The Robert Mueller Investigation

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

27 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It's going to be hilarious when the unredacted report leaks.

Only if the person that leaks it is willing to take full responsibility for leaking it and not run away to Hong Kong and then hide in Russia for the rest of his life. 

[Winona's Big Orange Bevo 198]

33 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Discard political motivations within the FBI for a moment.  If it is demonstrated that the FBI conducted surveillance on US citizens using a thin justification bolstered by privately funded politically motivated information sourced from Russia, does that bother you? 

 

Prosecutor: Mr. Chappelle, what would it take to convince you that R. Kelly is guilty? 

Dave Chappelle: Okay, I'd have to see a video of him singing "Pee On You," two forms of government ID, a police officer there to verify the whole thing, four or five of my buddies and Neal taking notes, and R. Kelly's grandma to confirm his identity. 

R. Kelly's Grandma: That's my Robert, always peeing on people. 

 

[elguapo 4,620]

12 hours ago, tucker said:

Good job Ds

 

How does this even work? Trump can just assert executive privilege over whatever the hell he wants now?

I'm sure Trumpkins would have been fine with Clinton or Obama acting this way, right?

[TtomTerrific 200]

15 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

I’m there. Republicans play dirty and will hold the entire constitution hostage, fuck it, leak it all. 

perfect 👌 

[SmokeyTheBear 5,569]

And while all this is happening, our enemies are enjoying this shit out of this. Instead of trying to bring our country together, what does our President do? Talk about the internal "enemies" the dems.....who apparently tried to trigger a coup with the assistance of our IC. He is not a President. It is not in him to do what the job requires and what the country needs. 

[SubliminalHorn 7,009]

3 minutes ago, TtomTerrific said:

perfect 👌 

Go have another bloody 

[TtomTerrific 200]

8 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

Go have another bloody 

take the loss, pussy 

and quit leaning on the Constitution only when it suits  your "victimization" stance one day and be ready to throw it in the trash the next. 

It's your Constitution too, you have made that very clear. 

Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio? 

[David Dennison 19,543]

What loss? 

[Celery Man 21,098]

Can they deputize someone as house sergeant at arms or does it have to be the guy they elected or whatever?

[WhatTheBuck 28,931]

56 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Discard political motivations within the FBI for a moment.  If it is demonstrated that the FBI conducted surveillance on US citizens using a thin justification bolstered by privately funded politically motivated information sourced from Russia, does that bother you? 

Look at you juggling political motivations. What about the political motivations of Putin's government and the Trump campaign that were in alignment, known to each other, and worked in concert to the benefit of both? That's the original sin. Without that there would be no Steele dossier and no surveillance of members of Trump Inc. interacting with foreign spies.

Don't work with the enemy and you won't get investigated. When a Russian spy says "Psssst...hey buddy...want to make a deal?" you call the FBI, you don't say "I'd love it!" and set up a secret meeting. If you opt for the latter, you don't get to complain when the FBI taps your phone, dumbass. 

You're thinking backwards. You have your conclusion, which appears to have come straight from Trump's mouth, and you're working backwards from there to try to justify it. We've already heard you parrot "collusion delusion" on more than one occasion. You're not thinking for yourself.  You're just falling in line and dancing to the piper's tune. 

"Privately funded?" So what? What does that mean? Should it have been publicly funded? Would that have been better? You repeat it like it should suggest that "privately funded" means it's somehow nefarious. Don't be an idiot. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, does opposition research and pays for it. They're looking for factually accurate dirt that they can use against their political opponents. They don't need to pay anyone to make up lies. Politicians don't need to outsource lies. They can handle that inhouse. Think! Do you seriously think that paying for it from a private source is bad but receiving it for free from a hostile foreign government is totally okay?

"Sourced from Russia?" Not from the Putin's government. It was a former allied intelligence officer, employed by a private agency contracted to do oppo research, getting info from sources within Russia. You should know better than to say "Russia" as if it means the Russian government. It wasn't from Russia, it was from Russians. It's a significant difference. (And do we know that all of those sources are still alive and well?)

But you're just parroting Trump's spin. At least you didn't add that it was the Hillary Clinton campaign that paid for the totally routine exercise of looking up dirt on the opponent as if that makes it even more suspect, another favorite Trump meme. I'm actually surprised you left that one out. 

[SubliminalHorn 7,009]

I’m jealous of Ttom’s benders. But then I think of pancreatitis and think, no thank you. 

[WhatTheBuck 28,931]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Bill Barr would be proud.

He left out "But Hillary!" He's never making it to the big league. 

[wildcat09 29,582]

2 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

I’m jealous of Ttom’s benders. But then I think of pancreatitis and think, no thank you. 

I just wish he'd commit. Think how epic they'd be if he didn't take breaks to post here.

[Revolution512 1,518]

48 minutes ago, elguapo said:

How does this even work? Trump can just assert executive privilege over whatever the hell he wants now?

I'm sure Trumpkins would have been fine with Clinton or Obama acting this way, right?

Holder......now there’s a model to follow

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Asserting executive privilege over the entire report and all the underlying evidence that completely exonerates me to own the libs. 

Edited May 8, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[triplehorn 2,664]

56 minutes ago, elguapo said:

How does this even work? Trump can just assert executive privilege over whatever the hell he wants now?

I'm sure Trumpkins would have been fine with Clinton or Obama acting this way, right?

Nadler responding to the DOJ re EP: "This is, of course, not how executive privilege works. The White House waived these privileges long ago ... The Department's legal arguments are without credibility, merit, or legal or factual basis. Worse, this kind of obstruction is dangerous."

 

If the jail down the street is full, convert a SCIF into a holding cell.  At a minimum, it'll muffle the shrieking.

[henrygandorf 29,227]

am i the only one who doesn't give two shits about seeing the full, unredacted report?

here's what i care about:

1. mueller testifying

2. the 14+ outside investigations following through to conclusion

end of list.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

am i the only one who doesn't give two shits about seeing the full, unredacted report?

here's what i care about:

1. mueller testifying

2. the 14+ outside investigations following through to conclusion

end of list.

Yeah, well I’d like to see the full unredacted report so I know what questions I need to ask Mueller when he testifies.

You see how the things you care about directly link to the thing you don’t give two shits about? 

[elguapo 4,620]

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

am i the only one who doesn't give two shits about seeing the full, unredacted report?

here's what i care about:

1. mueller testifying

2. the 14+ outside investigations following through to conclusion

end of list.

+Getting his tax returns

Agree

[elguapo 4,620]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Yeah, well I’d like to see the full unredacted report so I know what questions I need to ask Mueller when he testifies.

You see how the things you care about directly link to the thing you don’t give two shits about? 

Certain members of congress should see it, not the general public (at this point).

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Just now, elguapo said:

Certain members of congress should see it, not the general public (at this point).

Which is the only demand Congressional Democrats are making.  

[henrygandorf 29,227]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Yeah, well I’d like to see the full unredacted report so I know what questions I need to ask Mueller when he testifies.

You see how the things you care about directly link to the thing you don’t give two shits about? 

well nadler and co will have access to almost everything pre-hearing, so that's fine with me.  i don't think the questions will be restricted to what we've already seen in the report - it should focus heavily on the underlying investigations and evidence that led to the summaries provided.

and you said "things" plural so i'm not sure if you're referring to the open investigations, but those caused some of the redactions, and they have all the access they need to see those through.

i just hate that these stupid hearings today are focused so much on "seeing the full report" especially when nadler hasn't gone over to read the less redacted one yet.  setting himself up to look foolish.  trump obstructed.  barr is now helping to obstruct the investigation into obstruction.  hold barr in contempt.  end of objective.

[henrygandorf 29,227]

4 minutes ago, elguapo said:

+Getting his tax returns

Agree

right, agreed.  i was just referring to mueller report related stuff.

[elguapo 4,620]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

i just hate that these stupid hearings today are focused so much on "seeing the full report" especially when nadler hasn't gone over to read the less redacted one yet.

I agree with this, it gives the impression that Nadler is playing politics.

[LonghornJudas 1,138]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

am i the only one who doesn't give two shits about seeing the full, unredacted report?

here's what i care about:

1. mueller testifying

2. the 14+ outside investigations following through to conclusion

end of list.

I think you might be. I want to see it all:

1. The full un-redacted report (Not gonna happen)

2. Testimony by Mueller

3. Conclusion of the other investigations

4. The OIG report

5. Barr's full investigation and conclusion on how this all began

Bonus: Tax returns

[Captainant 28,549]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

i just hate that these stupid hearings today are focused so much on "seeing the full report" especially when nadler hasn't gone over to read the less redacted one yet.  setting himself up to look foolish.  trump obstructed.  barr is now helping to obstruct the investigation into obstruction.  hold barr in contempt.  end of objective.

Nadler did actually address why he hasn't read the less redacted report yet. He said that he would not have been allowed to discuss and/or share anything with his peers in the committee, which is not useful for their oversight responsibilities.

[elguapo 4,620]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

Nadler did actually address why he hasn't read the less redacted report yet. He said that he would not have been allowed to discuss and/or share anything with his peers in the committee, which is not useful for their oversight responsibilities.

Couldn't he read the lightly redacted version while also fighting for his peers in the committee to get access to it?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Just now, elguapo said:

I agree with this, it gives the impression that Nadler is playing politics.

Don’t you see that’s a set up?  Either you believe members of Congress should have access to all the underlying information or you’re allowing the the criminals obstructing justice to keep obstructing justice.  

Anything less than full transparency at this point would be negligent for our elected officials charged with conducting oversight. 

[henrygandorf 29,227]

Just now, Captainant said:

Nadler did actually address why he hasn't read the less redacted report yet. He said that he would not have been allowed to discuss and/or share anything with his peers in the committee, which is not useful for their oversight responsibilities.

i know, and i understand.  but when they bitch and moan about getting the full report released it looks bad.  it also makes it look like the unredacted stuff isn't damning as hell.  which it is.

the gop narrative is "they have 92% of it, now they want all of it, when does it end?  they couldn't find shit, so they're still trying to look for stuff."

the 92% shows plenty of indictable offenses.  let's go.

[elguapo 4,620]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Don’t you see that’s a set up?  Either you believe members of Congress should have access to all the underlying information or you’re allowing the the criminals obstructing justice to keep obstructing justice.  

Anything less than full transparency at this point would be negligent for our elected officials charged with conducting oversight. 

I get it.

I just think that he could read the lightly redacted version while also fighting to get the unredacted version + supporting evidence released to those who need access to perform oversight. My concern is that the more it appears the Dems are playing politics with this the less credibility they have with the general public.

[Captainant 28,549]

1 minute ago, elguapo said:

Couldn't he read the lightly redacted version while also fighting for his peers in the committee to get access to it?

He could, but it would be a waste of time. Because he would be unable to share any findings with anyone on the committee. And then we would be fighting that fight to let him share findings instead of our current fight to let everyone read it. 

All of this is a delay tactic by the trump admin, to throw sand into the gears so to speak. 

[triplehorn 2,664]

1 minute ago, elguapo said:

I get it.

I just think that he could read the lightly redacted version while also fighting to get the unredacted version + supporting evidence released to those who need access to perform oversight. My concern is that the more it appears the Dems are playing politics with this the less credibility they have with the general public.

Step on their fucking throats

[RomaVicta 30,599]

Why should a congressman have to jump through hoops to read the report?

Come to a special room to read 400 pages. Fuck that. Then you're forbidden to discuss it with other elected officials? Fuck that,too!.

It's anti-democratic not that anybody cares.

 

[elguapo 4,620]

Y'all are probably right, hard to know how to play it to get the best desired outcome.

This is a very complicated case. You know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-you's.

[jimmyjazz 47,219]

57 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

Can they deputize someone as house sergeant at arms or does it have to be the guy they elected or whatever?

Trump seems to think checks and balances are a thing of the past.  I'm on board with Congress deputizing Jackie Chan to haul Barr in.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

11 minutes ago, elguapo said:

I get it.

I just think that he could read the lightly redacted version while also fighting to get the unredacted version + supporting evidence released to those who need access to perform oversight. My concern is that the more it appears the Dems are playing politics with this the less credibility they have with the general public.

The Republicans are masters at political warfare, the democrats are not.  

Impeachment proceedings would give the democrats a lot of leverage with the courts in quickly obtaining documents.  But they don’t want to open that can of worms.  

Pelosi wants to “see where the facts lead us” but the administration is stonewalling hard AF and concealing as many incriminating facts as possible.  

But now, somehow, it looks like it’s the democrats are playing politics?  Well, no shit, if they weren’t playing politics and losing they’d impeach this motherfucker. 

Edited May 8, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[LonghornJudas 1,138]

Just now, Captainant said:

Nadler did actually address why he hasn't read the less redacted report yet. He said that he would not have been allowed to discuss and/or share anything with his peers in the committee, which is not useful for their oversight responsibilities.

Being the cynical person that I am, this sounds like a bs political response. By electing not to view it, he can continue down a road of speculation, and he's shielding himself from criticism of holding a hearing despite (potentially) having knowledge that would deem the hearing unnecessary. Maybe I'm wrong.

Also, the citizens in the 4th district of Georgia deserve better representation. Or maybe they don't at this point. I don't know.

[jimmyjazz 47,219]

10 minutes ago, Captainant said:

He could, but it would be a waste of time. Because he would be unable to share any findings with anyone on the committee.

There are no rules.  Read what's available, share away.  Fuck 'em.

[Anastasis 23,721]

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Papadopoulus blabbing about how they're working with Russia to hurt a political opponent is thin justification? Get the fuck out of here.

This is not what the Mueller report said regarding Downer's characterization of this interaction.  If I was a glue-eater, I would claim that you are lying.  But I am not, so I will just assume that you are unable to frame the information precisely.  I do not believe that framing the justification for a FISA warrant on Page as "thin" is overplaying the hand. None of the FBI lawyers that have testified have given a real full throated defense of the sufficiency of the application w/o the dossier to bolster.  When asked directly, Baker said that he wouldn't say one way or the other whether probable cause existed without the dossier. Moyer's testimony has not been publicly released as far as I know but it has been stated in congressional testimony and reporting that she characterized the justification w/o the dossier as "a close call, like 50/50, 51/49. I really think it's a close call."  So I don't think that I am on totally thin ice with that characterization. 

And since you bring up papadopoulos, he is a self serving shit stain, but I do think that his congressional testimony from Oct of last year is an interesting read wrt Downer, Halper, Turk, etc. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5781493/Papadopoulos-Transript-House-Judiciary.pdf 

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

 "Privately funded?" So what? What does that mean? Should it have been publicly funded? Would that have been better? You repeat it like it should suggest that "privately funded" means it's somehow nefarious. Don't be an idiot. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, does opposition research and pays for it. They're looking for factually accurate dirt that they can use against their political opponents. They don't need to pay anyone to make up lies. Politicians don't need to outsource lies. They can handle that inhouse. Think! Do you seriously think that paying for it from a private source is bad but receiving it for free from a hostile foreign government is totally okay?

I don't disagree with this, as said previously: 

On 5/3/2019 at 8:18 PM, Anastasis said:

I think that Trump should be impeached based on the information contained in Vol 2. As far as interactions with Russia, I think that he should have been removed from office after Helsinki. I think that politics is dirty business, and that opposition research is part of the game. I think that smart candidates buffer themselves through a screen of lawyers from the dirty work. I think that buffoons operate like amateurs. I think that I would like to keep a strong barrier between political reindeer games and the surveillance state.

The bolded is the crucial aspect of my position on this topic. I don't give a fuck about oppo research.  I care quite a bit if opposition research consisting largely of gossip from foreigners is deployed to bolster surveillance applications targeting US citizens being fed into a unconstitutional (imo) surveillance apparatus. I think that the surveillance system is ripe for abuse of civil liberties and am critical of that system. That makes me a trumpkin taking orders right from the mouth of the president these days.  

Edited May 8, 2019 by Anastasis

[Biff Tannen 46,168]

How is this not full blown constitutional crisis at this point?  Fuck, on #bothsides really.  The government is ceasing to function in terms of co-equal branches and oversight.  Rs have been given every chance to do their jobs and they aren't.  Ds are dancing around their responsibilities and not doing their jobs either.  It's go time.  Gloves need to come off. 

[Anastasis 23,721]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

There are no rules.  Read what's available, share away.  Fuck 'em.

 

Pretty straightforward political play in my opinion. Read the report, turn immediately to Appendix D, memorize the names on the page. Leak the particularly damaging ones to a friendly reporter. 

[LonghornJudas 1,138]

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

How is this not full blown constitutional crisis at this point?  Fuck, on #bothsides really.  The government is ceasing to function in terms of co-equal branches and oversight.  Rs have been given every chance to do their jobs and they aren't.  Ds are dancing around their responsibilities and not doing their jobs either.  It's go time.  Gloves need to come off. 

Because we're still being represented by people who continue the tit-for-tat political bullshit. Well, this administration did this, so we're going to do this! Party above country.

[suddenly shaggy 929]

6 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I am not shocked.  Your MO is to either act like you can't read or don't know how the search function works when confronted with an argument that you cannot address (see below). You deflect about a "diatribe about Russian disinformation" but I do not directly talk about Russian disinformation at all in that break down. What I do is compare very specific assertions in certain passages against reality.  They don't check out. Instead of having an exchange based on analysis of the material at hand, you immediately fall back. Even to the people that agree with you and also want to call me names, it is transparent. The WaPo analysis is lazy. It appears infectious. 

 

 

You lied in your very first point in your manifesto. If you lead with a lie, I'm not going to waste time on the rest of what you said.

[Anastasis 23,721]

2 minutes ago, suddenly shaggy said:

You lied in your very first point in your manifesto. If you lead with a lie, I'm not going to waste time on the rest of what you said.

Because you lack reading comprehension does not make somebody's written word a lie.  It just means that you are not particularly bright. 

[suddenly shaggy 929]

4 hours ago, Anastasis said:

A couple posters post a WaPo "fact checker" piece to bolster a position they are advocating, one indignant that other posters don't read it.

I read it and take the time to offer an analysis of the article.

In response, said poster, "No fucking way I'm reading this"

Others chime in "disingenuous", "nihilist", "you're grinding this into pulp".

 

 

 

Lulz, you lied in your very first point. You are a liar and it is pointless to argue anything of substance with a liar. Here's my post calling you a liar in case you missed it. 

12 hours ago, suddenly shaggy said:

No fucking way I'm reading this whole manifesto. You start being disingenuous with your very first point. 

 

Those two statements are perfectly consistent with one another and you're lying out both sides of your face when you claim they aren't. Then you launch into your diatribe about the possibility of Russians feeding disinformation to Steele. Who gives a shit? They probably did. The guy in charge of the Moscow desk for MI-6 has a lot of experience dealing with Russian disinformation. I'm sure you're nipping at his heels though.  

Why don't we see what the rest of the report says and hear what Mueller has to say and see what some of those redactions and Bill Burr are covering up? I'm pretty comfortable that the Washington Posts analysis is going to be more accurate than your disingenuous spin. 

[tantric superman 4,668]

1 hour ago, LonghornJudas said:

I think you might be. I want to see it all:

1. The full un-redacted report (Not gonna happen)

2. Testimony by Mueller

3. Conclusion of the other investigations

4. The OIG report

5. Barr's full investigation and conclusion on how this all began

Bonus: Tax returns

I could be satisfied with someone just having their ass beat.

[Anastasis 23,721]

4 minutes ago, suddenly shaggy said:

Lulz, you lied in your very first point. You are a liar and it is pointless to argue anything of substance with a liar. Here's my post calling you a liar in case you missed it. 

You quote yourself to prove that I lied?  Very Trumpian. How about this, quote the actual words that you are claiming are a lie, in their full context.  This is going to be fun.   

[elfenix 34,752]

Why should a congressman have to jump through hoops to read the report?
Come to a special room to read 400 pages. Fuck that. Then you're forbidden to discuss it with other elected officials? Fuck that,too!.
It's anti-democratic not that anybody cares.
 

Yeah but we live in a republic, not a democracy!

[suddenly shaggy 929]

Since you insist on belaboring everything, here is what you posted, complete with your lie. Your lie is in bold. 

“Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by PUTIN, has been to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance.” 

— Steele memo 80, dated June 20, 2016

 

WaPo Article- The Mueller report documents extensive Russian efforts to ensure Trump’s victory, through hacking operations and social media efforts. Mueller also details Trump’s business interests in Russia, especially pursuit of a Trump Tower project in Moscow.

 

Anastasis being intellectually dishonest-  Nothing in this memo details hacking or social media operations by Russia.  What this memo does discuss is "the Kremlin had been feeding Trump and his team valuable intelligence on his opponents, including clinton, for several years." It discusses a "dossier of compromising material on Clinton" comprising "bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia and intercepted phone calls"..."and focused on things that she had said which contradicted her current position on various issues". None of these aspects are supported by Mueller's findings. Memo 80 fails on virtually every single claim in the "Detail" section when examined specifically.

 

There is no incongruity between the following two statements. You lie when you say there is. The dossier says Russia is cultivating, supporting and assisting Trump for at least 5 years. The Mueller report shows some of the mechanisms for this. 

Statement 1- Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by PUTIN, has been to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance.” 

Statement 2- The Mueller report documents extensive Russian efforts to ensure Trump’s victory, through hacking operations and social media efforts. Mueller also details Trump’s business interests in Russia, especially pursuit of a Trump Tower project in Moscow.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]