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

Cheeseweasel

Cheeseweasel 26439

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Horn Dog said:

Didn’t they ask Cohen during his congressional hearing if he knew anything about campaign collusion and he said no.  Now he is saying yes?  Yea I’ll believe it when i see it.

Because "lying to the media" isn't a crime whereas "lying to congress" is. Cohen is a hack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted

Cohen is a criminal and a liar, but the feds have the goods on him and he's looking for a way out.  He's young and has kids, like Gates. 

When the affidavit for his search warrant has an 18 page redacted section titles "Illegal Campaign Contribution Scheme", you know, and the world knows, they have him dead to  rights.  Again, the feds had that 18 page redacted section in place BEFORE the the search and seizure raid that produced at least 14 million bits of information spanning the better part of a decade working for Trump and being the RNC deputy national finance chair.

Again, Cohen is a scumbag, and not credible, but the math, finance networks, email webs, voice recordings etc, don't lie.  He knows he's toast but does possibly have some self serving leverage if he helps the feds by circumventing the built-in obstacles they face and volunteers the mother lode directly to Congress.  That could be a hell of a springboard to impeachment proceedings and helping to shed sunlight on a massive scale of public corruption.  pie in the sky, I know, but then there it is - his team of attys submitted a 12 page memo to Nadler last Thursday broaching this very matter.  I don't think he's going to risk playing games at this stage.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted

So it looks like Barr will testify first.  He won't be able to adjust his responses based off anything Mueller might have already said. 

Also, recall that a few days ago Nadler asked Barr for records of his correspondence with Mueller's office.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 47137

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Thetexashammer said:

In total to Hillary personally and associated entities, she received around $150 million. To my knowledge, I know of no money that the Russians paid to Trump. 

I have to ask, are people really that uninformed?

Well, you're not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

In total to Hillary personally and associated entities, she received around $150 million. To my knowledge, I know of no money that the Russians paid to Trump. 

I have to ask, are people really that uninformed?

They didn't give money to Hillary, they give money to Bill for some strange reason (speaking fees apparently).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 30565

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

In total to Hillary personally and associated entities, she received around $150 million. To my knowledge, I know of no money that the Russians paid to Trump. 

I have to ask, are people really that uninformed?

Negged for lying/distortion. You don't provide a link. You dull-mindedly lump "to Hillary personally and associated entities" in effort to support your earlier assertion about Clinton getting money directly from the Russians. Lies don't become truth with repetition.

You may as well have posted, "It is known."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blotto

Blotto 24013

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

Is there evidence of the Russians giving Trump money? If so, I haven't heard of it.

If there was only some sort of investigation into the matter of Trump and Russians,  and ideally an associated report of the investigation's findings, that would be neat, huh?

Because if there was such an investigation/report, I'm sure bagofhammers would be on the phone with his elected officials, tirelessly demanding that the report be shared with the American people.

Edited by Blotto
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3871

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

In total to Hillary personally and associated entities, she received around $150 million. To my knowledge, I know of no money that the Russians paid to Trump. 

 I have to ask, are people really that uninformed?

Instead of silly theories that we exchange around here all the time, we got actual court documents, vetted, filed, and shared with the world, that showed that Russia wanted anyone but Hillary as president and that the Russian government spent millions of dollars and scores of agents working to prevent her presidency from happening.  So you have read the cards and inferred that it was actually Hillary that is under the control of the Russians.  The Russians that stood in fear of her presidency.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 46163

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Instead of silly theories that we exchange around here all the time, we got actual court documents, vetted, filed, and shared with the world, that showed that Russia wanted anyone but Hillary as president and that the Russian government spent millions of dollars and scores of agents working to prevent her presidency from happening.  So you have read the cards and inferred that it was actually Hillary that is under the control of the Russians.  The Russians that stood in fear of her presidency.

giphy.gif

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zavala

Zavala 1384

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Negged for lying/distortion. You don't provide a link. You dull-mindedly lump "to Hillary personally and associated entities" in effort to support your earlier assertion about Clinton getting money directly from the Russians. Lies don't become truth with repetition.

You may as well have posted, "It is known."

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

https://nypost.com/2016/07/31/report-raises-questions-about-clinton-cash-from-russians-during-reset/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3052220/Clinton-Foundation-accepted-millions-undeclared-donations-nuclear-company-tied-Russia-Hillary-signed-selling-one-fifth-s-uranium.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/10/19/making-sense-of-russia-uranium-and-hillary-clinton/?utm_term=.5368599ee5f7

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/press-release

But it's been investigated in 3 times by the FBI and probably more money time and effort got burned in the process than was made on the deal

https://oversight.house.gov/search/node/uranium one

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zavala

Zavala 1384

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Instead of silly theories that we exchange around here all the time, we got actual court documents, vetted, filed, and shared with the world, that showed that Russia wanted anyone but Hillary as president and that the Russian government spent millions of dollars and scores of agents working to prevent her presidency from happening.  So you have read the cards and inferred that it was actually Hillary that is under the control of the Russians.  The Russians that stood in fear of her presidency.

The ole' reverse jinx!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3871

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Blotto said:

Look at Zavala just throwing out sketchy websites like "oversight.house.gov". A lot of people are saying that just clicking on that link gives you dick cancer. Not worth the risk. 

 

Before you do a MIC DROP dance, you might want to click on the oversight link. "No evidence to support quid pro quo..."  Maybe read real information, filed in real courts, under real signatures, that says that the Russians tried to disrupt a Clinton presidency and they preferred a Trump presidency.  See if you can infer anything from that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thetexashammer

Thetexashammer 1062

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

Negged for lying/distortion. You don't provide a link. You dull-mindedly lump "to Hillary personally and associated entities" in effort to support your earlier assertion about Clinton getting money directly from the Russians. Lies don't become truth with repetition.

You may as well have posted, "It is known."

This was my point. It is simply astounding. I don't need to provide a link, it's been widely reported and Hillary has talked about it. 

The earlier commenter also stated that Trump got money from Russia. I'm still waiting for information on this.

Nobody gives a shit about Hillary, I'm asking about you guys. Why is there a 446 page thread about something for which there is no evidence, but no thread on something which is objectively worse? You guys don't give a shit about collusion. It's right there, the evidence is public record, and you simply don't give a shit.

Edited by Thetexashammer
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thetexashammer

Thetexashammer 1062

Posted
Posted

A second issue. Facts are just facts. They aren't conservative or progressive. They're just facts. Yet people here have negged people who post facts hundreds of times.

I don't have any problem disagreeing with people. You can be reasonable and still disagree. I'm really curious, why can't people here just talk like normal humans? I mean, like, "well you just stated a fact so I understand your point but we disagree?" You know, like normal humans talk to each other?

  • Haha 1
  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blotto

Blotto 24013

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Before you do a MIC DROP dance, you might want to click on the oversight link. "No evidence to support quid pro quo..."  Maybe read real information, filed in real courts, under real signatures, that says that the Russians tried to disrupt a Clinton presidency and they preferred a Trump presidency.  See if you can infer anything from that.

I dont really believe that clicking on a government website link will give you dick cancer. Just like I dont believe the noise from wind turbines causes cancer. I will make sure and use triple sarcasm tags when posting on a thread you might be reading.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, triplehorn said:

So it looks like Barr will testify first.  He won't be able to adjust his responses based off anything Mueller might have already said. 

Also, recall that a few days ago Nadler asked Barr for records of his correspondence with Mueller's office.  

well, well, well.  Rep. Collins (R) wants Mueller to testify on April 22 before Barr is expected to testify on May 2nd.  Wonder why that is, hmmm ?  hint: see above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106883

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
24 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

So let's say that tomorrow, we discover that Trump is spying on the Bernie Sanders campaign, listening to their phone calls, has a FISA warrant and such. Would you guys be outraged by this?

Depends on the basis for the warrant.  Depends on what you mean by "Trump."  Is he personally listening to the phone calls, or is an actual law enforcement agency, acting on a warrant, obtained after judicial review and granting, doing so?

If we had intel that Bernie Sanders, or Beto O'Rourke, or whomever, was acting in concert with a foreign power, offering quid pro quo in the event he wins the office, actively working with a foreign government to hack into and disseminate data of US persons who happen to be their political rivals, or similar activities....not only would I presume that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies would monitor and investigate such actions, I'd consider them derelict in their duty if they failed to do so.

Next stupid question?  I'm confident that you have an infinite supply.

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106883

Posted
Posted
Just now, Thetexashammer said:

Oppo research from the Trump campaign.

Incomplete statement.  The oppo research is a compilation of bases.  The information IN the oppo research is the basis for the warrant.

A possible basis for a warrant doesn't become a non-basis because of the source of its compilation alone.

I knew you had an infinite supply.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thetexashammer

Thetexashammer 1062

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Incomplete statement.  The oppo research is a compilation of bases.  The information IN the oppo research is the basis for the warrant.

A possible basis for a warrant doesn't become a non-basis because of the source of its compilation alone.

I knew you had an infinite supply.

Indeed, that's why they hid the origin of the document from the judge.

Now, hypothetically, let's say that Putin wrote $150 million in checks to the Trump Foundation. Cool?

I do appreciate that you pluralized basis correctly. So few would pick up on these nuances.

Edited by Thetexashammer
  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
notre dame joe

notre dame joe 205

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, CowboyFred said:

Nope.  So long as its a FISA warrant, I'm fine with it.  They don't just hand those out for everything.  Next question.

Oh from the long catalogue of denied FISA applications?

 

2 hours ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Instead of silly theories that we exchange around here all the time, we got actual court documents, vetted, filed, and shared with the world, that showed that Russia wanted anyone but Hillary as president and that the Russian government spent millions of dollars and scores of agents working to prevent her presidency from happening.  So you have read the cards and inferred that it was actually Hillary that is under the control of the Russians.  The Russians that stood in fear of her presidency.

the silliest theory would be that the Russians backed the front runner to make America stronger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Harvard Man

Harvard Man 9

Posted
Posted

Campaign manager gave internal polling data to a Kremlin connected oligarch + collectively lied about adoption meeting with Kremlin/KGB connected Russian *oppo research* peddlers in secret Trump Tower meeting in which the FBI was not notified of a foreign adversary patently meddling in an United States elections + hacked DNC + oddity of the abrupt anctions revision in RNC platform + firing Comey to suppress Russian Investigation etc etc etc.

If there is more than this in the Mueller Report , well then , maybe we oughta reconsider DOJ policy on not indicting a sitting president. 

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

Thetexashammer 1062

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Harvard Man said:

Campaign manager gave internal polling data to a Kremlin connected oligarch + collectively lied about adoption meeting with Kremlin/KGB connected Russian *oppo research* peddlers in secret Trump Tower meeting in which the FBI was not notified of a foreign adversary patently meddling in an United States elections + hacked DNC + oddity of the abrupt anctions revision in RNC platform + firing Comey to suppress Russian Investigation etc etc etc.

If there is more than this in the Mueller Report , well then , maybe we oughta reconsider DOJ policy on not indicting a sitting president. 

Yes, we've been over this. It all sound very suspicious. And it's been investigated by four different entities. Guess what they all found. You and I are in complete agreement, until I recite that final fact. 

Edited by Thetexashammer
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 28529

Posted
Posted

It's astounding how trump has done nothing even remotely questionably wrong in the mind of trump supporters. Or if he has, it's not a big deal BECAUSE HILLARY

Nevermind that she is irrelevant politically now. She's just a macguffin for the GOP to hate-stroke it to while dismissing child concentration camps and the federal government tracking young girls periods because they're afraid of brown americans

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thetexashammer

Thetexashammer 1062

Posted
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, Captainant said:

Did she? What evidence are you basing that claim on? Also, how does her (theoretical) taking of money from russia absolve trump and the GOP of taking money from the Russians?

Just quoting this again because CaptainAnt just negged me three times. I questioned his statement, which is patently false. His response was to neg me. I don't know of Russians giving money to Trump. I do know of $150 million to Hillary.

Again I ask. Why can't people here converse like normal people. Facts are not biased. Facts are facts. Why do people stuggle so mightily with facts? Why do they neg for facts? Why can't people be normal, sentient humans. "I see you point Hammer, but here are some facts that point a different direction............"?

And just as a basic logical framework, how could one event affect the ultimate character of another event? If I murder someone, how would that ever change what Trump or Hillary did? They're entirely separate events. This is so weird. Why would I defend something so patently illogical, which is based on falsehoods? It's just so weird.

Edited by Thetexashammer
  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

Just quoting this again because CaptainAnt just negged me three times. I questioned his statement, which is patently false. His response was to neg me. I don't know of Russians giving money to Trump. I do know of $150 million to Hillary.

Again I ask. Why can't people here converse like normal people. Facts are biased. Facts are facts. Why do people stuggle so mightily with facts? Why do they neg for facts? Why can't people be normal, sentient humans. "I see you point Hammer, but here are some facts that point a different direction............"?

I've never negged anyone ever, but I'm going to neg you for crying like a little bitch about negs.

  • Like 5
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thetexashammer

Thetexashammer 1062

Posted
Posted (edited)
Just now, BradInATX said:

I've never negged anyone ever, but I'm going to neg you for crying like a little bitch about negs.

Except I enjoy it. It's a merit badge. I'm literally inviting it. Did you not see my post above expressing disdain for internet scoring? I find the whole thing ludicrous.

I earned my negs bro. Don't take that away from me.

Edited by Thetexashammer
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck You 3
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...