The Robert Mueller Investigation

[jimmyjazz 45,560]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Look at this word salad twisting and turning Trump out of liability for obstructing justice.  It carefully says Mueller has evidence for and against obstruction of justice.  I read that as “Mueller has evidence Trump obstructed justice but that’s not important because “reasons”.”

I think your interpretation is wrong.  It appears to me that Barr was saying that the evidence did not support beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump obstructed justice.  He even states that this is true even if in the end a sitting POTUS could not be indicted.

I am trying to focus on other language of his letter -- for instance, his wordsmithing regarding the Russian government, etc.  I see that as gaslighting, because it doesn't carve out ALL the possible collusion/conspiracy/coordination one could undergo and be guilty of the alleged crimes.  Why would Barr do this?  

[hayden_horn 11,360]

yall stop engaging the obvious trolls please. just report the posts and we can get to them as quickly as we can.

[Cheeseweasel 26,437]

17 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I agree that the unsolicited memo had a pretty obvious purpose, but it's entirely possible that he actually believes a sitting President can't obstruct justice.  It appears to be a defensible (if perhaps not widely held) legal opinion.

I want to focus on the wording of his letter:  why would an experienced attorney with seemingly strong credentials try to gaslight Congress?  The Democrats control the House.  There was no clear path towards success if all he was trying to do was fool everyone into accepting his flawed summary of Mueller's report.  The House Judiciary Committee was never going to take him at his word, particularly when his chosen language is so carefully limited.  It's one thing to fool the public, but to think he could fool those committee members?  No way.

JJ, being my favorite poster again. Reasonable discussion going on here. Thanks.

[David Dennison 18,661]

8 minutes ago, tjhooker said:

I'm not stonewalling. I want it released.  Even most Rs want it released. 

The president can order it to be released.

What are the odds that he does?

[wildcat09 29,258]

57 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I have a problem with this perspective.  Absent evidence that Barr is a complete hack motivated only by political concerns, I find it unlikely that he would intentionally craft his letter to deceive the public.  He's sure not going to be able to deceive experienced legal and law enforcement personnel.

I get it, even the Godfather had a lawyer, but to my knowledge Barr is a seasoned pro with a great deal of experience in Washington DC and no known skeletons in his closet.  He's a hard-core conservative who was a major player in the escalation of prison sentences related to drug crimes, something I find abhorrent when one digs in but hardly evidence of being a boot-licking enabler.

Why would he try to blur Mueller's findings with such carefully crafted language?  It's halfway to a child crossing his fingers behind his back to negate his lying.  Unless Barr is 100% confident that he can keep the entire Mueller report not only off the street but out of Congress' hands, I have to think he wasn't trying to obfuscate.  Of course, this raises the question of why a good attorney would be so careless with the language . . .

Barr helped cover up Iran-Contra. This isn't his first rodeo.

[David Dennison 18,661]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

Barr helped cover up Iran-Contra. This isn't his first rodeo.

Stupid Iran-Contra is replacing Stupid Watergate, apparently.

[TxTower 650]

You know the best way to find out if this is true?
Release the report. Don't stonewall.

Who’s stonewalling? I’ve heard the WH has said they are for the release and it should happen within a week.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

14 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It appears to me that Barr was saying that the evidence did not support beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump obstructed justice.  He even states that this is true even if in the end a sitting POTUS could not be indicted.

His decision to make that judgment reeks of impropriety and goes against precedent in these cases.   

Trump has a pattern of abusing his power to obstruct justice.  We can all see this out in the open as Barr subtlety notes.  Trump appointing a guy that would get him off the hook for obstruction in a page-long memo is precisely what happened here.  

It’s another example in a long line of Trump abusing his power to escape criminal liability. 

Instead of Trump living in a rule of law society, he is now ruling through law. 

Sad!

Edited March 26, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[jimmyjazz 45,560]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Barr helped cover up Iran-Contra. This isn't his first rodeo.

Fair enough.  I guess where I'm high-centered is that, while it never surprises me when a narcissistic moron like Trump tries to openly recraft the truth, I wouldn't expect it from someone with Barr's credentials.

[Anastasis 23,394]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Fair enough.  I guess where I'm high-centered is that, while it never surprises me when a narcissistic moron like Trump tries to openly recraft the truth, I wouldn't expect it from someone with Barr's credentials.

To be even handed, I think that it is fair to call into question anyone who would be willing to closely associated themselves with the Trump Administration by taking a cabinet level position or any other position of note. 

[wildcat09 29,258]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Fair enough.  I guess where I'm high-centered is that, while it never surprises me when a narcissistic moron like Trump tries to openly recraft the truth, I wouldn't expect it from someone with Barr's credentials.

They're betting that they'll be able to prevent the release of anything but a heavily-redacted version of the report.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

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

You are totally forgetting about the Urban Achievers. 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

6 minutes ago, TxTower said:

Who’s stonewalling? I’ve heard the WH has said they are for the release and it should happen within a week.

That's because they are drafting a new version as we speak.  Make sure Barr had the only copy of the real one, Mueller has an accident, release new version in twitter form.

[jimmyjazz 45,560]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

They're betting that they'll be able to prevent the release of anything but a heavily-redacted version of the report.

I find that preposterous.  The House Judiciary Committee can review classified documents.  Why redact?

[JimmyJames 12,271]

1 hour ago, SimonBolivar said:

Just one poll out there (Rasmussen), but I expected a bigger jump for Trump but it's still early in the process.

 

Date	Approval Index	Strongly Approve	Strongly Disapprove	Total Approve	Total Disapprove
26-Mar-19	-8	36%	44%	47%	52%
25-Mar-19	-9	35%	44%	45%	54%
22-Mar-19	-9	35%	44%	45%	53%
21-Mar-19	-6	35%	41%	49%	49%
20-Mar-19	-9	34%	43%	48%	50%
19-Mar-19	-10	33%	43%	47%	52%
18-Mar-19	-8	34%	42%	47%	51%
15-Mar-19	-8	35%	43%	48%	51%
14-Mar-19	-5	36%	41%	49%	50%
13-Mar-19	-10	34%	44%	47%	52%
12-Mar-19	-10	34%	44%	47%	51%
11-Mar-19	-8	36%	44%	49%	50%
08-Mar-19	-5	37%	42%	50%	49%
07-Mar-19	-3	38%	41%	50%	49%
06-Mar-19	-7	35%	42%	48%	51%
05-Mar-19	-8	34%	42%	48%	51%
04-Mar-19	-7	34%	41%	47%	51%
01-Mar-19	-6	35%	41%	49%	49%

His McCain antics hurt him. 

[David Dennison 18,661]

11 minutes ago, TxTower said:

Who’s stonewalling? I’ve heard the WH has said they are for the release and it should happen within a week.

Release the entire report, unredacted, and all of the evidence to the gang of eight.

[wildcat09 29,258]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

I find that preposterous.  The House Judiciary Committee can review classified documents.  Why redact?

So they can tailor the version the public is allowed to see to fit the story they want to sell. House judiciary can say they're lying but if that's all they do the GOP will just shout them down and accuse them of a witch hunt. This is still more about PR management to them than legal concerns. As far as I know, the Dems only have two options to compel the public release of the full report:

1. They can sue to demand that the DOJ obtain permission from the judge overseeing the grand jury to permit release of the information that the DOJ is going to redact with claims that it's protected under 6(e); or

2. Have a House member that has access to the full report read it into the Congressional record.

The administration is betting that the Dems don't have the balls for either. It's probably not a bad bet.

[triplehorn 2,664]

 

chew gum. walk.  Impressive

[Trey3216 15,325]

6 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

You are totally forgetting about the Urban Achievers. 

Different Mothers, so racially he's pretty cool? 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

The Barr Report was the Nunes Memo 2.0. 

[David Dennison 18,661]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

So they can tailor the version the public is allowed to see to fit the story they want to sell. House judiciary can say they're lying but if that's all they do the GOP will just shout them down and accuse them of a witch hunt. This is still more about PR management to them than legal concerns. As far as I know, the Dems only have two options to compel the public release of the full report:

1. They can sue to demand that the DOJ obtain permission from the judge overseeing the grand jury to permit release of the information that the DOJ is going to redact with claims that it's protected under 6(e); or

2. Have a House member that has access to the full report read it into the Congressional record.

The administration is betting that the Dems don't have the balls for either. It's probably not a bad bet.

They can always call those witnesses to testify before Congress.

[jimmyjazz 45,560]

I don't think the public needs to or should see the full report, given my assumption that it contains considerable amounts of classified information.  I believe the HJC should see the full report, and if they fuck up and release classified material to the public, then that's another issue.  The DOJ should have no ability to protect the HJC from itself (which is obviously an absurd construct in the first place).

Edited March 26, 2019 by jimmyjazz

[lemonlime 5,503]

15 minutes ago, TxTower said:

Who’s stonewalling? I’ve heard the WH has said they are for the release and it should happen within a week.

So the same man who said years ago that he would release his tax returns and evidence that Obama was born in Kenya, said he's going to release the Mueller report, and last week made up fake sanctions on North Korea to justify a tweet cancelling Korean sanctions.    And you believe his statement, why?

[David Dennison 18,661]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The Barr Report was the Nunes Memo 2.0. 

And people are starting to see it for what it is: spin.

[Auto Driller 2,504]

Just now, David Dennison said:

And people are starting to see it for what it is: spin.

The Dems should double down on the investigation! It’s surely a winning strategy for 2020!!

[David Dennison 18,661]

Just now, Auto Driller said:

The Dems should double down on the investigation! It’s surely a winning strategy for 2020!!

2020 is about healthcare. Donald Trump is the only candidate who's going to be talking about Mueller.

[Rimbo 25,784]

Shocked Vladimir Putin Slowly Realizing He Didn’t Conspire With Trump Campaign

‘Who The Hell Was I Working With Then?’ Asks Russian President
 

Spoiler

 

 

MOSCOW—Saying that he had been “totally blindsided” by the revelations from the recently released findings of the Mueller investigation, a shocked Vladimir Putin reportedly came to the realization Tuesday that he didn’t conspire with Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign after all. “What the hell? I worked so hard on this—if I wasn’t colluding with the Trump campaign, who the hell was I colluding with?” said the dumbfounded Russian president, growing increasingly angry as he scrolled through his email inbox and recounted his numerous efforts at covert communication with individuals who he had thought were high-ranking Trump officials, but now he suspected were bots or anonymous internet trolls. “Man, it seemed so legit. I can’t believe I let myself get conned like this. I spent so much time emailing back and forth with DonaldTrump46@hotmail.com about compromising the democratic voting process, and now it turns out it was all fake? And we spent so much time gathering all that kompromat on the wrong people. Goddammit, I feel like I’ve wasted my life.” At press time, Putin was frantically double-checking that Russia had assisted in propping up a dictator in Syria and not some other country.

 

 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

Did Hugo and Denny post on shag? Or did they just come into being over here?  I have been in and out over the years, but I still recognize JimmyJazz, Brisket, Bozo, Onboard, Anastasis, Fondren and others from over there. 

Hugo posted so much on the shag that swam and his socks got him temporarily banned. For the record, Swam denied the charge and that he had socks. 

Even the though the shag was much more conservative, the hypocrisy was too much and, after a meeting of the shaggy liberal cabal and a resolution was passed in support, Hugo was reinstated even before the ban was up. 

[elguapo 4,583]

21 minutes ago, TxTower said:

Who’s stonewalling? I’ve heard the WH has said they are for the release and it should happen within a week.

If the WH is truly for releasing the report, then McConnell wouldn't be blocking a senate vote on the subject.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't think the public needs to or should see the full report, given my assumption that it contains considerable amounts of classified information.  I believe the HJC should see the full report, and if they fuck up and release classified material to the public, then that's another issue.  The DOJ should have no ability to protect the HJC from themselves (which is obviously an absurd construct in the first place).

Protect sources and methods so no one gets killed. 

However, as a matter of national security, the American public needs access to as much of Mueller’s work as possible, if only to restore some of the public’s faith in our institutions. 

[jimmyjazz 45,560]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

However, as a matter of national security, the American public needs access to as much of Mueller’s work as possible, if only to restore some of the public’s faith in our institutions. 

Your position presumes that someone in DC actually cares if the public has faith in our institutions.  OK, maybe AOC does.  That's one.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I detect irony and sarcasm.

I'm sorry, who are you again ?

[hayden_horn 11,360]

5 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I'm sorry, who are you again ?

hugo and dennison do not have IP overlaps, and have distinct geographical IP differences. yall can stop with this stupidity now, or i'll start handing out more vacations.

and i'll add on a personal note: i can understand that hugo gets on people's nerves, but i have no reason to think he's not a genuine person. he's got a history all the way back to the old site, and we know he's an lsu fan who had a distinct identity on lsu and sec boards. he is who he says he is. you don't have to like him, but making shit up about him is getting old.

Edited March 26, 2019 by hayden_horn

[David Dennison 18,661]

6 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I'm sorry, who are you again ?

I'm right here.

[Biff Tannen 45,499]

2 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

hugo and dennison do not have IP overlaps, and have distinct geographical IP differences. yall can stop with this stupidity now, or i'll start handing out more vacations.

and i'll add on a personal note: i can understand that hugo gets on people's nerves, but i have no reason to think he's not a genuine person. he's got a history all the way back to the old site, and we know he's an lsu fan who had a distinct identity on lsu and sec boards. he is who he says he is. you don't have to like him, but making shit up about him is getting old.

[David Dennison 18,661]

Just now, tjhooker said:

Surely, you're joking and stop calling me shirley.  Well, #1 it is illegal to release sealed grand jury testimony.  Second, there are definitely things in there that would endanger national security.  It will not be unredacted.

The gang of eight have security clearances. They can read classified information.

As for the grand jury testimony, there is nothing stopping Congress from calling those people in to testify outside of a grand jury setting.

[SmokeyTheBear 5,562]

6 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

hugo and dennison do not have IP overlaps, and have distinct geographical IP differences. yall can stop with this stupidity now, or i'll start handing out more vacations.

and i'll add on a personal note: i can understand that hugo gets on people's nerves, but i have no reason to think he's not a genuine person. he's got a history all the way back to the old site, and we know he's an lsu fan who had a distinct identity on lsu and sec boards. he is who he says he is. you don't have to like him, but making shit up about him is getting old.

[DDD Dad 14,252]

And people are starting to see it for what it is: spin.

Maybe, maybe not.

I’m going to keep my powder dry on this.

Reasonable minds can disagree on Barr’s conclusion that there is no basis to proceed on obstruction of the underlying “crime” lacks any evidentiary support.

I personally see that as a circular argument, especially if the obstruction itself was succeeded in preventing evidence to be uncovered. The other theory I have seen tossed about is that one doesn’t obstruct in plain view (Giuliani). I think that’s horseshit but it is a novel idea.

All that said, I am not going to get my panties in a wad unless shenanigans appear in connection with the release of a more detailed report to Congress regarding Mueller’s report to the AG.

Ultimately I expect to see significant modifications to the SC regulations as a result of lessons learned from this exercise, just as the regulations themselves were created in response to the Starr report.

[David Dennison 18,661]

Just now, tjhooker said:

they could do that.  this thing is going to drag out and make the dems and media look even more horrible is my prediction.  I am all for it.  It should be released though.

The longer it drags out without anyone in Congress reading the actual report, the worse it is for the president. It will look like they are hiding something. It will look like a cover up.

 

[bolverk 29,403]

2 hours ago, GRHorn said:

Did Hugo and Denny post on shag? Or did they just come into being over here?  I have been in and out over the years, but I still recognize JimmyJazz, Brisket, Bozo, Onboard, Anastasis, Fondren and others from over there. 

1

Yes to Hugo. He had nearly 10,000 posts and signed up in 2012 (three years before you did).

http://www.shaggytexas.com/board/showthread.php/182082-Serious-Active-Measures?p=11576338&viewfull=1#post11576338

I don't recall a poster under the handle "David Dennison." Not sure anything about him.

[jimmyjazz 45,560]

14 minutes ago, tjhooker said:

Surely, you're joking and stop calling me shirley.  Well, #1 it is illegal to release sealed grand jury testimony.  Second, there are definitely things in there that would endanger national security.  It will not be unredacted.  It will get leaked.

The fucking gang of eight can see just about anything related to national security, if not everything.

[jimmyjazz 45,560]

9 minutes ago, tjhooker said:

they could do that.  this thing is going to drag out and make the dems and media look even more horrible is my prediction.  I am all for it.  It should be released though.  Schiff is in that Gang of 8 and he will leak.  It is his thing.

You're such a sucker.  Shiff hasn't leaked shit besides information related to someone REFUSING to testify.

Take the hook out.

[Cheeseweasel 26,437]

47 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

That's because they are drafting a new version as we speak.  Make sure Barr had the only copy of the real one, Mueller has an accident, release new version in twitter form.

[GRHorn 105]

6 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Yes to Hugo. He had nearly 10,000 posts and signed up in 2012 (three years before you did).

http://www.shaggytexas.com/board/showthread.php/182082-Serious-Active-Measures?p=11576338&viewfull=1#post11576338

I don't recall a poster under the handle "David Dennison." Not sure anything about him.

Ok. Thanks for the info.

[GRHorn 105]

34 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Hugo posted so much on the shag that swam and his socks got him temporarily banned. For the record, Swam denied the charge and that he had socks. 

Even the though the shag was much more conservative, the hypocrisy was too much and, after a meeting of the shaggy liberal cabal and a resolution was passed in support, Hugo was reinstated even before the ban was up. 

Good background, thanks.  I didn’t post too much on old CR because it was flipped the other way. Boring. I never enjoyed being on the dogpiling side. 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

In other shaggy news, there has been exactly one non badmofo post over there in the last month. 

Maybe when Johnny sack decides to buy surly for 10 large instead of paying to watch rats fuck for a week we should all chip in and buy the shag back and reverse the shexodus, then immediately ban badmofo after thanking him for his service. 

[Winona's Big Orange Bevo 197]

SIAP  

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/25/supreme-court-denies-mystery-mueller-case-after-probe-finishes.html?recirc=taboolainternal

What's this? Did the SS Trump miss the tip of the iceberg poking out of the water only to possibly be sunk by whats hiding underneath? Lots of wheels have been set in motion and they are still grinding onward. 

[jimmyjazz 45,560]

1 hour ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

But the complicating factor there is his absolute right to fire Comey under the Constitution. 

I forgot to finish this line of thought regarding the "dark of night" requirement for obstruction:

What if someone OTHER than the President (say, William Barr) shot someone dead on 5th Avenue and subsequently fired the head of the FBI for investigating the crime?  Would that be obstruction of justice?

I just can't get my head around Giuliani's "broad daylight" point of view.

[Mdhorn 5,911]

1 hour ago, TxTower said:

Who’s stonewalling? I’ve heard the WH has said they are for the release and it should happen within a week.

 

40 minutes ago, elguapo said:

If the WH is truly for releasing the report, then McConnell wouldn't be blocking a senate vote on the subject.

If it was promising, they would have leaked it promptly. It's what they have done with everything up to now. 

Edited March 26, 2019 by Mdhorn

[XingTheRubicon 134]

Soooo, here we go.

 

I'm pretty sure that most of you don't know this, but here's one small tidbit.  There are others, but this one is to the point.

 

The Trump tower meeting.  (June 9, 2016)

I'll use pictures so you can follow along:  Here is Glenn Simpson (co-founder of Fusion GPS)

 

 

"Fusion GPS, a Washington-based research firm paid over 1 million USD by Clinton operatives to dig up dirt on the Trump campaign."

-Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.104ec3603609

 

ok, so...here's the Russan lawyer that met with Jr, etc at the Trump tower

 

931 × 524Images may be subject to copyright. Learn More

 

 

That dude up there ^^^^ Glenn Simpson (an undisputed hired Clinton operative) met with Trump tower Russian chick ^^^^ right there^^^^ the DAY BEFORE (June 8, 2016) AND THE DAY AFTER (June 10, 2016) the June 9th Trump tower meeting.

 

This was a set-up from the very beginning.  A 5-year-old could see it...The funniest part of all of this, are the idiotic dems STILL referencing the Trump tower meeting THEY SET UP.

 

 

Half of America bought this bullshit hook, line, and sinker.