The Robert Mueller Investigation

[David Dennison 18922]

3 minutes ago, Bash Riprock said:

so when's the big day?

Check back in one year.

[JimmyJames 12271]

I’m still seeing that someone just simply doesn’t understand how warrants work. 

[Bash Riprock 1695]

lol

[Anastasis 23475]

57 minutes ago, Bash Riprock said:

so when's the big day?

In reality pascha is timeless. 

[Bash Riprock 1695]

I haven't posted in this thread for a month or maybe longer. As soon as I do, the two biggest vagina's/cucks respond to my post. Good lord, do you douche's not have lives?

And just so I'm clear this is going to happen a year from now? The latest goalpost location is 6/20? Correct?

Edited June 23, 2019 by Bash Riprock

[David Dennison 18922]

32 minutes ago, Bash Riprock said:

I haven't posted in this thread for a month or maybe longer. As soon as I do, the two biggest vagina's/cucks respond to my post. Good lord, do you douche's not have lives?

And just so I'm clear this is going to happen a year from now? The latest goalpost location is 6/20? Correct?

No. Just come back in a year and see where we are.

I think he'll be impeached by then.

[hobbes2702 13045]

13 hours ago, Bash Riprock said:

I haven't posted in this thread for a month or maybe longer. As soon as I do, the two biggest vagina's/cucks respond to my post. Good lord, do you douche's not have lives?

And just so I'm clear this is going to happen a year from now? The latest goalpost location is 6/20? Correct?

Is what going to happen? The president committing crimes? Because that already happened but it seems that some people don’t seem to care about that anymore.

[Brian Fantana 6689]

20 hours ago, Bash Riprock said:

I haven't posted in this thread for a month or maybe longer. As soon as I do, the two biggest vagina's/cucks respond to my post. Good lord, do you douche's not have lives?

And just so I'm clear this is going to happen a year from now? The latest goalpost location is 6/20? Correct?

As a fellow Tech fan, I have to say...

You're a fucking pussy retard, keep your idiot mouth shut, cunt. Traffic is that way. Bathe in it.

[hookem48 4700]

22 hours ago, Bash Riprock said:

so when's the big day?

The day after Rod Rosenstein leaves the DOJ,  Hugo said that's the key day in all this, that's what I read the last time I stumbled into this circle jerk. So when is he leaving?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Yeah, I did not see Rod being in on the cover up with Barr.  Mea culpa. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Live streamed here:

https://lawworksaction.org/

[bolverk 29685]

21 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

As a fellow Tech fan, I have to say...

You're a fucking pussy retard, keep your idiot mouth shut, cunt. Traffic is that way. Bathe in it.

Guns up

[Zavala 1384]

These will never get old - as Benji Shapiro said : Prosecutors exist to determine whether someone committed a chargeable offense, not whether they are exonerated of charges.

Quote

“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” — Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III

[Zavala 1384]

16 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Live streamed here:

https://lawworksaction.org/

I popped in on these guys reading it live. It was the people doing the public readings listening to each other read their parts... and one Sea Aggy...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/article/mueller-report-findings-brought-to-life-with-public-reading-in-galveston/ar-AADaFu7#image=AADaVpq|1

Quote

By the end of the four-hour reading around 9 p.m. Wednesday, the audience had dwindled significantly, but about 12 people, most of whom had volunteered to read, sat through to the end. The reading had covered only 90 pages, but for those who were only familiar with the broad strokes of Mueller’s findings, it proved enlightening.

Adam Haney, a poltical science professor at Texas A&M University at Galveston, sat through the entire reading and was struck by the number of contacts Trump campaign officials made with Russian officials.

 

[henrygandorf 29192]

trump hasn't even read the report.  or has he?

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/06/25/jeanne-moos-trump-mueller-report-pkg-ebof-vpx.cnn

[RomaVicta 29929]

On 6/23/2019 at 12:18 AM, Bash Riprock said:

I haven't posted in this thread for a month or maybe longer. As soon as I do, the two biggest vagina's/cucks respond to my post. Good lord, do you douche's not have lives?

And just so I'm clear this is going to happen a year from now? The latest goalpost location is 6/20? Correct?

Were you so busy moving goalposts yourself, that you couldn't look up?

Three months and the investigation has no evidence of anything.

No arrests, no indictments, no convictions, no crime. Mueller is a joke.

So his campaign manager is traitorous crook? That means nothing.

All the Russian connections and lying about them. No comment.

So his lawyer is going to jail, he lied about Trump being innocent so he's lying now. Trump's fine.

The report will be nothing.

The report isn't good, but they would have indicted Trump if there was a crime.

They couldn't indict Trump because of a DOJ rule, but no collusion!

I didn't hear that question about obstruction. No comment.

The president constantly lies? No comment.

The president is accused of rape by a credible source? No comment about him, but I'll point out Bill and accuse Hillary of murder and treason.

You can impeach, but the Senate won't convict. Trump's the man!

You and the people who repped you are shit. 

 

[Anastasis 23475]

On 6/21/2019 at 8:46 PM, SmokeyTheBear said:

 

And when you needle these types of issues during a time where the president is the most immediate risk to our nation, your argument seems disingenuous. 

Trump is an authoritarian fascist and an immediate threat to the constitution and our nation. Also, who cares if the executive branch cuts a few corners from time to time when deploying the most invasive surveillance techniques against American citizens in general or political targets in particular. 

Edited June 25, 2019 by Anastasis

[wildcat09 29355]

On 4/25/2019 at 10:21 AM, wildcat09 said:

No, you don't care. In fact, you know that a lot of what you just mentioned was fully appropriate and justified or benign. You know that Steele himself presented the dossier as unverified raw intelligence. You know that the FISA application presented the dossier as unverified raw intelligence.

What you DO care about is constantly redirecting all negative focus back to the Democrats, and because Trump makes that very hard, you try to dress up some bullshit in, as jimmyjazz said, a cloak of legitimacy. All you are is a more sophisticated texashammer.

Seems appropriate to quote myself here.

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

32 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Trump is an authoritarian fascist and an immediate threat to the constitution and our nation. Also, who cares if the executive branch cuts a few corners from time to time when deploying the most invasive surveillance techniques against American citizens in general or political targets in particular. 

In every process there is a tolerance for mistakes as long as the end objective is done in good faith. I'm making the assumption (without knowing a majority of the facts, like you) that there were corners cut or rules bent due to the unheard of situation at hand. My assumption was that they were done in good faith to ensure the truth was documented and addressed. Your assumption is that they were done with the intent of wrongfully smearing a candidate. 

All that is different than the next level issue of full on surveillance state. One is process, the other is policy. I agree that the policy we are under of full surveillance is unconstitutional. However, during the run up to the election, I don't think you can leap automatically to it being the tool of choice to go after Trump. We don't know. 

 

Edit* - you agree Trump is a problem yet you attack every piece of evidence or method used to show his criminality. Really really weird stance. 

Edited June 25, 2019 by SmokeyTheBear

[Anastasis 23475]

22 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

Edit* - you agree Trump is a problem yet you attack every piece of evidence or method used to show his criminality. Really really weird stance. 

Other than the inappropriate use of uncorroborated political opposition research to bolster a surveillance applications probable cause argument, what other investigative methods have I attacked here? Only other one that immediately comes to mind is the FBI deploying a likely CIA asset to probe a campaign official overseas. I think appropriate skeptical criticism is warranted on both. 

[henrygandorf 29192]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Other than the inappropriate use of uncorroborated political opposition research to bolster a surveillance applications probable cause argument, what other investigative methods have I attacked here? Only other one that immediately comes to mind is the FBI deploying a likely CIA asset to probe a campaign official overseas. I think appropriate skeptical criticism is warranted on both. 

i think the question being asked by smokey (and others, repeatedly) is, in your mind, at what point do the findings outweigh the potential "cut corners" you've referred to?

[Anastasis 23475]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

i think the question being asked by smokey (and others, repeatedly) is, in your mind, at what point do the findings outweigh the potential "cut corners" you've referred to?

The two investigative methods mentioned yielded zero extant evidence regarding trump criminality. Page still walking around like a dumbass doing news shows. He wasn’t the Lynch pin in the coordination efforts. Deploying the IC asset with Halper likewise yielded nothing. They were terminated as a dead end. In fact, some who have seen transcripts from those interactions claim that they yielded exculpatory material. We’ll see about that. And how the use of that information supports an “operating in good faith” argument. 

[Captainant 27680]

 

46 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Other than the inappropriate use of uncorroborated political opposition research to bolster a surveillance applications probable cause argument, what other investigative methods have I attacked here? Only other one that immediately comes to mind is the FBI deploying a likely CIA asset to probe a campaign official overseas. I think appropriate skeptical criticism is warranted on both. 

It wasn't uncorroborated. It independently corroborated facts that FBI had already gathered. Also, it wasn't the only piece of evidence used to justify the warrants. You also are making an argument from a posture of "facts" but haven't shown evidence or backed up your position in anything outside of general distrust.

35 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The two investigative methods mentioned yielded zero extant evidence regarding trump criminality. Page still walking around like a dumbass doing news shows. He wasn’t the Lynch pin in the coordination efforts. Deploying the IC asset with Halper likewise yielded nothing. They were terminated as a dead end. In fact, some who have seen transcripts from those interactions claim that they yielded exculpatory material. We’ll see about that. And how the use of that information supports an “operating in good faith” argument. 

You sure are keen to discount multiple trump campaign staffers and surrogates repeatedly interacting with kremlin cutouts. And that those people were already under warranted investigation in some cases. But don't let me get in the way of your desperation to intertwine systemic issues and our current "immediate threat to the constitution". It's very reminiscent of old-school KGB whataboutism that was used to discredit valid arguments and views without actually directly challenging or interacting with the argument they're making. It's why people are so fed up with you.

[Anastasis 23475]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

It wasn't uncorroborated. It independently corroborated facts that FBI had already gathered

Link to the corresponding materials and evidence reflecting the content used specifically in the FISA application? 

 

Edited June 25, 2019 by Anastasis

[Captainant 27680]

Just now, Anastasis said:

Link to the materials and evidence corroborating the content used specifically in the FISA application? 

You're asking me to prove a negative, against your argument that you also haven't provided evidence for. Isn't it the case that whoever is making the initial claim has the burden of proof? Or is it just a fact in your mind that the only thing used to get the (fruitful, I might add) warrants was political research that was in no way corroborated?

[Anastasis 23475]

You just said the specific info used in the application was corroborated by info the fbi already had. I asked you to link it. You say I am asking you to prove a negative since you cannot provide that evidence. 

We can perhaps compromise and agree on a more precise formulation: There is no extant information indicating that the FBI had information corroborating specifics of the Steele material which were used in the FISA application against Page. Would you agree that that is an accurate formulation.  

[Anastasis 23475]

A point of further clarification. There is one piece of information that we know that the fbi included as independent corroboration of Steele content included in the application. They provided a link to a yahoo news article which contained information that Steele had planted himself in the media. They did have corroborating information, it was circular. 

[David Dennison 18922]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

A point of further clarification. There is one piece of information that we know that the fbi included as independent corroboration of Steele content included in the application. They provided a link to a yahoo news article which contained information that Steele had planted himself in the media. They did have corroborating information, it was circular. 

The judge knew all of this.

[Anastasis 23475]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The judge knew all of this.

The judge reviewing the first application knew that Steele seeded the story that was being referenced in the application?

[David Dennison 18922]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

The judge reviewing the first application knew that Steele seeded the story that was being referenced in the application?

If he didn't it's only because he didn't ask or think it was relevant. 

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Other than the inappropriate use of uncorroborated political opposition research to bolster a surveillance applications probable cause argument, what other investigative methods have I attacked here? Only other one that immediately comes to mind is the FBI deploying a likely CIA asset to probe a campaign official overseas. I think appropriate skeptical criticism is warranted on both. 

So you think Steele publishing an article was the magic ingredient to get a warrant? Or was it to inform the populace?

You have a problem with other countries providing their intel to inform our agencies?

Have a problem with a special prosecutor assigned to investigate and provide a report that largely verifies the need for the original investigation?

[RomaVicta 29929]

Anastasis,

To be clear, you believe the president is guilty of crimes and should be removed from office.

As a separate issue, you object to current surveillance policies and practices. That said, you don't think the uses of surveillance and information gathered from that surveillance undermine the overall case against Trump.

A question; how do you stand regarding the GOP?

 

These are unprejudiced questions. There has been so much history to these arguments, that I am unclear. Thanks.

[Anastasis 23475]

Just now, SmokeyTheBear said:

So you think Steele publishing an article was the magic ingredient to get a warrant? Or was it to inform the populace?

You have a problem with other countries providing their intel to inform our agencies?

Have a problem with a special prosecutor assigned to investigate and provide a report that largely verifies the need for the original investigation?

1. No. No. Either way, it was a violation of his source agreement with the FBI and he should have been cut off as a source. We know that he wasn’t.

2. Depends how that information was collected and who it targets and how it is used.

3. The investigation verified that the president is a dipshit who commits obstruction of justice as a pathological matter of day to day business. 

[Anastasis 23475]

7 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Anastasis,

To be clear, you believe the president is guilty of crimes and should be removed from office.

As a separate issue, you object to current surveillance policies and practices. That said, you don't think the uses of surveillance and information gathered from that surveillance undermine the overall case against Trump.

A question; how do you stand regarding the GOP?

 

These are unprejudiced questions. There has been so much history to these arguments, that I am unclear. Thanks.

1. I believe that he has committed obstruction. There is more than sufficient evidence to remove from office on that basis. 

2. Strongly. None of the surveillance abuses I am discussing undermine the facts related to obstruction of justice. At least as far as I am aware. These are separate issues.

3. Burn it to the motherfucking ground.

 

 

[notre dame joe 188]

Mueller told Barr that the DOJ policy was not the reason he did not attempt to indict Trump.

 

So why doesn't Mueller just come forward and explain himself?  In a perfect world Mueller could testify to a team of Trump donors without his notes. 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

11 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

Mueller told Barr that the DOJ policy was not the reason he did not attempt to indict Trump.

 

So why doesn't Mueller just come forward and explain himself?  In a perfect world Mueller could testify to a team of Trump donors without his notes. 

First sentence is a lie.  Answer to the second sentence:

Quote

"Under long-standing department policy a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office," Mueller said. "Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited."

He added, "Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider."

Why do you continually post lies and misleading stuff?

Edited June 25, 2019 by Judge Roybeanbag

[RomaVicta 29929]

27 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

1. I believe that he has committed obstruction. There is more than sufficient evidence to remove from office on that basis. 

2. Strongly. None of the surveillance abuses I am discussing undermine the facts related to obstruction of justice. At least as far as I am aware. These are separate issues.

3. Burn it to the motherfucking ground.

 

 

Thanks. It seems that you have a lot of common ground with your detractors. I'm puzzled by the rancor.

[David Dennison 18922]

11 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

Mueller told Barr that the DOJ policy was not the reason he did not attempt to indict Trump.

 

So why doesn't Mueller just come forward and explain himself?  In a perfect world Mueller could testify to a team of Trump donors without his notes. 

Says who?

[henrygandorf 29192]

6 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Thanks. It seems that you have a lot of common ground with your detractors. I'm puzzled by the rancor.

do you even #bothsides, bro?

[shnsajax 3591]

10 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

First sentence is a lie.  Answer to the second sentence:

Why do you continually post lies and misleading stuff?

Do you even GOP bro?

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

9 minutes ago, shnsajax said:

Do you even GOP bro?

Yeah but I had to ask, it's difficult to tell with some of these guys if they are too dumb to know it's a lie, or if it's purposeful trolling.  I'd like him to answer as to why he claimed that.  Did he hear Rush or Fox say it, so it must be true?  Or did he just make it up?

[notre dame joe 188]

4 hours ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Yeah but I had to ask, it's difficult to tell with some of these guys if they are too dumb to know it's a lie, or if it's purposeful trolling.  I'd like him to answer as to why he claimed that.  Did he hear Rush or Fox say it, so it must be true?  Or did he just make it up?

Barr said it to Congress multiple times, making you the liar for pretending not to know it. 

[henrygandorf 29192]

2 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

Barr said it to Congress multiple times, making you the liar for pretending not to know it. 

cannot tell if serious.

[DDD Dad 14339]

Barr said it to Congress multiple times, making you the liar for pretending not to know it. 

[bolverk 29685]

I'm of the mind that we probably shouldn't neg people for their opinions in here, but I'd make an exception for out-right lies.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

47 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

Barr said it to Congress multiple times, making you the liar for pretending not to know it. 

Did you read Muellers own words?  

[HenryJames 66123]

 

[Chooky 13315]

Mueller is appearing "pursuant to a subpoena ..." Do subpoenas even matter anymore? We still have those? We're still doing this whole "law" thing? It actually seems kinda retro these days. 

[Francisco 2.0 32395]

16 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I still want Rosenstein