Jump to content

The Robert Mueller Investigation

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

SubliminalHorn

SubliminalHorn 6787

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, Crusher said:

And vice versa for the Dems. Ain't no one changing the minds of chuckleheads like us. It's the independents that will swing this election.

What have the Dems shown to people? They are party of no. Just like the Repugs during Obama and it wasn't a good look then either. I think people just wanted a slow down on this whole Globalization shit. That's why you have Trump today. And it's not just us. That is why you have Brexit. That  is why Merkel is under pressure in Germany and the EU looks shaky.

People ain't ready yet. It will happen eventually. Hell, Gene Roddenberry has been right everything else so far...

You realize the Democrats have passed a number of bills on the House. Your boy Mitch blocks every single one. Yes the Democrats are the party of no, huh? Give me a fucking break. Your lies and gaslighting aren’t effective here. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 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

jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45942

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

I'm anti-globalist, so I vote for a guy whose clothes line, along with his daughter's, is manufactured overseas, 

Don't forget that you vote for the guy who carves out a tariff exemption for clothing & shoes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Crusher

Crusher 127

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

I'm anti-globalist, so I vote for a guy whose clothes line, along with his daughter's, is manufactured overseas, whose resorts hire undocumented immigrants over citizen applicants, who's financed by Russians, who believes Putin over our domestic intelligence agencies, who praises Saudis after murdering a Washington Post employee, who repeatedly calls the domestic press "The Enemy of The People, disparages those who have fought for this country, deports those who have fought for this country, insults families whose children have died fighting for this country, while claiming he's in love with murderous Communist dictator.

Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 hours ago, suddenly shaggy said:

Mueller investigation is over. Trump can rehire him when Congress starts impeachment. 

Something tells me Emmet Flood isn’t coming back.   He was Don McGahn’s hand picked replacement.  

Of course it would be irresponsible for anyone to speculate Flood was pressured by Trump to obstruct justice and Flood said “fuck this shit.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27664

Posted
Posted
On 6/2/2019 at 1:10 AM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s been clear for a while Pelosi wants nothing done except to pass meaningless bills to claim on the campaign trail.

These are bills that no one has heard of or will benefit from because McConnell immediately sends them to the graveyard. 

 

 

That tweet is a little disengenuous, Nadler and house committees have been trying to get witnesses to testify and have been stymied at every turn by the trump admin. They're currently in several court cases to obtain those documents and testimonies. They aren't doing nothing, they just haven't gotten anything accomplished yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted

If it's a given that Senate GOP will look the other way on not just Mueller's case for obstruction of justice, but for all Trump criminality, this may be the best example illustrating the rationale for letting it fester and build as close to election season as possible:

Spoiler

 

 

REPORTER: "Mr. President, are you willing to say that MBS is responsible for Khashoggi’s death?"

TRUMP: "When did this come up again? What are you, back — are you back —"

R: "Jared. Jared talked to Axios."

TRUMP: "Are you back — what — 4 months ago? No."

 

Like so many scandals and criminal acts, Trump's M.O. is to lie about/ignore it and act like it was resolved and went away.  If the House goes to the mat right now, and Senate GOP has already pre-judged to let him skate, regarding impeachment, it will be "when did this come up again" all over.  If we're still waiting, you won't be hearing the GOP provocations to impeach next Spring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18856

Posted
Posted
On 6/2/2019 at 2:10 AM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s been clear for a while Pelosi wants nothing done except to pass meaningless bills to claim on the campaign trail.

These are bills that no one has heard of or will benefit from because McConnell immediately sends them to the graveyard. 

 

All of these folks will be called in once impeachment hearings begin in earnest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27664

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, XYZ said:

Awesome motto.

I think it's an important distinction to draw because their lack of results is (at least in part, if not completely) due to the trump admin's sandbagging and the GOP's complicity in that sandbagging. DOJ is ignoring court orders from federal judges for fuck's sake. Here there be dragons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29671

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Dirk X West said:

What now?

It was a sarcastic comment directed in response to someone upthread saying Tech folks weren't welcomed on Surly. Given your handle, I assume you have a Lubbock and/or Tech connection. It certainly wasn't meant as a serious dig toward you.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Pretty sure that’s why the Saudis did it.  Because they knew there would be no consequences.

America is not going to do anything to jeopardize the spigot of oil flowing out of SA. What would the response be from another sitting president ?  The only consequences from any American president would be a strongly worded letter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, LongestHorn said:

At the very least, a strongly worded letter standing up for American values is what is expected from the Office.  

I agree, and I am in no way condoning his silence,  but everyone knows the emptiness of words that have no backed up action.  Unless you take actual action of some kind it's all just talk.

Cutting off arms sales would be a pretty strong message, but I'm not sure if that would have the intended consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45942

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

America is not going to do anything to jeopardize the spigot of oil flowing out of SA. What would the response be from another sitting president ?  The only consequences from any American president would be a strongly worded letter.

Uh, no.  We import 9% of our oil from Saudi Arabia.  If my calculations are correct, that's ~ $15B per year.  

Trump had no problem popping off with a 25% tariff on goods from China, which will cost American consumers ~ $63B per year.  Get out of here with this "what are we gonna do?" bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23469

Posted
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, LongestHorn said:

At the very least, a strongly worded letter standing up for American values is what is expected from the Office.  

Regional military posture and economic hegemony are the crucial American values at play. 

Edited by Anastasis
grammar are hard
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Uh, no.  We import 9% of our oil from Saudi Arabia.  If my calculations are correct, that's ~ $15B per year.  

Trump had no problem popping off with a 25% tariff on goods from China, which will cost American consumers ~ $63B per year.  Get out of here with this "what are we gonna do?" bullshit.

500 barrels a day, and 5 years ago it was 3x that many (15% or so), and will go back up at some point.  So what would a Hillary or Barack or Biden or Warren do beyond a letter of condemnation ?

 

Tarrifs are a long term game against a country that has been breaking the rules for decades, and no president has done shit about it till now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45942

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

500 barrels a day, and 5 years ago it was 3x that many (15% or so), and will go back up at some point.  So what would a Hillary or Barack or Biden or Warren do beyond a letter of condemnation ?

What?  500 barrels per day?  What?

Try 1M barrels per day.  But that's less than 10% of our daily import.  Can we laugh it off?  Hell no, of course we can't.  Look what happens when oil supply goes up or down a few percent.  But to imply that nothing can be done when our esteemed POTUS willfully fucks us over with far bigger tariffs is lunacy.

 

Quote

Tarrifs are a long term game against a country that has been breaking the rules for decades, and no president has done shit about it till now.

Yeah, that's what they are.  Yikes.  "It's the long play".  Well, the short play is fucking over Joe Citizen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14339

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Tarrifs [sic] are a long term game against a country that has been breaking the rules for decades, and no president has done shit about it till now.

To think that Trump is playing any long term games is delusional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

What?  500 barrels per day?  What?

Try 1M barrels per day.  But that's less than 10% of our daily import.  Can we laugh it off?  Hell no, of course we can't.  Look what happens when oil supply goes up or down a few percent.  But to imply that nothing can be done when our esteemed POTUS willfully fucks us over with far bigger tariffs is lunacy.

 

Yeah, that's what they are.  Yikes.  "It's the long play".  Well, the short play is fucking over Joe Citizen.

Whatever, the number I was looking at was a chart of barrels per day, and the number was a third this year as it was 3-5 years ago.  

And Joe citizen has been getting screwed by the Chinese for years now, allowed by our own gov't because they didn't create strong trade agreements, and enforce them thru some kind of punitive action.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45942

Posted
Posted
Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

Whatever, the number I was looking at was a chart of barrels per day, and the number was a third this year as it was 3-5 years ago.  

And Joe citizen has been getting screwed by the Chinese for years now, allowed by our own gov't because they didn't create strong trade agreements, and enforce them thru some kind of punitive action.

Do you like mushrooms?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Well, it’s about time.

 

 

additional info:

 The House Judiciary Committee announced Monday that it would hold a series of hearings on the Mueller report beginning on June 10, with a session focused on "President Trump’s most overt acts of obstruction," according to Chairman Jerry Nadler. 

Why it matters: Amid growing calls to launch impeachment proceedings against Trump, House Democratic leaders are instead opting to continue holding hearings under the umbrella of standard congressional oversight. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) said on Sunday that he believes impeachment proceedings will begin at some point, but that Democrats must first "do what's necessary to educate the public" on Trump's alleged corruption. 

Details: The first hearing will be titled, "Lessons from the Mueller Report: Presidential Obstruction and Other Crimes," and will feature former White House counsel John Dean, whose cooperation in the Watergate scandal famously made him a star witness against President Richard Nixon. The hearing will also feature former U.S. attorneys and other legal experts. 

The big picture: Attorney General Bill Barr and former White House counsel Don McGahn have each defied subpoenas from the House Judiciary Committee, with McGahn doing so at the direction of the White House. The committee has authorized a contempt resolution against Barr and is considering the same for McGahn.

Chairman Nadler said in a statement:

“No one is above the law. While the White House continues to cover up and stonewall, and to prevent the American people from knowing the truth, we will continue to move forward with our investigation. These hearings will allow us to examine the findings laid out in Mueller’s report so that we can work to protect the rule of law and protect future elections through consideration of legislative and other remedies."

___

Clyburn has it right: Democrats must first "do what's necessary to educate the public" on Trump's alleged corruption. 

If the difference in public reaction to the 400+ page Mueller report being released versus having Mueller say the same things in an 8 min televised briefing is any indication, the opportunity to ramp up awareness and outrage via live hearings is large.  It's also smart to lay the foundation for impeachment hearings without calling them impeachment hearings.  They can advance it later by calling it that, but it's starting now.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31465

Posted
Posted
On 6/1/2019 at 10:12 AM, Anastasis said:

So back to this. How does the prosecution just respond to the judge with a "nope".  He was charged with making false statements directly related to the conversation with Kislyak. Produce the fucking transcripts. 

Good question.  First, I have to guess that there is some kind of filing under seal explaining why the government didn't comply with the order, e.g. that it is material that impacts an ongoing investigation or reveals "methods" ala report redactions. If the judge maintains the order, the two ways to appeal it are for him to cite the government attorneys for contempt or certify the order for appeal (not sure this last one is actually available).  Either way, if the judge wants to maintain and enforce his order, he has to make it appealable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Zavala said:

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/446709-key-mueller-figure-george-nader-charged-with-transporting-child-porn

 

Trump transition team member Nader charged with child porn. Not for the first time either as the charges started piling up in the early 90s. Trump still hired him anyway. 

Republicans and others that associate with trump are pretty big scumbags, I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goredho

Goredho 17405

Posted
Posted

My wife has picked the Mueller Report as the last selection for her book club to read.   Their get together to discuss was last Thursday.   Two conservative catholic Trumpkin women have since left the group.  My wife’s take: “Fuck those bitches if they can’t handle reality.”

As to the rules...

Most_Interesting_Man_Stay_Thirsty_01.gif

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zavala

Zavala 1384

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, Zavala said:

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/446709-key-mueller-figure-george-nader-charged-with-transporting-child-porn

 

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.386545/gov.uscourts.vaed.386545.2.0.pdf

Pretty nasty stuff

Kathryn Ruemmler attorney

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-nader-child-porn-charges-prison-mueller-849498

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goredho

Goredho 17405

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

Trump transition team member Nader charged with child porn. Not for the first time either as the charges started piling up in the early 90s. Trump still hired him anyway. 

 Republicans and others that associate with trump are pretty big scumbags, I agree.

You're last sentence is correct, but Nader is the perfect Trump employee.

  • As someone previously charged with kiddie porn, you know they are devoid of ethics and morality and will be game for anything
  • You can control them by threat to expose their current indulgences
  • If they become a witness against you, you just say, "Would you believe the word of a man that indulges in child porn vs that of our President?"
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...