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

Anastasis

Anastasis 23390

Posted
Posted

 

1 minute ago, zork said:

So the dems are going to start impeachment?  What are the markets doing for such questions, @Anastasis?

Minimal moves on impeachment, 2020 trump nominee, and 2020 trump to win. Nothing appreciable on Jr indictment or Flynn pardon. Couple cents move on GOP to win 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cheeseweasel

Cheeseweasel 26437

Posted
Posted
Just now, henrygandorf said:

so the recurring theme i'm seeing is that trump really wanted to obstruct justice, but people around him defied his orders, for whatever reasons.

i feel like this president will be more embarrassed by people not listening to him than he would be from actually obstructing/breaking the law.

is attempted obstruction not a thing?

Good take. I doubt "attempted obstruction" is a thing. Sounds like for all the bullshit, Trump had a handful of smart people stopping him.

I can't imagine the shit they took trying to keep him from shooting himself in the foot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11360

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

so the recurring theme i'm seeing is that trump really wanted to obstruct justice, but people around him defied his orders, for whatever reasons.

i feel like this president will be more embarrassed by people not listening to him than he would be from actually obstructing/breaking the law.

is attempted obstruction not a thing?

it's a thing. if you read the conclusion, mueller basically says "since we weren't planning on bringing any charges, we aren't bringing any charges, but by no means are we exonerating his wrinkly fat ass."

i may have editorialized there a little bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23390

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Gatorubet said:

Exactly.  You espoused the Nunes/Gym Jordan conspiracy theory of the FISA warrant being based on the “phony” dossier despite this being disproven repeatedly.

Dossier content was a substantive component of the filing.  That is not really debatable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45491

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Good take. I doubt "attempted obstruction" is a thing. Sounds like for all the bullshit, Trump had a handful of smart people stopping him.

I can't imagine the shit they took trying to keep him from shooting himself in the foot. 

Aside from the fact he admitted it on national television.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GHOSTUSER

GHOSTUSER 361

Posted
Posted
barr is a disgrace.

Indicting a President without evidence of him colluding with the Russkies for just being the impulsive hothead moron that he can be in trying to attack his enemies and without conclusive evidence that he was lying and otherwise obstructing justice is good for the country. Beat him in 2020 or impeach. Those are the only options. Thank you AG Barr and Mueller. Meanwhile, I’m enjoying dickheads like Nadler, Schumer and Pelosi grasping at straws.

021ea7af16b177d807ee82f7e64d1846.jpg
  • Like 3
  • Fuck You 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cheeseweasel

Cheeseweasel 26437

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

it's a thing. if you read the conclusion, mueller basically says "since we weren't planning on bringing any charges, we aren't bringing any charges, but by no means are we exonerating his wrinkly fat ass."

i may have editorialized there a little bit.

I don't think it's a "legal thing" but if Congress wants to impeach, it would be a good start. Regardless, the Senate isn't convicting and the Dems need to weigh the good vs. bad for impeachment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kevwun

kevwun 15608

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

That's why they didn't accept the hacked emails from the Russians at the Trump Tower meeting. They told them to sit on them and we'll let you know when to release them.

Seems like the most obvious explanation. It also explains why Rudy Giuliani said "we didn't use it" in reference to the secret meeting that they lied about multiple times in order to conceal it from public knowledge. 

Yeah, someone was smart enough to realize they needed a 3rd party involved.  I always wondered why it appeared they didn't get what Trump Jr. expected out of that meeting. 

Edited by kevwun
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29213

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Good take. I doubt "attempted obstruction" is a thing. Sounds like for all the bullshit, Trump had a handful of smart people stopping him.

I can't imagine the shit they took trying to keep him from shooting himself in the foot. 

Except for all the blatant signals he sent to people who had been in or around his campaign to not cooperate (like Manafort and Stone). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29174

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Chuckie Finster said:

If the goal of the whole Barr charade was to control the narrative... uh, well, pretty safe to say that has failed, and may have even backfired a bit.  

(Not that any of this matters.)

it would've probably worked in the 1970's.

now you have everyone with a wifi signal dissecting 400 pages on twitter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Foosters

Foosters 17725

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:


Indicting a President without evidence of him colluding with the Russkies for just being the impulsive hothead moron that he can be in trying to attack his enemies and without conclusive evidence that he was lying and otherwise obstructing justice is good for the country. Beat him in 2020 or impeach. Those are the only options. Thank you AG Barr and Mueller. Meanwhile, I’m enjoying dickheads like Nadler, Schumer and Pelosi grasping at straws.

021ea7af16b177d807ee82f7e64d1846.jpg

Image

Let's play a game. Imagine every time the above has the word "president" in it, it is referring to Obama. Does your above statement change?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

If the goal of the whole Barr charade was to control the narrative... uh, well, pretty safe to say that has failed, and may have even backfired a bit.  

(Not that any of this matters.)

IMO the intent was to please Trump, who was watching, and give Hannity and other Trump allies something positive to play/tweet while ignoring the damning contents of the report.  In that sense, I think it will have succeeded. 

Edited by Mojo Hand
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brian Fantana

Brian Fantana 6667

Posted
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

That is correct.  I can't believe it.  You break a law you break a law. There is no intent aspect to it.  If trump broke a law he broke a law, regardless of intent.  Same with lying under oath.  If you do it you committed perjury.  That is against the law.  Let's apply the penalties of law.  Our whole legal and judicial system is built on precedent.  We are ignoring precedent for some and not for others.  That is what they call..... a bad precedent to set.

Good lord you can't possibly actually believe this. You could spend 2 minutes on Google to discover how intent figures into criminal cases, but you'd rather go with this shitty opinion?

Edited by Brian Fantana
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GHOSTUSER

GHOSTUSER 361

Posted
Posted
Contrast this with how most of us would react.

"Brisketexan, there has been a special counsel appointed to investigate [your coordination with Russians, whether you've ever embezzled money from clients, whether you've suborned perjury, etc. etc.]."

Brisketexan reaction: "well, that's annoying.  I don't like being accused of misconduct.  But okay, cool, hook em."  Because....and this is the big reveal....I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO HIDE.  I've done nothing wrong.

Someone who has nothing to hide, who has done nothing wrong, MAY get pissed at the prospect of being investigated, because even being accused sucks and is offensive, but he does NOT say "This is the end of my [presidency, career, etc.].  I'm fucked."

"I'm fucked" is effectively a guilty plea.

But we all know that.  Barr knows that.  Mueller knows that.  Everyone knows that.  But nothing matters.

Bullfuckingshit and you know it. Any President would be pissed even if completely innocent because it would take the wind out of the sails of the momentum and mandate that a Presidential winner naturally has at the beginning of their term. No President would shrug it off and not think there would be a major drag and cloud on their Presidency. Trump is an impetuous moron and that is the best “evidence” that they can show. Like when a wife ignores grumpy husband rantings, thankfully so have the President’s staff have ignored his bs. They have their eye on the ball of what the true goals are: halting illegal immigration, rebuilding America’s manufacturing base, not coddling terrorist mullahs in Tehran, etc. I’m looking forward to a Republican President with tact and discipline that induces less hostility by his style than the current guy. I always be grateful for him killing off the free trade at all costs and don’t give a shit about hordes of illegals and neocon Bill Kristol and Bush war criminal wings of the Party.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyHoffa

JimmyHoffa 1188

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Contrast this with how most of us would react.

"Brisketexan, there has been a special counsel appointed to investigate [your coordination with Russians, whether you've ever embezzled money from clients, whether you've suborned perjury, etc. etc.]."

Brisketexan reaction: "well, that's annoying.  I don't like being accused of misconduct.  But okay, cool, hook em."  Because....and this is the big reveal....I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO HIDE.  I've done nothing wrong.

Someone who has nothing to hide, who has done nothing wrong, MAY get pissed at the prospect of being investigated, because even being accused sucks and is offensive, but he does NOT say "This is the end of my [presidency, career, etc.].  I'm fucked."

"I'm fucked" is effectively a guilty plea.

But we all know that.  Barr knows that.  Mueller knows that.  Everyone knows that.  But nothing matters.

 

To any sane person you are 100% correct. However we are talking about Trump who is too dumb to actually understand what that means and the reaction to the news could be viewed to him as "I'm fucked" because it will be bad PR and make him look bad, not based on actual evidence but that the "bad guys will get the good guys". 

Everyone including Trump knows he's dirty and has been his whole life but to what extent and what actual evidence they can gather to tie him to those criminal acts seem to be the largest issue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Good lord you can't possibly actually believe this. You could spend 2 minutes on Google to discover how intent figures into criminal cases, but you'd rather go with this shitty opinion?

He's not trying to have a discussion about facts. He's talking about the way he feels. His feelings are important and we should nurture them.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted

 

All roads lead to Stone.   

This report in part does what I hoped and expected - it lays bare Trump/Trump campaign mindfulness of Russian incursion and willingness to capitalize in real time on use of their stolen goods - which will go a long way towards nullifying any deniability of Trump pardons as being pure unadulterated cover-up for Trump involvement.  Some, if not many, people are still going to end up in prison, and for those who skate, their political future is being taken to the torch.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:


Indicting a President without evidence of him colluding with the Russkies for just being the impulsive hothead moron that he can be in trying to attack his enemies and without conclusive evidence that he was lying and otherwise obstructing justice is good for the country. Beat him in 2020 or impeach. Those are the only options. Thank you AG Barr and Mueller. Meanwhile, I’m enjoying dickheads like Nadler, Schumer and Pelosi grasping at straws.

021ea7af16b177d807ee82f7e64d1846.jpg

This isn't something to really gloat about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zork

zork 629

Posted
Posted

CNN is basically saying Congress should move forward because the 10 items are enough to show intent woven together even if the advisors didn't follow through with the requests by the PotUS.  Your play now, Pelosi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, zork said:

CNN is basically saying Congress should move forward because the 10 items are enough to show intent woven together even if the advisors didn't follow through with the requests by the PotUS.  Your play now, Pelosi.

CNN needs ratings, of course they said that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, zork said:

CNN is basically saying Congress should move forward because the 10 items are enough to show intent woven together even if the advisors didn't follow through with the requests by the PotUS.  Your play now, Pelosi.

 

Barr's credibility is shot.  There's a road map for subpoenas for public testimony and further investigation.   Mueller formally asked to testify ASAP. 

Let it rip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jive Turkey

Jive Turkey 12567

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

That is correct.  I can't believe it.  You break a law you break a law. There is no intent aspect to it.  If trump broke a law he broke a law, regardless of intent.  Same with lying under oath.  If you do it you committed perjury.  That is against the law.  Let's apply the penalties of law.  Our whole legal and judicial system is built on precedent.  We are ignoring precedent for some and not for others.  That is what they call..... a bad precedent to set.

They quire literally teach you the concept of mens rea on the first day of law school. 

But please, continue explaining how the legal and judicial system is designed to a board full of lawyers. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NWBuck

NWBuck 8547

Posted
Posted
Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Just finished the IRA Active Measures section.  Surprised to see how much was redacted from that.  Almost half of the information is blacked out. 

Irish Republican Army? Individual Retirement Account? This American Life host?

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...