Jump to content

The Robert Mueller Investigation


Hugo Stiglitz

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

I would envision that independent watchers don't think so. For those that are holding on to a collusion conspiracy i would guess that they thought he was going to lie regardless of his testimony. 

it's already been established that russia meddled and trump's people knew about it.  i think we can stop calling it a "conspiracy" like we're all flat-earthers or believe the moon landing was fake.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lindsey knows. They all know; just providing tribal cover.

Quote

McCarthy: There’s…there’s two people, I think, Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump…[laughter]…swear to God.

Ryan: This is an off the record…[laughter]…NO LEAKS…[laughter]…alright?! [Laughter]

Ryan: This is how we know we’re a real family here.

Scalise: That’s how you know that we’re tight. [Laughter]

Ryan: What’s said in the family stays in the family

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TornACL said:

One side is held hostage by swindlers and crooks.

The other side is too inept and meek to nail the crooks.

Everyone cheers wildly for one side or the other, while the country slowly dies.

This is a weak excuse but the swindlers and crooks do own the police and the military.  Nailing the crooks is really hard under those circumstances.  Again, that’s no excuse for not trying but it is an underrated dynamic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Durbin bringing the heat and looking to clearly paint Barr into a corner regarding his earlier lies to Congress.  Just need to get Mueller to testify as soon as possible to finish this POS off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Cornyn doing his best "both sides" talking points to Barr.

Did he talk about unconstitutional surveillance activities?  Or insertion of Russian disinformation into the surveillance apparatus?  Or Both?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Did he talk about unconstitutional surveillance activities?  Or insertion of Russian disinformation into the surveillance apparatus?  Or Both?

He tossed up a softball question whether the Steele Dossier itself was an example of Russian disinformation, so at least indirectly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

This is a classic example of a shit post.  

If you're going to post at least post something of value.

Sorry it's not as valuable as one of you or your socks "trumpf is stoopid" posts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Zavala said:

Sorry it's not as valuable as one of you or your socks "trumpf is stoopid" posts. 

Lulz at the suggestion I have socks.  Accusation = confession?

How about a bet that I agree never to post here again if you can establish I have used more than one account on this (or Shaggy) site, and that you do the same if you can't?

Bob knows me personally, and I invite immamac to inspect my posting history and IP info.

Edited by DDD Dad
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

ok, so here's a general legal question regarding intent and an underlying crime, or whatever the fuck.

so graham (and the r's) will hammer home "no crime" therefore "no obstruction" by legal definition (even though barr said a crime isn't necessary, but typically that's how it works).

isn't all the shit russia did illegal?  didn't 30+ people investigated by the report get indicted?  are we to believe that unless trump himself is implicated or indicted that he can't obstruct justice?  in a criminal motherfucking conspiracy, it seems like when people are getting picked off for crimes they committed, it would benefit everyone (but especially the person at the top of the food chain) to start obstructing as quickly as possible to protect everyone (especially the person at the top of the food chain).

it's not as if there was no crime anywhere in sight.  once they determine that crimes were committed around the person who would be most effective obstructing justice, then you'd think that would be enough.  smoke, fire, etc.

wasn't sure if the law worked like that, although barr left it open anyway, saying there doesn't necessarily need to be a crime committed to obstruct.

The "no crime" equals "no obstruction" "legal definition" is completely made up by the same people who argue circumstantial evidence is inadmissible.  It doesn't typically work that way.  At all.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bruh Man said:

This is like an ad for why we need term limits. Like who is feeding these senators apple sauce after the hearing.

 

What's funny/sad most of them are just puppets at this point anyway. They just regurgitate what the 25-35 year old's on their staff give them for talking points. The rest is just their normal BS filler they have been spiting out for as long as they have been in office.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Today in America 

The bar is soooo low. 

it's a joke. 

seth meyers, in his most recent closer look said something like, "if you hired a private investigator to see if your wife was cheating on you, and he came back with a 450 page report, you wouldn't even read it, you'd just drive to your lawyer's office."

trump isn't a "russian agent" but the fact that it needed to be entered into the record by a fucking republican just shows where this administration has taken us all.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

well they're politicians soooooooooo. (by default that makes them liars)

I believe a statement like this is what Active Measures is all about.

It's all bad, there's nothing you can do about it, there's nothing to see here.

There's garden variety dishonest, and then there's root principle destroying dishonesty. Using the former to shrug off the latter makes one complicit in the destruction of his own country. 

Don't do that, please.

Edited by RomaVicta
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

trump isn't a "russian agent" but the fact that it needed to be entered into the record by a fucking republican just shows where this administration has taken us all.

AG was asked to respond to characterizations made by a bunch of Democrats regarding the President being a Russian Agent. #bothsides got us here.

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

4 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I believe a statement like this is what Active Measures is all about.

It's all bad, there's nothing you can do about it, there's nothing to see here.

There's garden variety dishonest, and then there's root principle destroying dishonesty. Using the former to shrug off the latter makes on complicit in the destruction of his own country. 

Don't do that, please.

what other choice do they have at this point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Anastasis said:

AG was asked to respond to characterizations made by a bunch of Democrats regarding the President being a Russian Agent. #bothsides got us here.

no shit, just like lindsey graham rereading all the hillary "she should win 100,000,000 to zero" quote.  i'm saying it's fucking sad where this administration has taken us.

i don't remember that accusation happening from either side about any president before.  it wasn't completely outlandish, is the point.

i guess we really don't know until we see his financials, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Agreeably (yes I'm looking into this and think we should look into this, or words to that effect)

Well, that's good from my perspective. Russian disinformation being used to bolster a FISA warrant against a US citizen would be kind of problematic. 

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...