Jump to content

The Robert Mueller Investigation

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

David Dennison

David Dennison 18656

Posted
Posted
On 8/29/2019 at 6:26 PM, bad_teammate said:

James Comey's mishandling of the e-mails situation is why Trump is the president. Without Comey's profound incompetence/negligence/hubris, there is no President Trump to whistleblow on or investigate.

He is the fucking WORST. At least Trump is nakedly avaricious. Comey is a pious piece of shit.

How does anyone not understand this?

Also, he's a fucking cop.

Everyone understands this.

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 45557

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The thing about the Comey foofaraw is that he chose to write down things in memos.  Those memos then became FBI/DOJ property and were then subject to the non-disclosure rules he violated.

Thing is, though, the memos are entirely self-serving.  They aren't corroborated, or witnessed; other than being contemporaneous, they hold no evidentiary value beyond what Comey could just say in public.

I think there is value in the fact that they were put down contemporaneously.  I'm not saying there is a legal distinction between those memos and simple verbal claims or testimony, but they do two things:  (a) establish the facts as he knew them at the time (b) create a more believable narrative years down the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GW Hayduke

GW Hayduke 1952

Posted
Posted
Quote

And there it is: the inspector general of the United States Department of Justice taking the position that a witness to gross misconduct by the president of the United States has a duty to keep his mouth shut about what he saw. Remember, after all, that Comey was a witness here as well as the former FBI director. That’s an extraordinary position for a law enforcement organization to take. If that is what FBI policy and an employment agreement required of Comey under the extraordinary circumstances he faced, so be it. I’m glad both were given their due weight.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-comey-email-report-really-says

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RayDog

RayDog 682

Posted
Posted

I see Comey as an accidental hero in the end along with the Bernie Bros who voted for Trump. Yes, we have 4 disastrous years of Trump but 8 years if Hillary with Replublicans controlling both houses would not have led to major changes.

Now there is a chance for Democrats to control the presidency and both houses for 8 to 20 years and things like the green new deal have a chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45557

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

The report says that Comey is a liar and a leaker.  Blogger guy defends him on the grounds we already knew that for a while. 

It's not surprising that the point of that essay went completely over your head.  Did you get into Notre Dame on some sort of "let's give the morons access to rapey priests" plan or what?  The next good post you make around here will be your first.  Go somewhere else.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted

Recall judge beryl Howell punted to the pool the Don McGahn suit to compel his testimony to the House.  It's scheduled now with Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.

If the ruling is that the former Trump WH Counsel McGahn is compelled to testify, the rest should fall like dominoes for expected impeachment hearings.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23395

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

If anyone has earned the right to sell a fucking book, it’s that guy. 

Personally, I think that the better grift in all of this is to launch a swimsuit line. Really rises above the fray. 

 

 

 

Edited by Anastasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SquishMitten

SquishMitten 10400

Posted
Posted
The thing about the Comey foofaraw is that he chose to write down things in memos.  Those memos then became FBI/DOJ property and were then subject to the non-disclosure rules he violated.
Thing is, though, the memos are entirely self-serving.  They aren't corroborated, or witnessed; other than being contemporaneous, they hold no evidentiary value beyond what Comey could just say in public.
I suppose in the current environment, because they were "leaked," they received more attention than Comey just going on Nightline and recounting what Trump said, and maybe were given more credibility.


Uncorroborated and self-serving, yes. But they could still have some marginal evidentiary value though, right? Past recollection recorded exception? Not my area of expertise so I could be completely wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted

The Roger Stone Wikileaks trial set to begin this November got more interesting:  Stone pre-trial documents released yesterday

Marcy Wheeler:

Donald Trump Was “Colluding” With Roger Stone On Four Different Direct Lines

Spoiler

Screen-Shot-2019-09-06-at-7.03.08-PM-705

Trump told Robert Mueller, under oath, that he didn’t remember being in the loop on Roger Stone’s efforts, clear lies.

Response to Question II, Part (e)

I was in Trump Tower in New York City on October 7, 2016.

I have no recollection of being told that WikiLeaks possessed or might possess emails related to John Podesta before the release of Mr. Podesta’s emails was reported by the media. Likewise, I have no recollection of being told that Roger Stone, anyone acting as an intermediary for Roger Stone, or anyone associated with my campaign had communicated with WikiLeaks on October 7, 2016.

Response to Question II, Part (f)

I do not recall being told during the campaign that Roger Stone or anyone associated with my campaign had discussions with any of the entities named in the question regarding the content or timing of release of hacked emails.

Response to Question ll, Part (g)

I spoke by telephone with Roger Stone from time to time during the campaign. I have no recollection of the specifics of any conversations I had with Mr. Stone between June 1.2016 and November 8, 2016. I do not recall discussing WikiLeaks with him, nor do I recall being aware of Mr. Stone having discussed WikiLeaks with individuals associated with my campaign, although I was aware that WikiLeaks was the subject of media reporting and campaign-related discussion at the time.

Now we know that Trump spoke to Stone a lot. So much so it’s going to make clear all these claims are lies.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
horncyclist

horncyclist 1386

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, triplehorn said:

The Roger Stone Wikileaks trial set to begin this November got more interesting:  Stone pre-trial documents released yesterday

Marcy Wheeler:

Donald Trump Was “Colluding” With Roger Stone On Four Different Direct Lines

  Reveal hidden contents

Screen-Shot-2019-09-06-at-7.03.08-PM-705

Trump told Robert Mueller, under oath, that he didn’t remember being in the loop on Roger Stone’s efforts, clear lies.

Response to Question II, Part (e)

I was in Trump Tower in New York City on October 7, 2016.

I have no recollection of being told that WikiLeaks possessed or might possess emails related to John Podesta before the release of Mr. Podesta’s emails was reported by the media. Likewise, I have no recollection of being told that Roger Stone, anyone acting as an intermediary for Roger Stone, or anyone associated with my campaign had communicated with WikiLeaks on October 7, 2016.

Response to Question II, Part (f)

I do not recall being told during the campaign that Roger Stone or anyone associated with my campaign had discussions with any of the entities named in the question regarding the content or timing of release of hacked emails.

Response to Question ll, Part (g)

I spoke by telephone with Roger Stone from time to time during the campaign. I have no recollection of the specifics of any conversations I had with Mr. Stone between June 1.2016 and November 8, 2016. I do not recall discussing WikiLeaks with him, nor do I recall being aware of Mr. Stone having discussed WikiLeaks with individuals associated with my campaign, although I was aware that WikiLeaks was the subject of media reporting and campaign-related discussion at the time.

Now we know that Trump spoke to Stone a lot. So much so it’s going to make clear all these claims are lies.

Note the careful "no recollection" "do not recall." Most corrupt Pres ever

Edited by horncyclist
Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Gengs1 said:

Ds are giant pussies, how they don’t hold anyone in contempt or anything is beyond me. Just appeasing ppl and not doing anything 

Learned this yesterday - criminal contempt of Congress gets prosecuted through the DOJ, i.e. lying Bill Barr.  So that won't work. 

Another option is to fine those in contempt.  Cue the anonymous donors to the GoFundMe machine to reward obstruction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28711

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Learned this yesterday - criminal contempt of Congress gets prosecuted through the DOJ, i.e. lying Bill Barr.  So that won't work. 

Another option is to fine those in contempt.  Cue the anonymous donors to the GoFundMe machine to reward obstruction.

They still should hold him in contempt and force Barr to obstruct so it's written down in the historical record. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted

^^^ Totally agree.  And the performance by that sleaze Lewandowski for the world to see provides important evidence for the public to understand the rationale, i.e. it's not being heavy handed, overreaching, etc. to jail these lying contemptuous fuckers.  It's frustrating as hell, but I think there's a necessary progression that has to be established for the larger public to grasp.  It helps with the courts as well, when you go to the mat, to demonstrate less intrusive means were completely ineffective.

The total dissolution of the rule of law by Trump and all GOP associated with has been laid bare for too long.  What really offsets the rationale for the slower rate of progression is how dangerous this is.  It's well past breaking the glass.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31273

Posted
Posted
On 9/5/2019 at 9:31 AM, SquishMitten said:

 


Uncorroborated and self-serving, yes. But they could still have some marginal evidentiary value though, right? Past recollection recorded exception? Not my area of expertise so I could be completely wrong.

 

You're right.  But because the events aren't remote in time and Comey hasn't likely forgotten anything, their contemporaneity seems to impart minimal value.  Occasionally, a sneaky lawyer will refresh recollection with a contemporaneous record and admit the document into evidence, which is improper.  Only the adverse party is entitled to introduce the document itself into evidence, the witness is just supposed to read from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted

Good read from Marcy Wheeler that whets the appetite for Roger Stone's Nov. 5th trial start date:

HOW ROGER STONE’S TRIAL RELATES TO THE UKRAINE SCANDAL

[...]

The President [to Zalensky]: "I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike … I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has.it. There are a lot. of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you are surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I . would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible."

And this Crowdstrike request is what ties the call obviously to the timing — the day after the Mueller testimony gave Trump the belief he had weathered the Russian investigation.

Only, Trump is not clear of the impact of the Mueller investigation. On the contrary, if all goes on schedule, prosecutors will present abundant evidence of what even Mark Meadows calls “collusion,” the campaign’s effort to optimize the WikiLeaks releases, in Roger Stone’s November trial. As I have noted, in addition to Steve Bannon and Erik Prince, the trial will talk about Stone’s texts and calls to four different Donald Trump phone numbers, as well as his aides and bodyguard, Keith Schiller. (This screen cap comes from a list of stipulated phone numbers and emails that has since been sealed.)

The Stone trial (if it goes forward–I still have my doubts) will show that Trump was personally involved in these efforts and got repeated updates directly from Stone.

And a key strand of Stone’s defense is to question the Crowdstrike findings on the hack. Stone has been pursuing this effort for months — it’s what almost got him jailed under his gag. And while Amy Berman Jackson ruled twice this week against Stone getting any further Crowdstrike reports (once in an opinion denying Stone’s efforts to get unredacted Crowdstrike reports as moot since the government doesn’t have them, and once today in his pre-trial hearing when she deemed the remaining unredacted passages to pertain to ongoing Democratic cybersecurity protections and so unrelated to what Stone wants them for), Stone still has several redacted Crowdstrike reports from discovery.

Stone’s defense has focused entirely on discrediting the evidence that Trump partnered with a hostile country to get elected (which presumably is part of his effort to get a pardon). If he can support that effort by releasing currently private Crowdstrike reports he will do so.

[...]

the whole read is good

---> The news is breaking fast, but we're already seeing evidence that a main thrust of Rudy and Trump's efforts in Ukraine has to do with undermining Mueller's cases against convicted felon Manafort, and indicted Roger Stone.  Biden stuff is a whole other file.  One major reason for the House to go full bore at Trump impeachment right now would be to neutralize an attempt by Trump to pardon Manafort and make a pre-emptive pardon of Stone before he goes to trial to wall himself off.  The evidence implicating Trump tied to his involvement with Stone over the Wikileaks drops is ready to be presented to the world in 6 weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted

Said it here before, Bob Mueller is Jaqen H'ghar.

'Live and ongoing’ U.S. criminal probe into international money laundering that grew out of Robert Mueller’s work.

 

^^^ That's Moscow Mitch's buddy, Deripaska, who recently picked Kentucky as a location to construct an aluminum plant.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted

Probably a good idea to keep in mind that, when obstructing Congress is a brazen goal, an occurrence of this nature may not be an isolated event.  

 

Judge rules DOJ improperly redacted court filing related to Mueller probe

“The Department of Justice improperly redacted a court filing related to the Mueller investigation and must reveal the names of two individuals who figured prominently in the probe, a federal judge in Washington ruled on Thursday.

Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said in her opinion that the department erroneously redacted a portion of a document after invoking grand jury secrecy protections, even though the two names that were concealed belonged to individuals who did not testify before a grand jury during the Mueller probe.

"DOJ's assertion that identifying individuals who did not testify before the grand jury as part of the Mueller investigation would reveal 'a matter occurring before the grand jury' is without merit and rejected," Howell wrote. [...]

Thursday's ruling stems from the House Judiciary Committee's effort to obtain grand jury materials and other information that was not included or redacted from the Mueller report.“

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13049

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Probably a good idea to keep in mind that, when obstructing Congress is a brazen goal, an occurrence of this nature may not be an isolated event.  

 

Judge rules DOJ improperly redacted court filing related to Mueller probe

“The Department of Justice improperly redacted a court filing related to the Mueller investigation and must reveal the names of two individuals who figured prominently in the probe, a federal judge in Washington ruled on Thursday.

Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said in her opinion that the department erroneously redacted a portion of a document after invoking grand jury secrecy protections, even though the two names that were concealed belonged to individuals who did not testify before a grand jury during the Mueller probe.

"DOJ's assertion that identifying individuals who did not testify before the grand jury as part of the Mueller investigation would reveal 'a matter occurring before the grand jury' is without merit and rejected," Howell wrote. [...]

Thursday's ruling stems from the House Judiciary Committee's effort to obtain grand jury materials and other information that was not included or redacted from the Mueller report.“

Barr learned how to obstruct and lawyer up real good. After all, 'he wasn't using it...'

 

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...