Jump to content

The Robert Mueller Investigation


Hugo Stiglitz

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

The Justice Department’s internal watchdog, close to concluding its inquiry into steps the FBI took in its probe of Trump campaign associates and Russia beginning in 2016, is homing in on whether the agency continued surveillance of one associate despite questions about a key source’s credibility, according to people familiar with the matter.

Just more evidence that this president has continued to try to use the Justice Department as a political tool, as well as his own personal law firm. Secondly, what exactly has come from all this investigating, and Republican huffpuffery about the Steele dossier that they themselves initiated and partly funded? Carter Page was doing suspicious things with some suspicious foreign nationals, and found himself in the cross-hairs of surveillance. Trump did not like the consequences. That is the only bottom line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

It’s going to be hilarious when trump gets investigated

its going to be hilarious when the results come out from the investigation

its going to be hilarious when the report is released

its going to be hilarious when Barr has to testify 

pretty much batting 0.00 at this point. It might be time to move on.

The credibility ship has come and gone. 

You think it’s the republicans who won’t stop “fucking that chicken?” Goodness 

You didn't read the Mueller report, did you?

It exposes the president of the United States as a felon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You didn't read the Mueller report, did you?

It exposes the president of the United States as a felon.

I’ve read as much or as little as half of Congress that swore Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election and that the report had significant evidence of it. Yet, here we are and Trump is still our president. 

Thanks to Brad I did make time to go and read the full constitution though so I suppose I should thank him for that.

Edited by Enchubben
  • Like 2
  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

I’ve read as much or as little as half of Congress that swore Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election and that the report had significant evidence of it. Yet, here we are and Trump is still our president. 

Thanks to Brad I did make time to go and read the full constitution though so I suppose I should thank him for that.

he will be our president until 2020.  the mueller report could've confirmed conspiracy and obstruction and he would still be our president until 2020.

absolutely zero people (who understand the process) have predicted his actual removal from office.

if your takeaway is "he's still the president so he must be innocent" then i think this conversation is probably pointless.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

 

if your takeaway is "he's still the president so he must be innocent" then i think this conversation is probably pointless.

That’s his takeaway and it really is pointless to converse with him regarding this. He hasn’t read the mueller report and doesn’t understand how impeachment works. In short, he’s a moron. 

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

4 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It doesn’t feel like it now but this is one of the most historic periods in American Democracy.  

This shit makes Watergate look like a picnic. 

Yeah. Never before has a political party used the FBI in a coup to unseat a sitting President.

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jim Tom Pinch said:

Yeah. Never before has a political party used the FBI in a coup to unseat a sitting President.

I don't think that the OIG report will lay it out in these terms obviously.  What I do think that it will report is that the FISA Page application took a non-standard path outside the typical FBI processes and procedures.  That there should have been greater transparency wrt the origins of Steele's material, and that there were irregularities around the entrance of the Steele materials into the FBI and his continuing engagement even after his formal relationship with the FBI was closed (e.g. perkins coie Baker interactions, Corn Baker back channel, Gaeta Steele conduit, and the Ohr back channel, etc.). Dahobbs is probably still looking up a definition of what back channel means, but all of this stuff is already in publicly released testimony. I think it will be critical of the Steele materials. Auditors gonna audit. This type of shit is a slam dunk unless it gets ruled out of scope or redacted for some reason. As with the Clinton investigation OIG report, I think that he will stop short of suggesting political bias influenced any of the decisions. Nor do I think that he will address other aspects alluded to by FBI agents in their "private" communications, such as the CIA leaking re: the Russia investigation. 

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

I don't think that the OIG report will lay it out in these terms obviously.  What I do think that it will report is that the FISA Page application took a non-standard path outside the typical FBI processes and procedures.  That there should have been greater transparency wrt the origins of Steele's material, and that there were irregularities around the entrance of the Steele materials into the FBI and his continuing engagement even after his formal relationship with the FBI was closed (e.g. perkins coie Baker interactions, Corn Baker back channel, Gaeta Steele conduit, and the Ohr back channel, etc.). Dahobbs is probably still looking up a definition of what back channel means, but all of this stuff is already in publicly released testimony. I think it will be critical of the Steele materials. Auditors gonna audit. This type of shit is a slam dunk unless it gets ruled out of scope or redacted for some reason. As with the Clinton investigation OIG report, I think that he will stop short of suggesting political bias influenced any of the decisions. Nor do I think that he will address other aspects alluded to by FBI agents in their "private" communications, such as the CIA leaking re: the Russia investigation. 

I think you’re wrong, but “we’ll see what happens.”
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

I think you’re wrong, but “we’ll see what happens.”

Fair enough.  Who knows, maybe the OIG report will totally prove my assessment wrong.  If so, I will acknowledge such and give you guys a good target for neg reps. But I am curious as to what you think is wrong exactly in my assessment as quoted. Have you read Baker's congressional testimony?  There appears to me to be a bunch of low hanging fruit that an auditor would zero in on. But what do I know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jabberwocky said:

Just more evidence that this president has continued to try to use the Justice Department as a political tool, as well as his own personal law firm.

The DOJ IG was appointed by Obama. Maybe wait for the report, before you dismiss it out of hand. 

3 hours ago, Jabberwocky said:

Secondly, what exactly has come from all this investigating, and Republican huffpuffery about the Steele dossier that they themselves initiated and partly funded?

If I was a glue-eater, I would claim that you are lying.  But I know that you are not and that you are just uninformed. Steele was brought on long after the  Fusion work was transferred to DNC funding. 

3 hours ago, Jabberwocky said:

Carter Page was doing suspicious things with some suspicious foreign nationals, and found himself in the cross-hairs of surveillance. Trump did not like the consequences. That is the only bottom line.

Carter Page is a dumb fuck and anybody who has looked at this guy for more than 10 seconds knows this.  He literally has a hard time not drooling on himself in the clip that follows. But that didn't stop people here from gassing this board out with the notion that he was a centerpiece of Trump Russia coordination to influence the election. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Fair enough.  Who knows, maybe the OIG report will totally prove my assessment wrong.  If so, I will acknowledge such and give you guys a good target for neg reps. But I am curious as to what you think is wrong exactly in my assessment as quoted. Have you read Baker's congressional testimony?  There appears to me to be a bunch of low hanging fruit that an auditor would zero in on. But what do I know. 

Would Carter Page's FISA warrant have been approved by the FISC judge without inclusion of the dossier material in the application ?  I'm guessing that's a Yes.  Does inclusion of properly represented dossier material disqualify application of other material that, used alone, would result in approval of the Page FISA warrant?  I don't see how.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah, once the 40th person got indicted, can we please stop talking about fisa warrants and "how this whole thing got started"?

if you find a cache of explosives and weapons grade narcotics in someone's apartment, i'm not asking any questions about probable cause. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, triplehorn said:

Would Carter Page's FISA warrant have been approved by the FISC judge without inclusion of the dossier material in the application ?  I'm guessing that's a Yes.  Does inclusion of properly represented dossier material disqualify application of other material that, used alone, would result in approval of the Page FISA warrant?  I don't see how.

Doesn't matter.  IF you lie to your spouse about where you were last night, you can't cleanse it by showing you didn't really have an affair.  Your honesty and motives are warped for good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're suggesting none of the information in the dossier is true. Like it's one big lie. That suggestion, or in Trump's case, explicit statements, that the entire Steele dossier is fake is in itself a lie. Also, you're conflating unverified raw intel with intentional lies. Even in a court of law with a higher bar to clear, you can be charged with a multitude of crimes, be convicted of some and aquitted of some. That still makes you guilty. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

Doesn't matter.  IF you lie to your spouse about where you were last night, you can't cleanse it by showing you didn't really have an affair.  Your honesty and motives are warped for good.

WTF?  That's not a good analogy at all. 

The Steele dossier was presented as unverified intelligence.  That's what it was.  To imply that any false statements within impugn the FISA warrant is lunacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/1/2019 at 11:47 AM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

If someone wants a good internet domain to own, www.msnbcatthismomentintime.com is a good investment. 

...And Nicole Wallace/ChuckRosenberg are awesome.

Did anyone look into this?  Is this website available for purchase?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Captainant said:

this is a dumb bit, but it's availble lol. You really could get more creative with the new URL suffixes

 

 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
https://www.surlyhorns.com/board/index.php?/topic/172-the-robert-mueller-investigation/page/522/
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

IF you lie to your spouse about where you were last night, you can't cleanse it by showing you didn't really have an affair.  Your honesty and motives are warped for good.

You mean similar to how Trump tried to get everyone around him to lie in order to obstruct the Mueller investigation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

yeah, once the 40th person got indicted, can we please stop talking about fisa warrants and "how this whole thing got started"?

if you find a cache of explosives and weapons grade narcotics in someone's apartment, i'm not asking any questions about probable cause. 

I care. I care a great deal. But I've yet to see any evidence that the warrants were primarily based off insufficient or incorrect information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Did anyone look into this?  Is this website available for purchase?

 

27 minutes ago, Captainant said:

this is a dumb bit, but it's availble lol. You really could get more creative with the new URL suffixes

What about this one?

www.noregulatoryindustryfacebookcanundo.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

The Steele dossier was presented as unverified intelligence.

The answer is "unverified intelligence".

What are two words not included in the FISA application, Alex.

Correct.

I'll take "Surveillance state under guise of terrorism threat re-purposed to surveil American citizens" for $750. 

giphy.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The answer is "unverified intelligence".

What are two words not included in the FISA application, Alex.

You've seen the unredacted application?  You have proof that the Steele dossier was presented as fact?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The answer is "unverified intelligence".

What are two words not included in the FISA application, Alex.

Correct.

I'll take "Surveillance state under guise of terrorism threat re-purposed to surveil American citizens" for $750. 

giphy.gif

if the dossier never existed but everything else is the same, would you be fighting this fight as hard? would you be more apt to assume that evidence was provided to the courts that justified the order? 

*fyi - i question a surveillance state, against the patriot act as it is, i think TSA is a ridiculous overstep in security. just dont understand your needling of this issue. 

Edited by SmokeyTheBear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The answer is "unverified intelligence".

What are two words not included in the FISA application, Alex.

Correct.

I'll take "Surveillance state under guise of terrorism threat re-purposed to surveil American citizens" for $750. 

giphy.gif

Have you read the unredacted application? Have you read the transcripts of the evidentiary hearings? How do you know the judge was not aware that intelligence gleaned from the dossier was unverified?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

You've seen the unredacted application?  You have proof that the Steele dossier was presented as fact?

No. I would love to and think it should all be declassified. I will concede that it is quite possible that those words are in redacted portions.  There are some redactions in footnotes that could be compatible with that theory, however I am not sure why those words would have been redacted while the applications representations that "Source #1's reporting has been corroborated and used in criminal proceedings and the FBI assesses Source #1 to be reliable" and "...the FBI believes Source #1's reporting to be credible." are unredacted. In sum, I'd bet against those words showing up linked together in the redacted portions. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

No. I would love to and think it should all be declassified. I will concede that it is quite possible that those words are in redacted portions.  There are some redactions in footnotes that could be compatible with that theory, however I am not sure why those words would have been redacted while the applications representations that "Source #1's reporting has been corroborated and used in criminal proceedings and the FBI assesses Source #1 to be reliable" and "...the FBI believes Source #1's reporting to be credible." are unredacted. In sum, I'd bet against those words showing up linked together in the redacted portions. 

"Credible" doesn't mean "infallible".  I also expect that the general assumption going in is that there can be errors or false steps in the application.  To demand 100% accuracy would be absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Have you read the unredacted application? Have you read the transcripts of the evidentiary hearings?

There were no hearings at FISC associated with the Page applications. As such there are no transcripts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...