Jump to content

The Robert Mueller Investigation

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

It's funny cause the formulation was similar. Taibbi did a piece in rolling stone regarding the similarities. 

Another derail because Anastasis is an anarchist that clearly has something to hide. 

Still, my friend, we can take Trump's criminal empire down without anyone bugging your phones. Whatever it is you're hiding, you've flown under the radar this far. No reason to think that won't continue.  Your schtick here is probably detrimental to your personal cause at this point though. Trump is an open criminal. Time for you to start understanding that. No quasi legal surveillance necessary. 

Also, the biggest surveillance threat right now is from massive private companies. The FBI doesn't know a damn thing about what you do. Google knows though. Even as you faithfully use tor and duckduckgo. 

Edit: but maybe surly is the evil empire. I quoted your McConaughey picture, yet the quote made Denison's words yours. Like I said, private enterprise surveillance is gonna be the death knell of our nation. The govt can't really keep up. 

Edited by FondrenRoad
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

David Dennison

David Dennison 18655

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Another derail because Anastasis is an anarchist that clearly has something to hide. 

Still, my friend, we can take Trump's criminal empire down without anyone bugging your phones. Whatever it is you're hiding, you've flown under the radar this far. No reason to think that won't continue.  Your schtick here is probably detrimental to your personal cause at this point though. Trump is an open criminal. Time for you to start understanding that. No quasi legal surveillance necessary. 

Also, the biggest surveillance threat right now is from massive private companies. The FBI doesn't know a damn thing about what you do. Google knows though. Even as you faithfully use tor and duckduckgo. 

Edit: but maybe surly is the evil empire. I quoted your McConaughey picture, yet the quote made Denison's words yours. Like I said, private enterprise surveillance is gonna be the death knell of our nation. The govt can't really keep up. 

Inverted totalitarianism FTW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27447

Posted
Posted (edited)

You can tell anastasia cares about this topic because he's not posting betting odds on the outcome. Funny how he only cares about things that protect trump or damage the case against him. 

It anyone altered evidence, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Period. 

Frankly, I'm just thankful that the impeachment proceedings are a completely different set of issues from the Russia/Mueller investigation. 

All that said, I'm curious to see what evidence Bill fucking Barr and Lindsay fucking graham are bringing to the table for this. For some reason I don't get the feeling they're working for the public interest and really are just trying to Fuji dust useful idiots (aka both side people) into lumping all the issues together as a way to delegitimize the ongoing impeachment by proxy. Especially with the timing of putting this into the news the same day that Hill and Holmes dismantled the GOP taking points. 

Edited by Captainant
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted (edited)

The cowardice of Trump voters is absolutely amazing. Every single one of our resident Trump supporters hides behind this "I'm not actually a Trumper, both sides, Gary Johnson!!" facade. There's not a single person on this board who actually just comes out and says "I love Trump!" even though we all know they do. 

News flash: if the side you've chosen is so bad that you feel like you have to hide behind a manufactured facade of Gary Johnson voter, then you're on the wrong side of things. If the internet command-centrals of people like you are Texags and Qanon Reddit forums, you're on the wrong side of things. If you have to pretend you're not a Trump supporter because you know that the segment of this country that holds an IQ above 80 will think you're an idiot and refuse to engage you if you speak your true feelings, you're on the wrong side of things.

You pussies should just come out and be who you really are. None of us are buying your act.

Edited by BradInATX
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, GRHorn said:

You shouldn’t trust CNN which is why their volunteering of this info is noteworthy. 

Wake me up when someone is actually charged with forging a document. Then at that point we’ll have something to discuss. And if someone did do that they should be criminally prosecuted just the same as your orange god man child should be for being a criminal both before and after he entered the Oval Office.  

And if they’re not charged y’all be yellin’ Deep State!!!

On the other hand I’ll laugh my ass off it it turns out the dude was a Republican and you’ll go back into hiding again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27447

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

FBI lawyer says that FBI lawyer falsifying documentation related to the factual basis for a FISA application has no material impact on the factual basis of said FISA application. 

Checkmate.  

That would be the DOJ IG saying the FISA application had a "proper factual and legal basis", not a lawyer for the FBI. Say, happen to have a betting line on the veracity of your claims since you always have one handy for the serious issues? Or is delegitimizing/smearing the russia investigation your main goal here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexEx15

TexEx15 17468

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

That would be the DOJ IG saying the FISA application had a "proper factual and legal basis", not a lawyer for the FBI.

I believe that is checkmate as Anastasis would say.  Or in trumpkin, the whole issue is a nothinburger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23394

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Captainant said:

That would be the DOJ IG saying the FISA application had a "proper factual and legal basis", not a lawyer for the FBI.

I think that we will have more fun when we get to read the report. 
 

7 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Say, happen to have a betting line on the veracity of your claims since you always have one handy for the serious issues?

You really want to take the other side of a line on the FBI not following policies and procedures related to FISA surveillance? Dead money doesn’t get any more dead. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27447

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I think that we will have more fun when we get to read the report. 
 

You really want to take the other side of a line on the FBI not following policies and procedures related to FISA surveillance? Dead money doesn’t get any more dead. 

Just for reference, here's the relevant portion of the WaPo reporting:
 

"The employee was forced out of the FBI after the incident was discovered, two U.S. officials said. Horowitz found that the employee erroneously indicated he had documentation to back up a claim he had made in discussions with the Justice Department about the factual basis for the application. He then altered an email to back up that erroneous claim, they said.

That conduct did not alter Horowitz’s finding that the surveillance application of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page had a proper legal and factual basis, the officials said.

Horowitz has been exploring various aspects of the Russia probe but was focused in particular on applications the FBI filed with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor Page’s electronic communications."

So, if your thesis is that a lie from a single low level staffer during a discussion with DOJ after the application had been filed, that by the IG's determination did not change the "proper factual and legal basis" for the application actually in fact retroactively invalidates said application, then you had one hell of a bender yesterday my dude. Either that, or you don't actually care about facts and only want to sling mud at investigations into trump.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23394

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Captainant said:

So, if your thesis is that a lie from a single low level staffer

My central thesis has been that policies and procedures which are intended to protect the constitutional rights of American citizens where not followed, and that the intersection of the surveillance state with politics is fraught Real trumpkin stuff. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27447

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

My central thesis has been that policies and procedures which are intended to protect the constitutional rights of American citizens where not followed, and that the intersection of the surveillance state with politics is fraught Real trumpkin stuff. 

The protections would not have been followed if the proper factual and legal basis was not established when placing the FISA warrant request. That is not what the IG has (supposedly) said in his report.

You are attempting to conflate a "low level lawyer" lying/misspeaking and attempting to CYA to DOJ after the warrant had been requested, executed, and produced actionable evidence with a subversion of FISA protections. Your position is predicated, as usual, on intentionally misrepresenting the facts in the hopes of getting the local mouthbreathers to back you up. Very fox news of you, always fair and balanced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goredho

Goredho 17346

Posted
Posted
Just now, Anastasis said:

You are a pathological liar if you claim that you are not entertained. 

LOL, I will say its a fitting climax to this thread.  Its like that moment in one of those lesbian wrestling porn vids where it becomes clear who is going to wind up being the top and who is going to wind up being the bottom.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23394

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

The protections would not have been followed if the proper factual and legal basis was not established when placing the FISA warrant request. That is not what the IG has (supposedly) said in his report.

You are attempting to conflate a "low level lawyer" lying/misspeaking and attempting to CYA to DOJ after the warrant had been requested, executed, and produced actionable evidence with a subversion of FISA protections. Your position is predicated, as usual, on intentionally misrepresenting the facts in the hopes of getting the local mouthbreathers to back you up. Very fox news of you, always fair and balanced.

Interesting what a firm grasp of the timeline you have. I am sure that you will share with the rest of us the “actionable evidence” produced by the Page surveillance prior to an FBI lawyer committing a felony in the process. Feel free to be as detailed as possible, won’t want anyone to accuse you of misrepresenting facts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27447

Posted
Posted
Just now, Anastasis said:

Interesting what a firm grasp of the timeline you have. I am sure that you will share with the rest of us the “actionable evidence” produced by the Page surveillance prior to an FBI lawyer committing a felony in the process. Feel free to be as detailed as possible, won’t want anyone to accuse you of misrepresenting facts. 

Well, you're correct in that I'm making assumptions, but I figured that the DOJ IG doesn't typically get involved in an FBI FISA warrant application. However, I'd rather see you support your claim first that the FISA application did not have proper factual and legal standing. Since that's the issue that determines if rights and protections were violated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Captainant said:

That would be the DOJ IG saying the FISA application had a "proper factual and legal basis", not a lawyer for the FBI. Say, happen to have a betting line on the veracity of your claims since you always have one handy for the serious issues? Or is delegitimizing/smearing the russia investigation your main goal here?

His main goal is to be fair to both sides by constantly pointing out alleged FISA warrant abuse for warrants that investigated a well known law abiding citizen named Donald trump. 

That and constantly arguing with all the pro  surveillance state posters here who have infested this site with their pro surveillance state opinions. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27447

Posted
Posted

Notable portions from the NYT article (thank you for linking):

Quote

At the same time, however, the report debunks a series of conspiracy theories and insinuations about the F.B.I. that Mr. Trump and his allies have put forward over the past two years, the people said, though they cautioned that the report is not complete. The New York Times has not reviewed the draft, which could contain other significant findings.

In particular, while Mr. Horowitz criticizes F.B.I. leadership for its handling of the highly fraught Russia investigation in some ways, he made no finding of politically biased actions by top officials Mr. Trump has vilified like the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey; Andrew G. McCabe, the former deputy who temporarily ran the bureau after the president fired Mr. Comey in 2017; and Peter Strzok, a former top counterintelligence agent.

The early accounts of the report suggest that it is likely to stoke the debate over the investigation without definitively resolving it, by offering both sides different conclusions they can point to as vindication for their rival worldviews.

...

The inspector general apparently did not assert in the draft report that any of the problems he found were so material that the court would have rejected the Justice Department’s requests to continue surveilling Mr. Page. But the people familiar with the draft were uncertain about whether Mr. Horowitz said the problems were immaterial, or instead avoided taking a position on that question.

...

And in other crucial respects, the draft inspector general report is said not to corroborate conspiracy theories and insinuations offered by Mr. Trump and his allies about the early stages of the Russia investigation, before Mr. Mueller was appointed as special counsel and took it over.

For example, the draft report also concludes that the F.B.I. had enough evidence to meet the legal standard for opening the investigation, though Mr. Horowitz emphasized that the bar is low, the people said.

The report is also said to conclude that Joseph Mifsud, a Russia-linked professor who told a Trump campaign official that Russia had damaging information on Mrs. Clinton in the form of hacked Democratic emails — a key fact used to open the investigation — was not an F.B.I. informant. That undercuts an assertion of conservative critics of the inquiry.

...

Republicans have criticized any use of political opposition research in applications for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act wiretaps, which are among the most intrusive tools investigators have and are highly regulated. But the people briefed on the draft said Mr. Horowitz does not criticize them for the basic fact that they used the information.

Still, people familiar with questions asked by Mr. Horowitz’s investigators have suggested that he is likely to conclude that the filings exaggerated Mr. Steele’s track record in terms of the amount of value that the F.B.I. derived from information he supplied in previous investigations. The court filings in the Page wiretap application said his material was “used in criminal proceedings,” but it was never part of an affidavit, search warrant or courtroom evidence.

So in a tragic twist of fate, it looks like anastasis and I are both correct. The legal standard IS low (but fully satisfied), and the wiretaps have borne useful and actionable information in criminal proceedings. Both sides, indeed.

Notably though, it directly refutes the substance of detractor's arguments but still gives fuel to rhetoric for people who get their info from propaganda networks like fox and oann. Putin smiles.

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...