters opening:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Special Counsel Robert Mueller informed top U.S. Justice Department officials three weeks ago that he would not be reaching a conclusion on whether President Donald Trump had obstructed justice during the probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election, a U.S. Justice official said Monday.

Note Mueller informed officials (plural) - probably Rosenstein too.  

But look at wording of what Mueller reportedly told Barr "would not be reaching a conclusion."  That is not exoneration or indictment.  At some point, Mueller had to decide to bring charges or not, and by bringing charges he would have forced a report to Congress by the AG defining the AG's declination of Mueller's recommendations about criminality.  Ultimately I believe Mueller settled on a plan to not draw any conclusion, but to turn over all the evidence to Congress for deliberation.  

I become very wary if Barr had 3 weeks to game things out culminating in his selectively leaking his 4 page letter to pre-empt Congress and the American public's conscience.

Look at the conclusions people here are jumping to without having seen the Mueller report.  Mission Accomplished for Barr and GOP.  Like before, that banner won't age well.

 

 

[Cheeseweasel 26,437]

29 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Are you?

Well, yeah. Isn't that a qualification to be on Surly?

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

"I'm right here."

LOL

You're over 50, aren't you?

I am, but I think you're just a bunch of 0's and 1's

[Lagunamadre 1,975]

Man. This thread has gotten nasty. I'm not sure how the internal politics (politics used in the abstract) work, but can the moderators try to clean this up a bit, get it back on track. 

Or maybe we can start a new thread dedicated to calling each other racists and snowflakes? 

[David Dennison 18,661]

1 minute ago, BrickHorn said:

Great post.  And I’m also sick of everyone falling all over themselves claiming the Mueller report found “no evidence” of a conspiracy.  That is not what Barr’s summary states.  It says Mueller reports that the investigation did not “establish” (under the beyond a reasonable doubt standard) that Trump or his campaign conspired with Russia to commit two specific crimes.  That is a very circumscribed conclusion.  

Too many people let Trump and his surrogates goad them into a debate exclusively about collusion vs no collusion.  That was an overreaction to just one potential finding (perhaps the most troubling, but not even remotely the only possible concerning behavior).  And now everyone’s overreacting and misreading a very narrow conclusion on that one issue.  

This is precisely why we need to see the report and why the administration will do everything in its power to keep it from the public.

[ChiTownDoc 21,102]

1 hour 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.

And that’s why those with a brain have been saying RICO NY for a very long time.  Just bc someone is shady doesn’t mean you get to nail them with any charge you want.  

[jimmyjazz 45,560]

9 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Liar......  liar...... pants on fire....  

You were caught, and you can deny it all you'd like but you're a liar or just a sock, which makes you not even real.

WTF dude?  Take it to messaging or better yet just drop it. 

[David Dennison 18,661]

11 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Yet New York and California are both in the top 5 of income inequality.

Weird, huh?

So are Louisiana and Florida. Georgia, Texas, and Mississippi and all in the top 10.

Cool?

[yoladu 4,067]

10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Will you guys STFU and get [serious]. 

a bunch of middle school girls have infiltrated this thread.

[Cheeseweasel 26,437]

4 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Great post.  And I’m also sick of everyone falling all over themselves claiming the Mueller report found “no evidence” of a conspiracy.  

Well you have two "paths", Legal and Political. Mueller seems to be clear that the legal aspect was not met, but he's enough of a "Washington guy" to know that the ultimate "punishment" will be the political ramifications. Ultimately, the voters have the final say.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm not trying to diminish your point, but how would this be any different than (say) Trump walking up to someone on 5th Avenue and shooting them in broad daylight?  I don't understand how the brazenness of the crime should somehow exonerate the criminal.

I think the obstruction law has some underlying assumption that people don't want to be known as criminals, so the acts are assumed to be done in the dark of night.  Because it is in the dark of night, that is how you infer they had corrupt intent.  They are trying to hide their acts.

With shooting a guy, you intend to kill him and you did kill him.  You don't have to prove any sort of corruption there.

Like I said though (and like I bet Mueller thinks), I bet there is no guidance on the issue especially when considered that this is all done in the political sphere where it is clearly in Trump's interest to be seen as a fighter, which militates towards his intent being to bolster his political image. 

That's what I see as being the tough legal question. 

[Cheeseweasel 26,437]

7 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

Or maybe we can start a new thread dedicated to calling each other racists and snowflakes? 

2019 Thread of Racism And Snowflake Dominance would be pretty damn funny.

[TexArcher 37,519]

25 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

I think that's a reasonable take. And Mueller is right--obstruction is a difficult thing to prove because it usually relies on intent (which is subjective). Had they proven collusion, I think obstruction would have been easier to prove also. (IE, you have a crime, Trump is trying to cover the crime). But once the collusion went away, the impetus to obstruct goes away. 

I'm not an attorney, but isn't there still such a thing as obstructing the process of justice?  Say a CEO didn't like an investigation because of all the bad press it was generating for his company, even though he was innocent of the allegation being investigated, and he tried to interfere with the investigation just to make it go away.  That has to be obstruction, right?

[Armybrat 40,744]

46 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

You people?

I'm almost never in here and neither red nor blue team...

Same here, so How would I know that? Just responded to your post.

[Degenerate Gardner 4,081]

4 minutes ago, yoladu said:

a bunch of middle school girls have infiltrated this thread.

Take it back or I'll scratch your eyes out!

[jimmyjazz 45,560]

2 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I think the obstruction law has some underlying assumption that people don't want to be known as criminals, so the acts are assumed to be done in the dark of night.  Because it is in the dark of night, that is how you infer they had corrupt intent.  They are trying to hide their acts.

OK, let's take this one step further.  Trump fired Comey.  What if instead of dancing around the point in various meetings with Russians and poorly conducted interviews he had called a press conference and said "Today I fired James Comey because I don't like the fact that he was investigating myself and members of my election campaign."

Would that be obstruction of justice?

[Fozzz 152]

4 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Well you have two "paths", Legal and Political. Mueller seems to be clear that the legal aspect was not met, but he's enough of a "Washington guy" to know that the ultimate "punishment" will be the political ramifications. Ultimately, the voters have the final say.

Golden opportunity for the Dems to fuck it up yet again.