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 23394

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

That one with the most red seems important.  You know.  About the campaign and its links to the Russian government.  The thing that the Rs are trying to say doesn't exist.

Another angle to show the data:

Capture.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45554

Posted
Posted

Back to the shit-flinging on the last page:  Mueller actually stated in his report that he could have pointed out no evidence of obstruction if that were the case.  He didn't.  How shocked am I that Hammer and Swindle can't read the tea leaves on that one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
American Swindle

American Swindle 102

Posted
Posted
Quote

The clearest of all the laws concerning U.S. intelligence is Section 798, 18 U.S. Code – widely known in the Intelligence Community as “the Comint Statute,” or “the 10 and 10.” Unlike other laws, this is a “simple liability” law. Motivation, context, identity, matter not at all. You violate it, you are guilty and are punished accordingly.

Here it is:
 

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, . . . any classified information—

(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or

(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States …or

(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or

(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence . . .

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

On December 9 and 10, 2016, the New York Times and the Washington Post independently reported that anonymous senior intelligence officials had told them that, based on intercepted communications, the intelligence agencies agreed that Russia had hacked the Democratic National Committee to help Donald Trump win the election. Their evidence was the fact of their access to U.S communications intelligence. A flood of subsequent stories also cited allegations by “senior intelligence officials” that “intercepted communications” and “intercepted calls” showed that “members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election.”

Incontrovertibly, the officials who gave these stories to the Times and Post violated the Comint Statute, and are subject to the “10 and 10” for each count. There is no clearer instance of what the governing law is, of how it was violated, and of the punishment that this incurs.

Consequently, there is no clearer indictment of our legal system than the fact that no one has been prosecuted for these violations, much less punished.

Nor is there any doubt as to who at least two of these “senior intelligence officials” are: Former CIA director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

Beginning in January 2017, Brennan and Clapper made essentially the same statements on national television. The only possible excuse—that their allegations were lies—is irrelevant because the essence of the violation is the revelation that U.S intelligence was monitoring the communications of the Russians in America, and those of the Trump campaign as well. This is true, and that revelation is a textbook violation of the Comint Statute.

The reasons no prosecutions have followed should be plain enough. The offenders are big people, in the permanent government and in the Democratic Party. They have a great many friends in the U.S Justice Department. From the top down, the Trump Administration has been filled by much smaller people. Loud words aside, the president has kowtowed to the intelligence agencies in every way imaginable. No prominent Republican has chosen to challenge the de facto privileged relationship between Democrats in the intelligence agencies and the media.

And so, Brennan and Clapper continue as living proof that the United States has a dual system of justice. The example of their impunity speaks louder than any speech, and reassures their leftist successors in the intelligence agencies that their channel to the Times and Post is as safe as ever.

Politics is not responsible for the non-application of Section 798 to Brendan and Clapper. It is difficult to imagine that the public would not approve massively the straightforward application to prominent men of a law that is so unambiguous, which is the foundation of arguably the main part of U.S intelligence, and which has been applied countless times to ordinary people.

Rather, the absence of real politics—of real competition between opposing sides in American life—is the culprit. What we see is that those in the upper echelons of American life, whether they call themselves Republicans or Democrats, have greater loyalty to the ruling class to which they belong than to any law or institution. The refusal to apply Section 798 to Brennan and Clapper —the fact that they are free men —is simply the most obvious manifestation of the fact that we have a ruling class, that it is coherent, and that it has yet to be challenged in any serious way.

Just a reminder while you guys are doubling down on a conspiracy theory that Trump conspired with a foreign Country to interfere in the election, that we have actors within the IC that are immune to any repercussions for actual conspiracy and violations of the Comint Statute.  

Keep in mind, a Presidents time in office ends when their term is up, they lose a re-election, or they get impeached, but these morally bankrupt, above the law, non-elected officials that act with impunity are rampant and need to be held accountable.  Can you imagine if they were being scrutinized with a fraction of the zeal and fervor as Trump?  

 

 

 

  • Fuck You 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29174

Posted
Posted

ok, so here's a general legal question regarding intent and an underlying crime, or whatever the fuck.

so graham (and the r's) will hammer home "no crime" therefore "no obstruction" by legal definition (even though barr said a crime isn't necessary, but typically that's how it works).

isn't all the shit russia did illegal?  didn't 30+ people investigated by the report get indicted?  are we to believe that unless trump himself is implicated or indicted that he can't obstruct justice?  in a criminal motherfucking conspiracy, it seems like when people are getting picked off for crimes they committed, it would benefit everyone (but especially the person at the top of the food chain) to start obstructing as quickly as possible to protect everyone (especially the person at the top of the food chain).

it's not as if there was no crime anywhere in sight.  once they determine that crimes were committed around the person who would be most effective obstructing justice, then you'd think that would be enough.  smoke, fire, etc.

wasn't sure if the law worked like that, although barr left it open anyway, saying there doesn't necessarily need to be a crime committed to obstruct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Enchubben

Enchubben 5509

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

No, she didn't. She made him look like he was lying.

I would envision that independent watchers don't think so. For those that are holding on to a collusion conspiracy i would guess that they thought he was going to lie regardless of his testimony. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18655

Posted
Posted
Just now, Enchubben said:

I would envision that independent watchers don't think so. For those that are holding on to a collusion conspiracy i would guess that they thought he was going to lie regardless of his testimony. 

I would envision that independent watchers think everyone involved with Donald Trump lie as a matter of course. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gap03

Gap03 3284

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

Yeah, the Rs keep using that word.  I do not think it means what they think it means.

The D's should be hammering them on all the R bullshit talking points - 

  • "There was no evidence of collusion ..."
  • "There can be no obstruction without proof of a crime ..."
  • Etc.

Going down the rabbit hole like Feinstein did is an absolute waste of time, and it allows Barr to be able to run out the clock.  

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...