The Robert Mueller Investigation

[hobbes2702 13492]

1 hour ago, workswithseed said:

There are gangs of religious people going around beating up trans people. Id feel like there would be news on that.

Yea there are. Where have you been for the last 50 years 

[American Swindle 102]

21 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Now do the IC. 

 

Edited April 20, 2019 by American Swindle

[Satchel 6982]

7 hours ago, American Swindle said:

 

 

Why have I been constantly hearing the idea that if their isn’t a crime, then their can be no obstruction?

Is this a bunch of baloney?

Also, is it insane to think that if you were being accused of a crime you didn’t commit and had the long schlong of the IC and every MsM outlet propagandizing the world that you did this crime, then would it be reasonable to think that you may act a little vindictive toward the forces trying to smear you?

Link that discussion up and let’s see about the context, but your attempt to discredit GG hasn’t moved me one iota.

 

 

The actual transcript is worse than what I recall in that GG says the Mueller report reaches a conclusion that it does not:

"On the obstruction issue, I think there’s a lot of evidence that Donald Trump is what we knew he was, which is an amoral liar, somebody who is willing to corruptly abuse his power to protect himself. But at the end of the day, the Democrat leaders in the House have already said they’re not going to impeach him over this. And the reason is, is because the question always was: Was Trump trying to stop the investigation because he genuinely believed that they were—it was based on a false conspiracy, or was he trying to stop the investigation because he knew he had done what people were accusing him of doing with the Russians and wanted to cover that up? And the Mueller report concluded it was the first instance: He was trying to stop the investigation because he thought it was a sham all along, and therefore, even though he lied and acted improperly, it doesn’t rise to the corrupt intent needed to charge him with obstruction, which is stopping an investigation to prevent your own wrongdoing from being uncovered. And so, I think even Democrats know this is the end of the line with this entire three-year scandal that has drowned our politics in discourse."

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/04/19/glenn_greenwald_vs_david_cay_johnston_on_trump-russia_ties_obstruction.html

[triplehorn 2664]

Mueller laid out in granular detail the Russian attack on our nation and how Trump welcomed the attack and its benefits to him.  Mueller then laid out with an avalanche of evidentiary detail how Trump met all the criteria for guilt on criminal obstruction of justice on numerous counts to prevent revelations related to his parallel motions with the Russians and their attack.

The Mueller report is an indictment specifically intended to be delivered to Congress.  If Democrats do not impeach, they will arguably be breaking their oath of office.  Go forward regardless of what Senate GOP thinks.  Deliver to the GOP a choice to break their oath of office.

[American Swindle 102]

2 minutes ago, Satchel said:

The actual transcript is worse than what I recall in that GG says the Mueller report reaches a conclusion that it does not:

"On the obstruction issue, I think there’s a lot of evidence that Donald Trump is what we knew he was, which is an amoral liar, somebody who is willing to corruptly abuse his power to protect himself. But at the end of the day, the Democrat leaders in the House have already said they’re not going to impeach him over this. And the reason is, is because the question always was: Was Trump trying to stop the investigation because he genuinely believed that they were—it was based on a false conspiracy, or was he trying to stop the investigation because he knew he had done what people were accusing him of doing with the Russians and wanted to cover that up? And the Mueller report concluded it was the first instance: He was trying to stop the investigation because he thought it was a sham all along, and therefore, even though he lied and acted improperly, it doesn’t rise to the corrupt intent needed to charge him with obstruction, which is stopping an investigation to prevent your own wrongdoing from being uncovered. And so, I think even Democrats know this is the end of the line with this entire three-year scandal that has drowned our politics in discourse."

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/04/19/glenn_greenwald_vs_david_cay_johnston_on_trump-russia_ties_obstruction.html

So intent seems to be the key.  He didn't reach the corrupt intent threshold that was required to criminally charge him it seems.  That sounds reasonable and logical to me, but not sure about others around here...

[Anastasis 23723]

3 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

If you’re concerned about the FISA warrant as it relates to the dossier, please read this factual article, and see if you can say in good faith that the FBI didn’t have reason to monitor Carter Page without the dossier.   They would have been negligent not to investigate, in my opinion.

https://www.justsecurity.org/46786/timeline-carter-pages-contacts-russia/

If they had sufficient information for the FISA warrant without the dossier content they should have applied for the warrant on that basis without tainting the submission. This seems pretty clear to me.  In my line of work, if I have a mix of clean and potentially tainted data for a regulatory submission, there is no fucking way in hell that I would undermine the submission with data that had even a hint of a gut shot. That would be the end of my professional credibility and life.

Are you not concerned at all that work product that appears to be the result of a Russian disinformation operation funded by the Clinton campaign was inserted into the FISC process? Are you not concerned at all that the Director of National Intelligence was propagating the work to American journalists and coordinating with the Director of the FBI to provide cover for public release of the deza, in the parlance of our times, at a time that corresponds to the development of serious misgivings regarding the quality of the information?

[horn4life 3838]

1) Trump got the Attorney General he needed.  A guyin Barr, that put party over country. (like every nationally elected Repulbican at this point in history)

2) Trump took the "5th Amendment" on all questions related to obstruction

3) If Trump were not President he would have been arrested and charged with obstruction.  He would have been forced to answer questions under oath and... would be convicted by any non-biased jury.

I guess it's cool when you can appoint your judge, your jury and have a PR guy all in the same person.  I hope that the Dems just let this thing simmer, focus on Healthcare, win the Whitehouse and THEN prosecute citizen Trump to the fullest extent of the law.

Unfortunately for the American citizen we have a current President who would WELCOME Russian interference in his favor.  Because he cares nothing about America, he only cares about himself.  As is clearly shown in the Mueller report. What would Russia like more than fucking the American people a second time with another Trump Presidency.  If there were Transcripts of all communication between Trump and Putin I feel fairly sure a decent case for Treason could be made.  Meanwhile the GOP marches hypocritically and immorally forward...

 

[David Dennison 19560]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

If they had sufficient information for the FISA warrant without the dossier content they should have applied for the warrant on that basis without tainting the submission. This seems pretty clear to me.  In my line of work, if I have a mix of clean and potentially tainted data for a regulatory submission, there is no fucking way in hell that I would undermine the submission with data that had even a hint of a gut shot. That would be the end of my professional credibility and life.

Are you not concerned at all that work product that appears to be the result of a Russian disinformation operation funded by the Clinton campaign was inserted into the FISC process? Are you not concerned at all that the Director of National Intelligence was propagating the work to American journalists and coordinating with the Director of the FBI to provide cover for public release of the deza, in the parlance of our times, at a time that corresponds to the development of serious misgivings regarding the quality of the information?

The report states very clearly that the FISA warrant had nothing to do with the investigation into the Trump campaign's contacts with Russians.

Edited April 20, 2019 by David Dennison

[notre dame joe 205]

I'm hearing Andrew Weissman had figured out there was no collusion around the time of the inauguration.

I didn't pay strict attention to the dossier timeline because it should've never been believed on it's face. 

[horn4life 3838]

3 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

I'm hearing Andrew Weissman had figured out there was no collusion around the time of the inauguration.

I didn't pay strict attention to the dossier timeline because it should've never been believed on it's face. 

Nah a guy that only marries women that need green cards, or he knocks up, and fucks around on his wife with glee and excitment would...never ever hop in bed with some Russian prostitutes.... I mean how could anyone ever think that? :rolleyes:

[David Dennison 19560]

8 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

I'm hearing Andrew Weissman had figured out there was no collusion around the time of the inauguration.

I didn't pay strict attention to the dossier timeline because it should've never been believed on it's face. 

The dossier had nothing to do with the investigation anyway.

Also, the report shows clear evidence of collusion with Russians.

Edited April 20, 2019 by David Dennison

[Planet Houston 4950]

3 hours ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Hold my beer. I have arrived.

This would be a better online community if you were never here. I guess I feel the same way about you the way you (very ironically) feel about immigrants.

[Goredho 17661]

13 hours ago, Crusher said:

If you believe he is an agent of Russia then death is only punishment. He could have launched missiles at us at any time.  Program them to go straight up and then straight down again thus destroying the USA. That is his goal correct?

Is a President nuking America your only criteria for one that is unfit to serve?

Remember Obama’s tan suit before you answer.

[GW Hayduke 1957]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Can we come back to the Russian disinformation angle for a minute...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/us/politics/steele-dossier-mueller-report.html

By January 2017, F.B.I. agents had tracked down and interviewed one of Mr. Steele’s main sources, a Russian speaker from a former Soviet republic who had spent time in the West, according to a Justice Department document and three people familiar with the events, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. After questioning him about where he’d gotten his information, they suspected he might have added his own interpretations to reports passed on by his sources, one of the people said. For the F.B.I., that made it harder to decide what to trust.

 

By January 2017, the FBI had developed serious doubts about one of the main sources for Steele's work.

Also January 2017: Known Not Wittingly Dissembler James Clapper was pushing the dossier to journalists and was coordinating cover for public release with James Comey.

Nobody has a problem with any of this? "But Trump"?

Jesus Fucking Christ people.  I am going to go plant some peppers. 

Everyone knew it was unconfirmed raw intelligence. No problem with that

[Planet Houston 4950]

 

[Anastasis 23723]

2 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Everyone knew it was unconfirmed raw intelligence. No problem with that

Russian disinformation, transmitted via work product funded by a political campaign, inserted into the FISC, pushed to journalists by the DNI. 

No problem with any of that. 

Edited April 20, 2019 by Anastasis

[David Dennison 19560]

Just now, Anastasis said:

Russian disinformation, transmitted via work product funded by a political campaign, inserted into the FISC.

No problem with any of that. 

And everyone knew it. Even the judge. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

[GW Hayduke 1957]

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Russian disinformation, transmitted via work product funded by a political campaign, inserted into the FISC, pushed to journalists by the DNI. 

No problem with any of that. 

The judge knew what it was. Where is the problem? Is your issue with the warrant of Carter Paige PhD? Read up on him. Guy had foreign tool written on his forehead.

Are you mad that a journalist released it and you consider it misinformation? It was described as unconfirmed raw intelligence by the folks that released it to the public. Where is the problem?

Are you a bastion of true factual information and this where you are taking a stand? If so, open POTUS's twitter account. #bothsides

[David Dennison 19560]

2 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

The judge knew what it was. Where is the problem? Is your issue with the warrant of Carter Paige PhD? Read up on him. Guy had foreign tool written on his forehead.

Are you mad that a journalist released it and you consider it misinformation? It was described as unconfirmed raw intelligence by the folks that released it to the public. Where is the problem?

Are you a bastion of true factual information and this where you are taking a stand? If so, open POTUS's twitter account. #bothsides

His problem is with the notion of the state in general. 

[jimmyjazz 47232]

40 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

If they had sufficient information for the FISA warrant without the dossier content they should have applied for the warrant on that basis without tainting the submission.

What in the everloving fuck?

[David Dennison 19560]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

What in the everloving fuck?

I guess he thinks FISA court judges are incapable of critical thought.

[Anastasis 23723]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

What in the everloving fuck?

I know. The clear sighted Hugo's, Jimmy's, Denny's and Hayduke's don't see anything slightly amiss here.  

[Anastasis 23723]

Just now, David Dennison said:

I guess he thinks FISA court judges are incapable of critical thought.

Clapper rubs his balls on your forehead and you think that it stimulates the real advanced intellect portions of your brain. 

[David Dennison 19560]

5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Clapper rubs his balls on your forehead and you think that it stimulates the real advanced intellect portions of your brain. 

I'm not the one approving the warrant. The judges on the court are capable of looking at all of the evidence presented in the application and making an informed decision.

 

[David Dennison 19560]

7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I know. The clear sighted Hugo's, Jimmy's, Denny's and Hayduke's don't see anything slightly amiss here.  

We don't matter. The judges do. Your problem is with the state.

[jimmyjazz 47232]

15 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I know. The clear sighted Hugo's, Jimmy's, Denny's and Hayduke's don't see anything slightly amiss here.  

The lack of clarity is yours.  There's nothing more pathetic than a high IQ guy who thinks that makes him smart.

[Anastasis 23723]

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The lack of clarity is yours.  There's nothing more pathetic than a high IQ guy who thinks that makes him smart.

It's a crazy world. I remember when the ardent liberals understood the threats posed by an unconstitutional surveillance state. They still exist out there somewhere. Maybe the rest of you will return to your senses when it is a Republican administration abusing the system again.  

Edited April 20, 2019 by Anastasis

[Gatorubet 30743]

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s redacted report, released Thursday, refers to the allegedly compromising material the Russian government was rumored to have on President Donald Trump — apparently about the infamous alleged pee tape — in a single footnote on pages 27 and 28.

According to Mueller’s report, Trump’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, received a text on Oct. 30, 2016, from Giorgi Rtskhiladze, a US-based Russian businessman who was involved in a deal with the Trump organization to build a Trump Tower in Batumi, Georgia.

Rtskhiladze’s text to Cohen said, “Stopped flow of tapes from Russia but not sure if there's anything else. Just so you know..."  (I see what he did there...)

Rtskhiladze told investigators last year that the "tapes" referred to “compromising tapes of Trump rumored to be held by persons associated with the Russian real estate conglomerate Crocus Group, which had helped host the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant in Russia,” according to the report.

 

Pee Tapes?

 

[Gatorubet 30743]

28 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

It's a crazy world. I remember when the ardent liberals understood the threats posed by an unconstitutional surveillance state. They still exist out there somewhere. Maybe the rest of you will return to your senses when it is a Republican administration abusing the system again.  

 

This is sort of a different thread topic, but I tend to side with Anastasis on this issue.  But until a Constitutional challenge ends the practice, we have a right to use the information.

The FISA court judgesare appointed solely by the Chief Justice of the United States.   Without Senate confirmation or oversight by Congress. And it is essentially an ex parte submission from the Govt to a Judge, with no opposing party to object. And no way to get a diversity of thought on the court either.   You get Chief Justice clones who view the law as the Chief does.  Now, that is an authoritarian kangaroo court set up if there ever  was one.  Because if there is no oversight, then you have absolute power corrupts absolutely.   OTOH, why is this not like a wire tap? You don't let them know in advance you are taping them.  So there are some similarities.

While I deplore methods of surveillance that aggrieve the Fourth Amendment,  that does not impact the validity of the information obtained here.   And for the life of me, if the subject of the warrant is foreign or domestic threats to security - and so secrecy is of the essence -  you can't notify the potential risks to show up and fight surveillance.   

It seems to me that there should be a sort of Public Defenders Office staffed and funded to fight/question the issuance of FISA requests.  Which does not mean they will stop them all, but that there will at least be eyes on both the court and requesting party to make sure the probable cause submissions are Kosher.  

 

[Anastasis 23723]

3 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

But until a Constitutional challenge ends the practice, we have a right to use the information.

Right. An Interesting choice of words. I remember when liberals knew what that meant too*.

 

 

* I don't actually remember.  I read about it though. 

Edited April 20, 2019 by Anastasis

[Gatorubet 30743]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Right. An Interesting choice of words. I remember when liberals knew what that meant too*.

* I don't actually remember.  I read about it though. 

The choice was to reflect that a bill passed by Congress and signed into law by a President, like this one was, is the law until overturned by the appellate courts.    I have absolutely no idea when and if this was challenged by the ACLU or others.   If it was affirmed, then we have a gripe, but no recourse.   See Citizens United, our most recent Dred Scott decision.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

FISA ABUSE!!! ANASTASIS/FCHORN 57 STATES!

 

[jimmyjazz 47232]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

It's a crazy world. I remember when the ardent liberals understood the threats posed by an unconstitutional surveillance state. They still exist out there somewhere. Maybe the rest of you will return to your senses when it is a Republican administration abusing the system again.  

Tin foil . . . got any investment ideas?  

What a fucking joke.

[EuroHorn 3295]

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, EuroHorn said:

That's funny as shit.  

[jimmyjazz 47232]

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

The FISA court judgesare appointed solely by the Chief Justice of the United States.   Without Senate confirmation or oversight by Congress. And it is essentially an ex parte submission from the Govt to a Judge, with no opposing party to object. And no way to get a diversity of thought on the court either.   You get Chief Justice clones who view the law as the Chief does.  Now, that is an authoritarian kangaroo court set up if there ever  was one.

So, let's run with this.  Who appointed the FISA court judges who ruled on this particular case?  John Roberts?  William Rehnquist?  Warren Burger?

Without digging it up, I'm going to assume it was Roberts unless he maintained some holdover appointments.  In that case, it would have been Rehnquist . . . or Burger . . . or holy Moses, are we going all the way back to Earl Warren?

Just EXACTLY what liberal slant are we talking about here?  Or are we just howling about the tendency for conservative judges to allow surveillance of . . .anyone?  I fully understand that's Anastasis' default position, being a #bothsides Trump bootlicker, but I'd really like to get Gatorubet's legitimate opinion about how the FISA court conspired to fuck Donald Trump in the ass.

[Gatorubet 30743]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

So, let's run with this.  Who appointed the FISA court judges who ruled on this particular case?  John Roberts?  William Rehnquist?  Warren Burger?

Without digging it up, I'm going to assume it was Roberts unless he maintained some holdover appointments.  In that case, it would have been Rehnquist . . . or Burger . . . or holy Moses, are we going all the way back to Earl Warren?

Just EXACTLY what liberal slant are we talking about here?  Or are we just howling about the tendency for conservative judges to allow surveillance of . . .anyone?  I fully understand that's Anastasis' default position, being a #bothsides Trump bootlicker, but I'd really like to get Gatorubet's legitimate opinion about how the FISA court conspired to fuck Donald Trump in the ass.

???????  I have no earthly idea what you are talking about, as I do not hold those positions you stated (in bold).    Regardless of which 'team' is in charge of FISA or which team is being investigated, I have issues with a lack of oversight by Congress - which has Article III power over the Judiciary.   Allowing the Chief Judge of SCOTUS to assume that appointment role unilaterally seems a bit too much ceding of separation of powers.  I would prefer that the Senate confirms them  And that a more rigorous ability to challenge rulings existed.

That is about it. 

[Anastasis 23723]

25 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Tin foil . . . got any investment ideas?  

What a fucking joke.

Investment ideas. Avoid BBQ investments when a surly lawyer indicates that he is he representing the investment group but actually works for the interests of the principal against the interests of the investor group. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

3 hours ago, Anastasis said:

If they had sufficient information for the FISA warrant without the dossier content they should have applied for the warrant on that basis without tainting the submission. This seems pretty clear to me.  In my line of work, if I have a mix of clean and potentially tainted data for a regulatory submission, there is no fucking way in hell that I would undermine the submission with data that had even a hint of a gut shot. That would be the end of my professional credibility and life.

Are you not concerned at all that work product that appears to be the result of a Russian disinformation operation funded by the Clinton campaign was inserted into the FISC process? Are you not concerned at all that the Director of National Intelligence was propagating the work to American journalists and coordinating with the Director of the FBI to provide cover for public release of the deza, in the parlance of our times, at a time that corresponds to the development of serious misgivings regarding the quality of the information?

The president, ya know the guy with his finger on the button, is a proven criminal and this is what you’re worried about? 

You should start a fourth amendment thread. 

[Anastasis 23723]

1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

You should start a fourth amendment thread. 

I started a FISA reapproval thread. I think there were 10 posts. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

Just now, Anastasis said:

I started a FISA reapproval thread. I think there were 10 posts. 

Should have taken the hint then. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Think about how the Mueller report will read in 20 years.  It’s an incredible factual document of overt treachery and criminal behavior.  I know it probably won’t make a difference with how Trump’s presidency ends but holy fuck it reads like a Bob Woodward book on steroids. 

[Anastasis 23723]

4 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Should have taken the hint then. 

I know right. 

[seven 1368]

18 hours ago, Michael Knight said:

Tom fell off the wagon again

It's sad to witness, I hope he finds the help he needs 

[jimmyjazz 47232]

18 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Investment ideas. Avoid BBQ investments when a surly lawyer indicates that he is he representing the investment group but actually works for the interests of the principal against the interests of the investor group. 

I'm with you there.

[JimmyJames 12271]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Think about how the Mueller report will read in 20 years.  It’s an incredible factual document of overt treachery and criminal behavior.  I know it probably won’t make a difference with how Trump’s presidency ends but holy fuck it reads like a Bob Woodward book on steroids. 

It is incredibly damning. Right now we’re just stuck in the reality that the president is a complete piece of shit who 30 percent of the country will support no matter what. 20 years from now anyone reading it will be wtf? How did this happen. 

And the answer will be we had no idea how evil turtles could be.

[jimmyjazz 47232]

20 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

???????  I have no earthly idea what you are talking about, as I do not hold those positions you stated (in bold).    Regardless of which 'team' is in charge of FISA or which team is being investigated, I have issues with a lack of oversight by Congress - which has Article III power over the Judiciary.   Allowing the Chief Judge of SCOTUS to assume that appointment role unilaterally seems a bit too much ceding of separation of powers.  I would prefer that the Senate confirms them  And that a more rigorous ability to challenge rulings existed.

That is about it. 

I'm not accusing you of holding those positions.  I am questioning the smokescreen being generated regarding the FISA courts in this specific instance.  It's been one of a hundred different angles that never goes away -- undermine the credibility of the court when it serves one's political purpose (not yours) and then mum's the word otherwise.  I just find it interesting that these judges, allegedly selected in the image of a series of Chief Justices, all of whom have been nominally "conservative" in my lifetime, are being labeled as Deep State lackeys, etc. simply because a warrant was issued that helped provide information about Trump's campaign activities.  It's a fucking joke, just like the rest of this circus.

[JimmyJames 12271]

Warrants get issued on far less evidence all the time. It’s a pretty low bar. Maybe it shouldn’t be but that’s a different debate altogether. 

I question the motives and intelligence of anyone arguing otherwise. 

[Tyler Durden 132]

Think about how the Mueller report will read in 20 years.  It’s an incredible factual document of overt treachery and criminal behavior.  I know it probably won’t make a difference with how Trump’s presidency ends but holy fuck it reads like a Bob Woodward book on steroids. 

Don’t forget to include the rebuttal. I’m sure it’s going to age well.