The Robert Mueller Investigation

[Captainant 27284]

57 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Do I need to generate a fucking Venn diagram for you?  You're smarter than this.  (I thought.)

Obviously, how else would you capture both sides of an issue?? The truth is always in the middle dontchaknow?? [/enlightened centrist]

[David Dennison 18577]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

As long as it includes a sphere for violations of 4th amendment protections. 

How was the 4th amendment violated?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

[HenryJames 65865]

Don't all Presidential campaign chairmen end up in jail?

[retread 2951]

He was only the chairman for a very short period of time. Nothing to see here.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

[Chooky 13292]

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

That photograph of Manafort was taken immediately after he read this entire exchange between jimmyjazz and Anastasis.

[triplehorn 2664]

In light of today being Roger Stone's deadline to explain his posts (gag order violation), take note of what prosecutors did yesterday:

 

 

Of the multiple various instances where Trump most assuredly knowingly conspired with the Russian election attack, absent the witness tampering, obstruction, and ongoing lying by Roger Stone, the Stone case may be the one best example of conspiracy where evidence directly implicates Trump. 

Could this notice under seal of intent to introduce evidence represent 'new' evidence that was previously not available to Mueller ?  Recall that after a year of un-cooperation, close Roger Stone aid Andrew Miller was finally forced to testify, well after the non-exonerating Mueller report was published.

 

Quote

Andrew Miller, a man so close to Roger Stone that he describes the longtime Republican operative as “Uncle Roger,” testified about him and his relationship with Julian Assange before a federal grand jury on Friday, two days after conceding a yearlong fight against a subpoena from Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

 

 

[Anastasis 23358]

What's Louise Mensch up to these days triple?

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

What's Louise Mensch up to these days?

Grifting as usual. 

[triplehorn 2664]

21 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

What's Louise Mensch up to these days triple?

The only thing she was good for was reporting on the existence of FISA warrants back when people - such as you - laughed at the notion there was even a glancing association between Trump campaign and Russia during the election, let alone the thought he'd ever have to lie about it.  Remember those days Ana ?  good times.

Other than that, I have no idea what she tweets about.  

Next up, rat fucker Roger Stone.

[Anastasis 23358]

17 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

The only thing she was good for was reporting on the existence of FISA warrants back when people - such as you - laughed at the notion there was even a glancing association between Trump campaign and Russia during the election, let alone the thought he'd ever have to lie about it.  Remember those days Ana ?  good times.

 Other than that, I have no idea what she tweets about.  

Next up, rat fucker Roger Stone.

Ah yes.  The good ole days.

 

 

 

The "I am pro-life and take no pleasure in reporting this." is expert level trolling. 

 

[Gatorubet 30052]

Lawyer was John Dowd

Son of Elwood P. Dowd


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zavala 1384]

22 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Mueller needs to hold nothing back but I know he will, sadly. 

He played this perfectly, looking to stay above the fray the entire time.  Acting like he didn’t want to testify knowing full damn well he was getting a subpoena and he wasn’t going to ignore it. 

here's the preview

"don't know" game similar to Eric Holder.

[henrygandorf 29174]

i think he's gonna answer everything he already answered in the report.

i also think he's gonna avoid hypotheticals.  "if the olc policy didn't exist..." type of stuff.  i don't think he's going to express opinions that he previously hasn't expressed.

i'm curious about his phone call to barr and what they discussed, and why he felt the need to reach out.  not sure if he'll go into that.

none of this is gonna matter at all anyway.  but it'll be decent theater.

[Bash Riprock 1695]

On 6/25/2019 at 10:41 AM, RomaVicta said:

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. 

 

You have 2800+ posts. Do you have a life? Are you a working individual? Poor girl to have that much time on FB and other Social Media. That's super cute!!

 

Well Good Luck To You and all of your legion of House Wives or Cucked Husbands. A+

Edited June 28, 2019 by Bash Riprock

[Bash Riprock 1695]

On 6/23/2019 at 8:42 PM, 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.

youre such a bad poster. especially when you embarrass us in the baseball thread. come on girl,

[JimmyJames 12271]

On 6/26/2019 at 5:28 PM, Anastasis said:

How about this. If the OIG report finds that all policies and procedures relating to the use of sources and/or FISA applications were adequately and appropriately followed, I take a 6 month holiday from the politics board. If on the other hand there are findings that the relevant  policies and procedures were not adequately followed, you take the vacation.

 

Not to worry, there’s a full keg party gonna go down by the moon tower. All the girls are gonna be there. And we’ve banned all fisa warrants. You should come by? 

[Anastasis 23358]

I love those red heads. 

[Brian Fantana 6654]

12 minutes ago, Bash Riprock said:

youre such a bad poster. especially when you embarrass us in the baseball thread. come on girl,

Fuck off and stop PM'ing me idiot

[JimmyJames 12271]

Say do you need a ride? 

[Bash Riprock 1695]

1 minute ago, Brian Fantana said:

Fuck off and stop PM'ing me idiot

Ok. I'm sorry. You need the safe space

[JimmyJames 12271]

How bout you ditch those two losers and get in the car with me. 

[Brian Fantana 6654]

Just now, Bash Riprock said:

Ok. I'm sorry. You need the safe space

Dang sick burn you got me good one bruh

[Bash Riprock 1695]

1 minute ago, Brian Fantana said:

Dang sick burn you got me good one bruh

I know right?

[JimmyJames 12271]

Can’t we all pull a Rodney king and just all get along?

Yeah probably not.

Im personally now in ignore trump troll mode which would explain my absence from this board. I would encourage most of you to do the same. 

Trolls like trump feed, breed and live off attention. Without it they wither away and usually die. Trump may be a stronger infection, but he’s still what he is. 

He will wither away and die. 

[RomaVicta 29747]

1 hour ago, Bash Riprock said:

You have 2800+ posts. Do you have a life? Are you a working individual? Poor girl to have that much time on FB and other Social Media. That's super cute!!

 

Well Good Luck To You and all of your legion of House Wives or Cucked Husbands. A+

Devastating.

[Bash Riprock 1695]

2 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Devastating.

Love you girl

[Brian Fantana 6654]

Lmao what a psycho

[Zavala 1384]

6 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

i think he's gonna answer everything he already answered in the report.

i also think he's gonna avoid hypotheticals.  "if the olc policy didn't exist..." type of stuff.  i don't think he's going to express opinions that he previously hasn't expressed.

i'm curious about his phone call to barr and what they discussed, and why he felt the need to reach out.  not sure if he'll go into that.

none of this is gonna matter at all anyway.  but it'll be decent theater.

Modern politics is entertainment. Hilarious game pitting people against each other while robbing everyone blind.

Although it may get more interesting soon.

[suddenly shaggy 929]

Can't imagine why anyone would think Tulsi isn't above board. 🙄

She'd fit right in with all the Trumpkin gaslighters on this thread. 

 

Here's what Mueller had to say about that. "As I said forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime."

Edited June 28, 2019 by suddenly shaggy

[EuroHorn 3204]

Oh no, a Democrat who disagrees ..

[Thetexashammer 1062]

I, like, don't want to pee in anyone's Wheaties. But there a little thing called "truth" that I'd like to discuss for a moment.

Ya'll know I want to get to 1000. It's a dream, a special dream of mine, that we make it all the way. Alas, I fear it is not to be.

The lights are out. The party is over. The door is locked. Everyone has gone home. The owner cleaned up and kicked everyone out. There isn't a party anymore. There just isn't. I mean, you don't have to go home but you can't stay here. 

It was fun while it lasted. Too bad so sad. Time to move on to the next battle.

Fin

[suddenly shaggy 929]

36 minutes ago, EuroHorn said:

Oh no, a Democrat who disagrees ..

Jesus you are simpleton. She either hasn't read the report, or she's actively participating in the GOP gaslighting the rest of the country. She's also a homophobe and an apologist for a brutal war criminal. To top that off, she has an army of trolls manipulating online polls. We've seen this movie before. No wonder Fox and the trumpkins on here love her. 

[WhatTheBuck 28700]

43 minutes ago, suddenly shaggy said:

Can't imagine why anyone would think Tulsi isn't above board. 🙄

She'd fit right in with all the Trumpkin gaslighters on this thread. 

Here's what Mueller had to say about that. "As I said forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime."

Tulsi's an idiot. Collusion isn't a legal term. It's not possible for a prosecutor to conclude anything with regard to collusion. Mueller didn't report either way on collusion. 

[suddenly shaggy 929]

3 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Tulsi's an idiot. Collusion isn't a legal term. It's not possible for a prosecutor to conclude anything with regard to collusion. Mueller didn't report either way on collusion. 

You are underestimating her. She knows exactly what she is doing, same as she did when she refused to call Assad a war criminal. Collusion is a catch-all term the GOP and Fox crammed down everyone's throat. It encompasses several crimes, including conspiracy. Mueller found evidence that Trump committed a crime, but not enough to charge him. However, no amount would have been enough to charge him, because OLC prohibits charging the President with a crime while he is in office as we've discussed on this thread for months. 

Given those constraints, Mueller is very clear when he reiterated it to those that missed it the first go around. There is reason to believe that Trump DID commit a crime, but not enough to charge him. Tulsi is intentionally spreading disinformation for the GOP.  

"As I said forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime."

[Anastasis 23358]

24 minutes ago, suddenly shaggy said:

Can't imagine why anyone would think Tulsi isn't above board. 🙄

She'd fit right in with all the Trumpkin gaslighters on this thread. 

 

Here's what Mueller had to say about that. "As I said forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime."

This gaslighting thing is so funny. 

Is that Mueller quote you reference in the terms "Here's what Mueller had to say about that" directly relevant to the specific content of the video you linked, specifically collusion and conspiracy with Russia to interfere with the 2016 election?

No.  It is not.  

That quote is directly relevant to the obstruction case.  

Here is the text in context:

The order appointing me special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation, and we kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of the progress of our work. And as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.

You are confusing purposefully by selective quoting Mueller's statements related to obstruction to frame a response to a video from Gabbards twitter that is focused on findings related to conspiracy and coordination.  

And you are doing so to attack a democract, and supposed gas lighters, when you are the one in fact distorting reality.

 

 

[suddenly shaggy 929]

Mea culpa, that section is specifically about obstruction. Anyone aside from the President would have been charged with obstructing the investigation and put in jail. Mueller specifically says he cannot charge Trump with a crime due to OLC guidelines. Mueller repeatedly he they couldn't ascertain material facts, because multiple Trump campaign officials lied and destroyed evidence. You know, like all innocent people do when investigated by law enforcement. 🙄 

 

The following is from Volume 1, pages 180-191. 

Regarding conspiracy, Mueller says they found evidence Trump and Russia were working to the same goal and sharing information, but could not establish that any Trump officials knowingly and willingly participated in an agreement to violate federal laws. Mueller does not exonerate Trump, or anyone else.  

as discussed in Volume I, Section V.A, supra, the investigation did not identify evidence that any Campaign official or associate knowingly and intentionally participated in the conspiracy to defraud that theOffice charged, namely, the active-measures conspiracy described in Volume I, Section II, supra.

 

FARA violations- Manafort and Gates violated FARA representing Ukraine. Flynn violated FARA representing Turkey. It did not yield enough evidence to get a conviction on any Trump officials working with Russia. There was evidence, but not enough to sustain a charge and earn a conviction. This also does not exonerate Trump, or anyone else. 

The investigation did not, however, yield evidence sufficient to sustain any charge that any individual affiliated with the Trump Campaign acted as an agent of a foreign principal within the meaning of FARA or, in terms ofSection951, subject to the direction or control of the government of Russia, or any official thereof.

 

Campaign finance violations- The "dirt" the Trump camp was offered by Russia was likely a thing of value and an illegal contribution, but would be difficult to establish a value for. Again, Mueller was unable to show that Trump officials knowingly and willfully violated the law, but does not exonerate them.  

The Office considered whether to charge Trump Campaign officials with crimes in connection with the June 9 meeting described in Volume I, Section IV.A.5, supra. The Office concluded that, in light of the government's substantial burden of proof on issues of intent ("knowing" and "willful"), and the difficulty of establishing the value of the offered information, criminal charges would not meet the Justice Manual standard that "the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction." Justice Manual§ 9-27.220.

...

There are reasonable arguments that the offered information would constitute a "thing of value" within the meaning of these provisions, but the Office determined that the government would not be likely to obtain and sustain a conviction for two other reasons: first, the Office did not obtain admissible evidence likely to meet the government's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these individuals acted "willfully," i.e., with general knowledge of the illegality of their conduct; and, second, the government would likely encounter difficulty in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the promised information exceeded the threshold for a criminal violation, see 52U.S.C. § 30109(d)(l)(A)(i).

Bottom of page 188.

Accordingly, taking into account the high burden to establish a culpable mental state in a campaign-finance prosecution and the difficulty in establishing the required valuation, the Office decided not to pursue criminal campaign-finance charges against Trump Jr. or other campaign officials for the events culminating in the June 9 meeting.

The portion following this is blacked out for the bottom of page 188 and all of page 189 as a Harm to an Ongoing Matter. 

 

Mueller did not clear Trump, or his campaign. It is gaslighting to claim he did. Mueller was unable to prove intent and the value of what Russia provided the Trump campaign. If Trump hadn't acted so guilty and obstructed at every turn, Mueller would have been able to answer these questions definitively.

At least you found a new gif though, so kudos to you for branching out. 

 

[bolverk 29355]

10 hours ago, Bash Riprock said:

youre such a bad poster. especially when you embarrass us in the baseball thread. come on girl,

I was never really a fan of Bash's. It was always filled with mediocre students who were easy to beat on trivia night. Now, Main Street was a bar you had to watch your ass in - -because who knows what you might find yourself in the middle of there. Based on your recent comments, I'm sort of surprised your handle wasn't for O'Reillys as that was the place for misogynistic frat boys who enjoyed roughing up coeds in the TKE rape room and the racist shitkicker Pikes whose favorite past-time was wearing blackface for giggles. 

Anyways, I was always more of a Kitchen Club fan myself.

[Zavala 1384]

11 hours ago, EuroHorn said:

Oh no, a Democrat who disagrees ..

BURN THE WITCH

8 hours ago, suddenly shaggy said:

Mea culpa, that section is specifically about obstruction. Anyone aside from the President would have been charged with obstructing the investigation and put in jail. Mueller specifically says he cannot charge Trump with a crime due to OLC guidelines. Mueller repeatedly he they couldn't ascertain material facts, because multiple Trump campaign officials lied and destroyed evidence. You know, like all innocent people do when investigated by law enforcement. 🙄 

 

The following is from Volume 1, pages 180-191. 

Regarding conspiracy, Mueller says they found evidence Trump and Russia were working to the same goal and sharing information, but could not establish that any Trump officials knowingly and willingly participated in an agreement to violate federal laws. Mueller does not exonerate Trump, or anyone else.  

Maybe because that is not his job. His job is to investigate and provide evidence, then recommend prosecution based on the  GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY standard. There's not three options, there's no finding someone INNOCENT. Good god your Trump Derangement Syndrome has scrambled your marbles badly. 

Department of Justice Special Council Mueller finds Trump "not innocent". Wow! Does that mean there's evidence to prove guilt? No? Gee, there's a word for that...

[Biff Tannen 45473]

Yeah, I think it's guilty.

[Gatorubet 30052]

Mueller found evidence that Trump committed a crime, but not enough to charge him.


There is reason to believe that Trump DID commit a crime, but not enough to charge him.

This is simply not accurate. The policy not to charge pretermits that conclusion. He would not charge if he thought he could.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gatorubet 30052]

Maybe because that is not his job. His job is to investigate and provide evidence, then recommend prosecution based on the  GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY

Probable cause says “Hi”.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13537]

51 minutes ago, Zavala said:

His job is to investigate and provide evidence, then recommend prosecution based on the  GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY standard. 

No it's not and the post-Starr DOJ policy has been discussed here extensively.

[Zavala 1384]

55 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Yeah, I think it's guilty.

You gonna get all revved up for Mueller to testify?

[suddenly shaggy 929]

4 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

This is simply not accurate. The policy not to charge pretermits that conclusion. He would not charge if he thought he could.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fair enough. That was my reading of him repeatedly saying that there wasn't enough evidence to show willful intent, but I'm not a lawyer and you are, so I'll concede that point. Since Mueller could not charge Trump for any crime per OLC policy and Mueller is required to gloss over and overlook any evidence gathered unless he charges the person being investigated, the whole exercise seems rather pointless. It also puts to lie any statements that not even the President is above the law. He clearly is, because that policy does not apply to any other citizen of the United States. 

Still, Trump has acted guilty as fuck the entire time and I think Mueller would have found a lot more evidence against him if he hadn't been obstructed at every turn. Not that it would have mattered anyway apparently. 

Edited June 28, 2019 by suddenly shaggy

[Gatorubet 30052]

39 minutes ago, suddenly shaggy said:

Fair enough. That was my reading of him repeatedly saying that there wasn't enough evidence to show willful intent, but I'm not a lawyer and you are, so I'll concede that point. Since Mueller could not charge Trump for any crime per OLC policy and Mueller is required to gloss over and overlook any evidence gathered unless he charges the person being investigated, the whole exercise seems rather pointless. It also puts to lie any statements that not even the President is above the law. He clearly is, because that policy does not apply to any other citizen of the United States. 

Still, Trump has acted guilty as fuck the entire time and I think Mueller would have found a lot more evidence against him if he hadn't been obstructed at every turn. Not that it would have mattered anyway apparently. 

Here is the thing:  the DOJ policy is not a law.  It is just a departmental choice.   It would have been legal for Mueller to charge him and disregard the policy.  No law says that he could not have done it.     But Mueller, unlike the putrid Orange Traitor, respects institutions.  That is why he tossed it to Congress.  I'd love to see the House pass a law saying to disregard the DOJ interpretation and charge as you see indictable crime.    Then let the Turtle and Senate GOP eat that shit sandwich in the 2020 election.  

And assuming the statute of limitations has not run, any POTUS can be charged the day he or she leaves office. So not so much above the law, as law delayed.

 

[triplehorn 2664]

23 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

i think he's gonna answer everything he already answered in the report.

i also think he's gonna avoid hypotheticals.  "if the olc policy didn't exist..." type of stuff.  i don't think he's going to express opinions that he previously hasn't expressed.

i'm curious about his phone call to barr and what they discussed, and why he felt the need to reach out.  not sure if he'll go into that.

none of this is gonna matter at all anyway.  but it'll be decent theater.

Just me, but I think Mueller interactions/correspondence with Bill Barr should be front and center.  Recall the WaPo got that letter describing the Mueller team's outrage at Barr's deceitful fuckery before actual release of the report.  The details around what happened with Mueller are probably the MAIN reason Barr bailed on his subpoena to testify.  That said, I'd hate to see Mueller testify about Barr interactions before Congress has Barr on record. 

We already know the power of TV and live testimony, so Mueller reiterating aspects of the report and its intent would still serve an important public purpose.  But haul Mueller back in after Barr eventually* is forced to testify.

[suddenly shaggy 929]

2 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Here is the thing:  the DOJ policy is not a law.  It is just a departmental choice.   It would have been legal for Mueller to charge him and disregard the policy.  No law says that he could not have done it.     But Mueller, unlike the putrid Orange Traitor, respects institutions.  That is why he tossed it to Congress.  I'd love to see the House pass a law saying to disregard the DOJ interpretation and charge as you see indictable crime.    Then let the Turtle and Senate GOP eat that shit sandwich in the 2020 election.  

And assuming the statute of limitations has not run, any POTUS can be charged the day he or she leaves office. So not so much above the law, as law delayed.

 

I get that, I remember the discussion. I took the position that he could and should disregard the policy. Starr and Jaworski both believed they had the authority to indict. This OLC opinion came down after Starr, but it shouldn't change anything for egregious cases like this. I think Mueller thought Barr was a straight shooter based on their past interactions. Mueller also thought Congress would do their job and didn't account for Mitch McConnell. 

The OLC policy is reckless and dangerous. It's the dictator's dilemma. If you can't charge a criminal President until after he leaves office, you've given him a MASSIVE incentive to commit wholesale voter fraud, or try to delay/prevent an election. Trump will not step down willingly whether he loses 2020 or not. If he wins, he will try to extend his term, just like he has repeatedly "joked" about doing. 

[David Dennison 18577]

4 minutes ago, suddenly shaggy said:

I get that, I remember the discussion. I took the position that he could and should disregard the policy. Starr and Jaworski both believed they had the authority to indict. This OLC opinion came down after Starr, but it shouldn't change anything for egregious cases like this. I think Mueller thought Barr was a straight shooter based on their past interactions. Mueller also thought Congress would do their job and didn't account for Mitch McConnell. 

The OLC policy is reckless and dangerous. It's the dictator's dilemma. If you can't charge a criminal President until after he leaves office, you've given him a MASSIVE incentive to commit wholesale voter fraud, or try to delay/prevent an election. Trump will not step down willingly whether he loses 2020 or not. If he wins, he will try to extend his term, just like he has repeatedly "joked" about doing. 

Please, please, please let him try to do this.

Please.