The Robert Mueller Investigation

[hayden_horn 11409]

8 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

So now we're just trolling, @Zavala?  Not even attempting to conceal.

he's just a drum beater. i'm not sure why anyone pays him any attention, honestly.

[hayden_horn 11409]

1 minute ago, Jiggy-Z said:

So this would have been in the redacted portion and I guess Mueller felt that this was either more in line with his obstruction punt to congress or he felt that this bit of evidence did not rise to the level of criminal conspiracy.

if it isn't in the redacted portion, we might have to accept that mueller did a piss poor job. whether it was in an attempt to look neutral, or a more clear example of gross incompetence, i fear we may have to accept that the mueller report, damning as it was, was shit work.

[TwiceHorn 32172]

Well, first off, it appears Trump denied remembering any such conversations, not that they ever took place.  While everyone may know that that is bullshit of the purest ray serene, it does not make a tasty criminal case, particularly against one who can't be indicted.

Because Mueller couldn't indict the President, he had to be rather careful about what he wasted verbiage on.  This would not be high on most prosecutor's lists because it rests entirely on a question of credibility that isn't well-tested outside a criminal trial, and even then.

[triplehorn 2664]

29 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

if it isn't in the redacted portion, we might have to accept that mueller did a piss poor job. whether it was in an attempt to look neutral, or a more clear example of gross incompetence, i fear we may have to accept that the mueller report, damning as it was, was shit work.

Either way, impeachment is happening, and the Mueller report wrt Trump obstruction of justice is one on the tracks of Trump's impeachment.  I expect the House will be able to incorporate this evidence into the formal impeachment trial.  It's not really registering on a national scale at this moment, but it stands to garner more attention when the House progresses to it.  At a minimum, the threat should put a real damper on any notion of a Stone pardon should he go to prison.

[triplehorn 2664]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, first off, it appears Trump denied remembering any such conversations, not that they ever took place.  While everyone may know that that is bullshit of the purest ray serene, it does not make a tasty criminal case, particularly against one who can't be indicted.

Gates just testified in the Stone trial he was sitting in the car with Trump when Trump took a call from Stone that Trump revealed to Gates involved a discussion about Wiki hack and drops to benefit his campaign.  So there's that.  

[TwiceHorn 32172]

Bottom line is, perjury can be hard to prove.  Remember how much time and money Starr spent trying to prove that Clinton perjured himself.  And Clinton made some mistakes in his testimony that made it a little easier and it was still a pain in the ass.

We can be sure that Mueller was well informed by prior special counsel's work and which tar babies to try to avoid punching.

This seems a bit like a tar baby, but fair game for a generalized obstruction of justice and the function of government article of impeachment.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Yeah, but perjury is the on brand crime to nail Trump with. 

The obstruction case is the most solid.

[triplehorn 2664]

by the way, 

 

Wire fraud and money laundering are a just a couple pre-requisites for working in association with Trump.

 

[Anastasis 23740]

The "friendly"' leaks from reviewers of the IG report starting to emerge. Criminal investigation spun up over documents altered by FBI agents related to FISA applications. I expect the high integrity posting brigade to chime in shortly. 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/20/politics/graham-fisa-inspector-general-report-december-9/index.html

Washington (CNN)Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz's report into the FBI's handling of the Russia investigation will be released December 9, Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham said Wednesday night.

"It will be December 9th, you'll get the report," the South Carolina Republican told Fox News. "That's locked."

What the report says is unknown. But some witnesses who have been interviewed by the inspector general say they expect that it will likely reveal some missteps, though none that should be interpreted as undermining a legitimate investigation.

...

The warrants -- signed by top Justice Department officials, including former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein -- stated that the FBI believed Page "has been collaborating and conspiring with the Russian government," according to redacted copies the bureau released last year.

To bolster their request to the surveillance court, the FBI relied at times on claims about the 2016 Trump campaign collected in a dossier of unverified intelligence reports by former British spy Christopher Steele.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/21/politics/fbi-fisa-russia-investigation/index.html

Washington (CNN)An FBI official is under criminal investigation after allegedly altering a document related to 2016 surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser, several people briefed on the matter told CNN.

...

The finding is expected to be part of Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz's review of the FBI's effort to obtain warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act on Carter Page, a former Trump campaign aide. Horowitz will release the report next month.

Horowitz turned over evidence on the allegedly altered document to John Durham, the federal prosecutor appointed early this year by Attorney General William Barr to conduct a broad investigation of intelligence gathered for the Russia probe by the CIA and other agencies, including the FBI. The altered document is also at least one focus of Durham's criminal probe.

 

 

 

[TexEx15 17972]

First and foremost if an agent did alter a document he or she should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Period.  See how you do that trumpkins.

Second, it does not diminish what was revealed during the investigation, which if you remember clearly did not exonerate trump.

Lastly, I find the timing interesting considering how trump has had his ass handed to him during the impeachment proceedings.

Ultimately we will see if anything comes of it but other than a black eye for the FBI it does not change the facts of what we have learned since the investigation.

[Anastasis 23740]

17 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

First and foremost if an agent did alter a document he or she should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Period.  See how you do that trumpkins.

Second, it does not diminish what was revealed during the investigation, which if you remember clearly did not exonerate trump.

Lastly, I find the timing interesting considering how trump has had his ass handed to him during the impeachment proceedings.

Ultimately we will see if anything comes of it but other than a black eye for the FBI it does not change the facts of what we have learned since the investigation.

This is reasonable spin. You are not one of the high integrity posters I am looking for to chime in on this one.  

Edited November 22, 2019 by Anastasis

[jimmyjazz 47456]

Why would you expect anyone to minimize the alleged forgery?  It's bad.  It's real bad.  I have no idea how it affected subsequent investigations, but I'm looking forward to finding out.

I'll tell you this, though -- it's not the nuclear wipeout of the left's position that Sean Hannity would like you to believe.  That's not possible.

[Anastasis 23740]

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Why would you expect anyone to minimize the alleged forgery?  It's bad.  It's real bad. 

 

On 4/25/2019 at 10:30 AM, jimmyjazz said:

Well, that's not true.  I care if there are inefficiencies or political motivations informing IC investigations.  In this case, I have no reason to believe that corners were cut or bad decisions were made above and beyond what might be expected in any multi-pronged investigation performed by real live human beings.  I think you see abuse because you're looking for abuse.  Your counterargument is of course that I don't see it because I'm not looking for it.

 

Your articulation of the counterargument was right. 

Edited November 22, 2019 by Anastasis

[Anastasis 23740]

On 4/25/2019 at 3:30 PM, JimmyJames said:

Someone in here, not gonna say who, really doesn’t understand how warrants work and is apparently operating on some sort of assumption that they are hard to get. 

This one is also fun. Even easier to get when you alter the underlying evidence. 

[deech 2418]

Anyone altering a federal document that is a predicate to a warrant of any kind (but in particular a FISA warrant) should absolutely 100% be in a cell for a long, long time.  I don't care if its Rosentstein, Comey, or Mueller himself.  

 

Not that their will ever be any rational sincere admissions about the last two weeks of testimony from the other side of the aisle.

Edited November 22, 2019 by deech

[Anastasis 23740]

7 minutes ago, deech said:

Anyone altering a federal document that is a predicate to a warrant of any kind (but in particular a FISA warrant) should absolutely 100% be in a cell for a long, long time.  I don't care if its Rosentstein, Comey, or Mueller himself.  

None of the individuals you mentioned are likely involved.

The IG report is according to some descriptions 500+ pages. 

Lots of words to describe how the intersection of the surveillance apparatus, political opposition research, and the the political structure was all by the book. 

[jimmyjazz 47456]

21 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Your articulation of the counterargument was right. 

So it's your position that I would have seen forgery of a specific document by a specific FBI agent if I  had just looked harder?  THAT'S your argument?

You knew it was happening just because?

Come the fuck on.

[Anastasis 23740]

The FBI has a systematic pattern of abusing the FISA process. This is not trumpkin nonsense.  There are multiple rulings and examples.  It does not take rocket science to observe a pattern. It was pointed out to you a few months ago. 

On 7/10/2019 at 12:32 PM, Anastasis said:

I think that there are numerous examples of the protections that are in place being inadequately implemented by the intelligence agencies including the NSA and the FBI. These issues are ongoing and widespread. See the recent NSA OIG report for just one example, or the numerous reports that they can't figure out effective and consistent implementation of the controls. For years. Numerous examples, with common thread going back to Bush at least.

I think that there are examples of these agencies displaying an "institutional lack of candor". (See the wide spread NSA abuse that Rogers revealed in 2017 (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/us/politics/nsa-surveillance-trump.html  and FISC ruling:https://www.scribd.com/document/349261099/2016-Cert-FISC-Memo-Opin-Order-Apr-2017-4#download). The institutions, nor their leaders (See Clapper testimony) can be trusted to vigorously protect the 4th Amendment rights of Americans. Our elected officials cannot even provide the necessary oversight when they bother (see Clapper, See CIA spying on the Senate staffers on intelligence committee).

And you want to talk about whether the rules are flawed or not? LOL. The entire system, from it's basic infrastructure, to the processes that regulate it, to the agencies use of it, to our elected officials ability to provide adequate oversight of it, is flawed. But sure, if the rules that are intended to protect American's rights are not working, either because they are inadequate or because they are not systematically adhered to, they are indeed flawed and insufficient.

[/batshit civil liberties rant]

I think that at a minimum what will come out of the OIG report in terms of recommendations is a CAPA plan addressing a) shortcomings in the current policies and procedures, and/or b) violations of the current policies and procedures. Auditors gonna audit. I think that both a) and b) likely occurred.  We'll see what the report says and what the recommendations are.

 

[bolverk 30409]

"The Trump campaign was too inept to conspire with a foreign entity to try and influence our elections."

[Anastasis 23740]

A shame we can't flush out at least one poster with some integrity. 

[bolverk 30409]

[Anastasis 23740]

Didn't really expect you to self assign to the low integrity classification, but do as you must. 

[bolverk 30409]

I'm just teasing you over your lack of self-awareness.

[Anastasis 23740]

Just now, bolverk said:

I'm just teasing you over your lack of self-awareness.

[Anastasis 23740]

Also, can we get a formal ruling on pronunciation of substantive. I've always used SUB-stan-tive. But Perez seems to prefer sub-STAN-tive.  This annoys me for some reason. 

[jimmyjazz 47456]

26 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

A shame we can't flush out at least one poster with some integrity. 

Fuck you.  You're out of line.

[bolverk 30409]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Maybe you confuse me with someone else. I didn't take much of a stance in the debates about whether any lines were crossed in obtaining warrants, knowing that there was always a possibility.

Otah, you've been steadfast on one thing: "The Trump campaign was too inept to conspire with a foreign entity to try and influence our elections."

It seems you might have something to say about that position, given what we now know with this second attempt and Stone's recent conviction.

[Anastasis 23740]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Fuck you.  You're out of line.

[bolverk 30409]

5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Also, can we get a formal ruling on pronunciation of substantive. I've always used SUB-stan-tive. But Perez seems to prefer sub-STAN-tive.  This annoys me for some reason. 

TomaAYto, tomAHto. CaribbEEan, CarIHbbean. HiroshEEma, HORIshima.

[Anastasis 23740]

6 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Maybe you confuse me with someone else. I didn't take much of a stance in the debates about whether any lines were crossed in obtaining warrants, knowing that there was always a possibility.

Otah, you've been steadfast on one thing: "The Trump campaign was too inept to conspire with a foreign entity to try and influence our elections."

It seems you might have something to say about that position, given what we now know with this second attempt and Stone's recent conviction.

Yes. I think that the Trump campaign was too dysfunctional to engage in a well coordinated conspiracy with the Russian government, along the lines of what was charged in the Steele dossier. I have been quite consistent wrt that position, because it is reality based. 

[Biff Tannen 46308]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

What the report says is unknown. But some witnesses who have been interviewed by the inspector general say they expect that it will likely reveal some missteps, though none that should be interpreted as undermining a legitimate investigation.

Ok then.

[GRHorn 105]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

 

 

Your articulation of the counterargument was right. 

Ouch. 

 

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Why would you expect anyone to minimize the alleged forgery?  It's bad.  It's real bad.  I have no idea how it affected subsequent investigations, but I'm looking forward to finding out.

I'll tell you this, though -- it's not the nuclear wipeout of the left's position that Sean Hannity would like you to believe.  That's not possible.

You can be 1000% sure that if CNN is leaking this and actually discussing it on air that the report is substantially worse. They’re trying to get ahead of it/shape the narrative. 

[Anastasis 23740]

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

Ok then.

"friendly" shaping of narrative is "friendly"

[Anastasis 23740]

Just now, GRHorn said:

You can be 1000% sure that if CNN is leaking this and actually discussing it on air that the report is substantially worse. They’re trying to get ahead of it/shape the narrative. 

Crazy talk. This is not how any of this works. 

[Biff Tannen 46308]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

"friendly" shaping of narrative is "friendly"

Hey man, you posted it.

[jimmyjazz 47456]

1.  Anastasis is the last person who should be throwing around accusations regarding a lack of "integrity"

2.  Donald Trump is a traitor whose laundry list of crimes far exceeds any single FBI investigation

Edited November 22, 2019 by jimmyjazz

[Anastasis 23740]

nm

Edited November 22, 2019 by Anastasis

[jimmyjazz 47456]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

nm

LMAO.  Almost slipped up.

[Anastasis 23740]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

LMAO.  Almost slipped up.

Yes. I regretted cross posting your PM threat to me. I felt that was not appropriate. 

[GRHorn 105]

23 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Fuck you.  You're out of line.

 

[jimmyjazz 47456]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Yes. I regretted cross posting your PM threat to me. I felt that was not appropriate. 

It would have demonstrated a lack of integrity, wouldn't it?

[Anastasis 23740]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It would have demonstrated a lack of integrity, wouldn't it?

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

This one is also fun. Even easier to get when you alter the underlying evidence. 

So have you been waiting six months to post a response to this? 

So was a document altered or is someone under investigation for allegedly altering a document? Did the president of Ukraine announce the investigation into the allegedly altered document? Trying to catch up here. Thx. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

39 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Again with the troll gifs. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Troll gif number 2. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

18 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

 

Troll gif numero three. 

[Anastasis 23740]

2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

So have you been waiting six months to post a response to this? 

So was a document altered or is someone under investigation for allegedly altering a document? Did the president of Ukraine announce the investigation into the allegedly altered document? Trying to catch up here. Thx. 

I think that the CNN snip and Preet sufficiently summarized.  But keep playing stupid.  It appears to come naturally.             

[seven 1368]

Happy for Anastasis here. Have fun bud 

[JimmyJames 12271]

Just now, Anastasis said:

I think that the CNN snip and Preet sufficiently summarized.  But keep playing stupid.  It appears to come naturally.             

Sick burn. Why should I trust CNN when we’ve got you on this board? 

[Anastasis 23740]

1 minute ago, seven said:

Happy for Anastasis here. Have fun bud