The Robert Mueller Investigation

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Either way, I’ll keep calling them out in this thread. 

[David Dennison 19542]

Just now, Dbeasy said:

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I don’t understand this. The whole narrative by some Democrats is that Trump should have been impeached due to obstruction, that Mueller didn’t come out and say that in his report because it was Congress’ responsibility not his, that people in his office are angry at what Barr has done, and yet now they can’t get him to testify? Something doesn’t make sense here.

Timing.

[David Dennison 19542]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Either way, I’ll keep calling them out in this thread. 

Just out of curiosity, what do you think Nancy Pelosi thinks winning this particular political battle looks like?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just now, Dbeasy said:

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I don’t understand this. The whole narrative by some Democrats is that Trump should have been impeached due to obstruction, that Mueller didn’t come out and say that in his report because it was Congress’ responsibility not his, that people in his office are angry at what Barr has done, and yet now they can’t get him to testify? Something doesn’t make sense here.

It’s industrial scale obstruction of justice.  That’s been the play for the last two years.  We’ve been through three Attorney Generals (Session, Whitaker, Barr), three Deputy Attorney Generals (Yates, Rosenstein, Rosen) and three FBI directors (Comey, McCabe, Wray).  

And all of these employment decisions were directly related to the Russia Investigation. 

[David Dennison 19542]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s industrial scale obstruction of justice.  That’s been the play for the last two years.  We’ve been through three Attorney Generals (Session, Whitaker, Barr), three Deputy Attorney Generals (Yates, Rosenstein, Rosen) and three FBI directors (Comey, McCabe, Wray).  

And all of these employment decisions were directly related to the Russia Investigation. 

And everyone knows it. That's the point.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

And everyone knows it. That's the point.

Maybe the guy constantly obstructing justice into the investigation of the Russian effort to get him elected shouldn’t be trusted to run for re-election?   

The American voters shouldn’t have to take on Russia and their stooge in another election but Congress seems to think election integrity isn’t going to be an issue when the guy clearly welcoming help from the Kremlin is the President of the United States. 

If only there was some kind of process to protect our democracy from such a treacherous attack. 

[retread 2951]

What would the Rs be doing in this situation if roles were reversed?

[David Dennison 19542]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Maybe the guy constantly obstructing justice into the investigation of the Russian effort to get him elected shouldn’t be trusted to run for re-election?   

The American voters shouldn’t have to take on Russia and their stooge in another election but Congress seems to think election integrity isn’t going to be an issue when the guy clearly welcoming help from the Kremlin is the President of the United States. 

If only there was some kind of process to protect our democracy from such a treacherous attack. 

There is. 

And nothing would prevent that man from running for re-election. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I wouldn’t say nothing.

[David Dennison 19542]

6 minutes ago, retread said:

What would the Rs be doing in this situation if roles were reversed?

Impeaching the president.

And then they would suffer a political loss when the Democratic Senate did not convict.

So you have to choose your battles.

[David Dennison 19542]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I wouldn’t say nothing.

What would prevent him from running for re-election?

[GRHorn 105]

44 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

For starters, try to recreate the Mueller Investigation from scratch by bringing in people to publicly testify.   Why aren’t they at least doing that?   

Because they have no courage and are afraid of losing.

This is a certifiably insane idea. 

[retread 2951]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Impeaching the president.

And then they would suffer a political loss when the Democratic Senate did not convict.

So you have to choose your battles.

Like the Rs did when impeaching Clinton for lying about a BJ?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[David Dennison 19542]

Just now, retread said:

Like the Rs did when impeaching Clinton for lying about a BJ?

At the time, yes.

[David Dennison 19542]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Again, you won't know if this has worked until November 4, 2020.

[retread 2951]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

At the time, yes.

Like we've discussed itt before, the Rs held the house until 2006 and held the majority in the Senate on and off during that time period as well.

At this point, I think doing the right thing >>>> political considerations.

The right thing would be impeaching Trump and maybe also Barr.

Edited May 18, 2019 by retread

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

The democrats don’t have to even impeach Trump.  They just have to make it look like they’re not getting walked all over by the biggest criminal moron in history. 

They can’t keep sending letters and deadlines for Trump to ignore.  They need to open an impeachment “probe” or something to restore some confidence in the institution millions of Americans came out to vote for in November. 

They can drag an impeachment probe out all the way to the 2020 election and never take a vote on it or send it to the senate.  

But they aren’t even doing that because cowards. 

Edited May 18, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[David Dennison 19542]

Just now, retread said:

Like we've discussed itt before, the Rs held the house until 2006 and held the majority in the Senate on and off during that time period as well.

At this point, I think doing the right thing >>>> political considerations.

The right thing would be impeaching Barr and then Trump.

But Bill Clinton became more popular. He won politically. He was not on the ballot in 2000. The risk is making Donald Trump more popular for his 2020 run. It's a big risk. As it stands now, his chances at winning in 2020 do not look good.

 

[David Dennison 19542]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The democrats don’t have to even impeach Trump.  They just have to make it look like they’re not getting walked all over by the biggest criminal moron in history. 

They can’t keep sending letters and deadlines for Trump to ignore.  They need to open an impeachment “probe” or something to restore some confidence in the institution millions of Americans came out to vote for in November. 

They can drag an impeachment probe out all the way to the 2020 election and never take a vote on it or send it to the senate.  

But they aren’t even doing that because cowards. 

They are doing precisely what you want them to do. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Again, you won't know if this has worked until November 4, 2020.

It doesn’t matter if it works.  It matters that they’re trying and not getting any pushback. 

[David Dennison 19542]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It doesn’t matter if it works.  It matters that they’re trying and not getting any pushback. 

Check back in one year.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Maybe put the fire out before it becomes a natural disaster??  I dunno

[David Dennison 19542]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Maybe put the fire out before it becomes a natural disaster??  I dunno

The Democrats do not have the power to put it out, no matter how much you want it to be so.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

The democrats are the majority of the country.  They have a lot of power.  They are horrible and incompetent at wielding that power. 

[David Dennison 19542]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The democrats are the majority of the country.  They have a lot of power.  They are horrible and incompetent at wielding that power. 

They do not have the power to do what you want them to do. You will only know they have failed at wielding the limited power they do have after the election.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Your horseshit is pathetic.  Trump has declared war on the US government and you think sitting on your hands and waiting for the next election will fix everything.   

[David Dennison 19542]

29 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Your horseshit is pathetic.  Trump has declared war on the US government and you think sitting on your hands and waiting for the next election will fix everything.   

It's political reality. You are acting like a child.

[retread 2951]

The Rs have masterfully controlled the narrative. They understand the way the news cycle works, and they understand the simple-mindedness and short attention span of the average American. Just say No Collusion, No Obstruction every day for 3 years, and the average American will believe it.

If/when the Ds decide to impeach in the fall, many/most voters will wonder where this is coming from. Wasn't this settled 6 months ago when Barr sent out his summary letter?

Edited May 18, 2019 by retread

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

This is how democracies die.  Call me an alarmist or whatever.  I hope I’m wrong but the democrats are on the verge of being complicit accomplices in this seditious overthrow. 

[David Dennison 19542]

6 minutes ago, retread said:

The Rs have masterfully controlled the narrative. They understand the way the news cycle works, and they understand the simple-mindedness and short attention span of the average American. Just say No Collusion, No Obstruction every day for 3 years, and the average American will believe it.

If/when the Ds decide to impeach in the fall, many/most voters will wonder where this is coming from. Wasn't this settled 6 months ago when Barr sent out his summary letter?

Most Americans don't believe the Republican narrative. In fact, just the opposite.

 

[Grade of D as in David 13255]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

But Bill Clinton became more popular. He won politically. He was not on the ballot in 2000. The risk is making Donald Trump more popular for his 2020 run. It's a big risk. As it stands now, his chances at winning in 2020 do not look good.

 

And if the Dems do nothing after all of this then they run the risk of making him bulletproof. Voters that don't follow this as much as we do will think that he did nothing wrong.

[Laxtonto 13300]

Here is the issue with Mueller. He knows if he testifies before the OIG report he could easily get caught up in something that will further discredit his investigation .

 

I still believe he will never testify because it would be a major no win situation for him. He will get hammered for not stating there was definite obstruction by the left and hammered by knowing early on that there was no collusion and yet still keeping the investigation going , among many other hard questions, from the right.

 

There is no situation he comes out unscathed if he goes on record in front of congress.

[David Dennison 19542]

1 minute ago, Grade of D as in David said:

And if the Dems do nothing after all of this then they run the risk of making him bulletproof. Voters that don't follow this as much as we do will think that he did nothing wrong.

And winning a trial in the Senate will only further that narrative.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

And winning a trial in the Senate will only further that narrative.

I wouldn’t call being impeached but not convicted as winning.  

However, not getting impeached after committing more crimes than Nixon is a certain win. 

[Grade of D as in David 13255]

I disagree. If the Dems had a fraction of the media savvy they could run with the narrative of the pubs pledging allegiance to party over country. By not doing anything they run the risk of the casual voter thinking it was all just a witch-hunt. 

 

Poor analogy but OJ was acquitted of murder and regardless of that outcome quite a few people believe he literally got away with murder.  What if after the chase in the Bronco and all of the evidence in public view, Marcia Clark and the LA district attorneys office declined to investigate let alone charge and try OJ for murder.  Do you think even a fraction of the people who today think OJ was guilty would still feel that way?  Would OJ still be a social pariah (Vegas robbery would have never happened because he wouldn't have been broke and forced to sell his Heisman) or would he be putting the finishing touches on Naked Gun 6?

 

I firmly believe that if the Dems do nothing Trump will sail through to a second term. It will have all of the slapstick fuckups of a Naked Gun movie, just without the laughs.

Edited May 18, 2019 by Grade of D as in David

[retread 2951]

The election will be close. 40% for him, 40% against, and the middle 20% deciding. There will probably be a 3rd party candidate, R voter suppression, and new and improved Russian meddling. It won't be surprising if he wins.

[David Dennison 19542]

11 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I wouldn’t call being impeached but not convicted as winning.  

However, not getting impeached after committing more crimes than Nixon is a certain win. 

You might not, but most Americans will. It will be spun as a win. Just like Clinton.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

The facts and evidence are on the democrats side.  If they can’t spin that, they have no business leading this country. 

[F250 29201]

3 hours ago, triplehorn said:

Yes, your logic is backwards. 

The fact Alfa Bank server was looking up the Trump Tower server establishes the connection.  It doesn't have to appear be anomalous to be nefarious.  An analogous example is Trump campaign officials talking with Russians.  One can draw a conclusion that because a person functions in a capacity associated with government affairs that can involve international relations, any contact by Trump campaign officials with Russians must be innocent.  We know now that it wasn't innocent.

Furthering that analogy, how many different Americans and at which times did Russians make contact ?  Was it the same pattern and frequency in 2014, '15, and '16 ?  Same question for the Alfa bank/Trump lookups.  

Again, I think Tea Pain makes a reasonable observation and raises important questions about the server contacts, fully noting that it's not about seeing something anomalous, it's about understanding what's actually happening when something looks normal: The Link

 

Notice above that the change in frequency of server contacts was variable and suddenly spiked and peaked June and July 2016.  Really ?  Whatever could be the explanation for that ?  Realize also we found out last week that Steele had reported that Manafort was using the Alfa bank server to communicate with the Kremlin.  We also know Manafort was sharing MI/OH/PA state polling data with Russians.  It appears those associations could shed light on the type of information that was being passed in the two-way server exchanges - voter data.  Did Manafort have voter data to give to the Russians ?  Yes, we already know he did.  Did the Russians have voter data to share with the Trump digital campaign ?  Yes, they stole it.

 

For the record, this is not my logic. I am just referring to established procedures that are part of a digital forensics investigation.

Asserting a conclusion and then using that conclusion to justify an interpretation of the available evidence is just terrible reasoning. That is not how an investigation is performed. It's the exact opposite of how an investigation works because it leads to confirmation bias.

It's been a couple of years since I read Tea Pain's database replication theory and after going over it again I have to say it's still complete nonsense. I used to be a product architect for database firewalls so I am more than familiar with what DB traffic looks like and what Tea Pain describes is not it. Why would MX records be involved in database replication or traversing the public internet bouncing off of DNS servers?

This is the part where I try and avoid sounding like an asshole but this is like a biologist trying to explain why the progeny of a horse and a unicorn are not genetically related to a mule.

Edited May 18, 2019 by F250

[suddenly shaggy 929]

Democrats have been played like a fiddle. Bu the time they finally get Mueller to testify, if they ever do, it will be after the Trumpublicans have had months to set the narrative. They should have had subpoenas ready to go for Mueller, Rosenstein and Barr when Mueller handed in his report. As soon as it was clear DOJ was continuing to obstruct, hand them a subpoena.

If they did it in the immediate aftermath of Mueller turning in the report, the obstruction would be obvious and the public outcry would have been deafening. Now, months will have passed and it will look like the Democrats are trying to exhume something that is already settled. 

Wasn't the reason for Pelosi being speaker again that she is politically savvy? She's gotten worked repeatedly by the admin. 

[retread 2951]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The facts and evidence are on the democrats side.  If they can’t spin that, they have no business leading this country. 

and if they're going to play the game of running every subpoena through the courts, they better find a way to be on cable news all the time with sound bites defending their position

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

We’re just waiting for the inevitable disaster and the part when congress throws their hands up and says, “There was no way to see this coming or any way to prevent this.”

[henrygandorf 29225]

32 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I wouldn’t call being impeached but not convicted as winning.  

However, not getting impeached after committing more crimes than Nixon is a certain win. 

at this point, there is no “winning”. you impeach and get everything out. you make the senate knock it down. 

thats as much as the dems can hope for, it’ll make for good tv, it’ll dominate the news cycle, and as an added bonus, it could throw a monkey wrench in the senatorial plans for the gop in 2020. 

doing nothing is a loss. starting impeachment hearings is what it is. but cracks are showing with barr, with burr/don jr, with all the flynn shit. more hearings will prob cause more disruption, more obstruction, and you never know. 

if you do nothing you put the faith in the people in 18 months, which is always a risk. 

[retread 2951]

Even if he doesn't intentionally get us into a war (which he might), he will probably fall ass backwards into one like he's currently efforting w Iran.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

at this point, there is no “winning”. you impeach and get everything out. you make the senate knock it down. 

thats as much as the dems can hope for, it’ll make for good tv, it’ll dominate the news cycle, and as an added bonus, it could throw a monkey wrench in the senatorial plans for the gop in 2020. 

doing nothing is a loss. starting impeachment hearings is what it is. but cracks are showing with barr, with burr/don jr, with all the flynn shit. more hearings will prob cause more disruption, more obstruction, and you never know. 

if you do nothing you put the faith in the people in 18 months, which is always a risk. 

Doing nothing will have devastating consequences that will go well beyond the next election.  There will be no coming back from doing nothing.   It will have set the path to the end.   Trump is almost irrelevant when considering the big picture.  

[hobbes2702 13477]

Doing nothing normalizes the behaviors and also ignores the CRIMES committed in the process. Impeach him and let the chips fall. Doing nothing is accepting that all normalcy is lost

[suddenly shaggy 929]

5 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

at this point, there is no “winning”. you impeach and get everything out. you make the senate knock it down. 

thats as much as the dems can hope for, it’ll make for good tv, it’ll dominate the news cycle, and as an added bonus, it could throw a monkey wrench in the senatorial plans for the gop in 2020. 

doing nothing is a loss. starting impeachment hearings is what it is. but cracks are showing with barr, with burr/don jr, with all the flynn shit. more hearings will prob cause more disruption, more obstruction, and you never know. 

if you do nothing you put the faith in the people in 18 months, which is always a risk. 

Exactly. Fox and Hannity are going to tell their listeners Trump has done nothing wrong the Dems are attacking him. They are going to rally behind that. They are going to do it no matter what Dems do between now and then. They will flood the airwaves with bullshit and control the media narrative like they've been doing for a very long time. 

Dems need to flood the airwaves with facts and new details of Trump and the GOP's nefarious deeds. Let them lie about it and knock them down, only to have more scandal thrown in their face the next day. 

The battle is for the undecided and Dems are losing that badly. 

[David Dennison 19542]

Check back in one year.

 

[David Dennison 19542]

2 minutes ago, suddenly shaggy said:

Exactly. Fox and Hannity are going to tell their listeners Trump has done nothing wrong the Dems are attacking him. They are going to rally behind that. They are going to do it no matter what Dems do between now and then. They will flood the airwaves with bullshit and control the media narrative like they've been doing for a very long time. 

Dems need to flood the airwaves with facts and new details of Trump and the GOP's nefarious deeds. Let them lie about it and knock them down, only to have more scandal thrown in their face the next day. 

The battle is for the undecided and Dems are losing that badly. 

They are actually winning the undecideds.

That is why Donald Trump is the underdog going into his own re-election.