Jump to content

The Robert Mueller Investigation


Hugo Stiglitz

Recommended Posts

I’m more interested in who else goes down. 

Of course Trump and Putin didn’t get together and draw up the whole scheme in a Moscow brothel six years ago.  That’s not how this shit works.  

They keep their distance and maintain a certain level of plausible deniability by going through people like Manafort, Cohen, Page, Flynn, Papadopoulus, Erickson, Butina, Sechin, Don JR, Velyniskya, Torshin, Kysliak, Lavrov, Kushner, Stone, Assange, Rohrabacher, the NRA, David Clarke, Gates, Page, Caputo, Prince, Deripaska, McFarland, Sessions, Credico. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’m more interested in who else goes down. 

Of course Trump and Putin didn’t get together and draw up the whole scheme in a Moscow brothel six years ago.  That’s not how this shit works.  

They keep their distance and maintain a certain level of plausible deniability by going through people like Manafort, Cohen, Page, Flynn, Papadopoulus, Erickson, Butina, Sechin, Don JR, Velyniskya, Torshin, Kysliak, Lavrov, Kushner, Stone, Assange, Rohrabacher, the NRA, David Clarke, Gates, Page, Caputo, Prince, Deripaska, McFarland, Sessions, Credico. 

I'd include every senator that decided to go overseas and consult Steele on their own. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’m more interested in who else goes down. 

Of course Trump and Putin didn’t get together and draw up the whole scheme in a Moscow brothel six years ago.  That’s not how this shit works.  

It will be interesting to find out the details of how they communicated. I hope it was in the Drafts folder of their Hotmail accounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

You guys are no fun 

I’ve been asking your questions for over a year. 

What is Mueller going to report?

But more importantly, what will be the political consequences? 

 

If you’ve read the literature and kept up, it’s all but certain Mueller will conclude conspiracy and obstruction. 

Consequences for Trump?  who knows. 

 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yesterday, I was trying to turn on the Astros pregame show but accidentally turned to Michael Berry and decided to listen to what he had to say.  In the 5 minutes I had him on he said the following:  He has long suspected that if Mueller's goal is to inflict the maximum damage on Trump (and Berry obviously thinks it is) then Mueller would wait until right before the election to drop the report.  Possible dates: today, next week (when early voting starts in Texas), or day before the election.  But now, he suspects that Mueller will hold on to the report until after the election, so that people will THINK he has something on Trump and it will affect the election.  

So in conclusion: 

Releasing the report before midterms (today, next week, week of election are all equally bad): BAD because it will affect the election

Releasing the report after midterms: BAD because it will affect the election

4D chess, folks.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, retread said:

It will be interesting to find out the details of how they communicated. I hope it was in the Drafts folder of their Hotmail accounts.

starters:

-server comms/email

-WhatsApp unbreakable (oops) encrypted texting 

-Cell phones w legal intercepts of foreign actors in communication about conspiracy, including intercepts shared by allied foreign intel (big oops)

-In broad daylight from a podium

The scale of the criminality will shock the conscience of a lot of you.  It absolutely also stands to be de-stabilizing. 

I've maintained for a good while that the big X factor that will affect how this breaks is the extent to which those in GOP Congress gets perp walked for accepting bribes/involvement in organized money laundering of foreign cash to run cover for mob style Trump criminality.  There's always a carrot and a stick: Mob not only sets up a blackmail scenario but also provides highly valuable rewards for continued cooperation and "loyalty."  That's what appears to have been going on all along through multiple avenues for Trump and Congressional GOP.

If and when the takedown involves raiding GOP in Congress, it would be a good time to check your rations.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don McGahn’s last day was yesterday 

I’d say there’s a 50/50 chance the new guy ends up facing criminal liability.

#loyaltypledge 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/17/politics/pat-cipollone-trump-white-house-democrats/index.html

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump's pick to fill the job of White House counsel is an indication the White House is preparing for possible post-election legal brawls with Democrats over everything from the findings of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation to possible impeachment if Democrats take over the House of Representatives.

Pat Cipollone is taking over an office formerly led by Don McGahn, whose last day at the White House was Wednesday. While McGahn was planning on leaving the White House, his departure was expedited by Trump's Tuesday announcement of Cipollone's appointment.

Should Democrats take over the House, the President's lawyers expect a flood of new oversight investigations of executive branch agencies, which the GOP-controlled Congress has largely avoided. Democrats are also expected to try to get access to materials from the Mueller investigation, which the President's lawyers argue should be protected by executive privilege. The President and his lawyers have also raised the likelihood of an impeachment battle, even though Democratic leaders have tried to avoid discussing the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

I think (and hope) that the head start the FBI gave Mueller before he was appointed was enough to make this a slam dunk already and Mueller just needed the time to put it all together and double and triple check everything to bring the fucking hammer down so hard that there can be no questioning it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think (and hope) that the head start the FBI gave Mueller before he was appointed was enough to make this a slam dunk already and Mueller just needed the time to put it all together and double and triple check everything to bring the fucking hammer down so hard that there can be no questioning it.  

Or that all the people involved are so fucking stupid most of it was out in the open it was such an easy investigation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’d say there’s a 50/50 chance the new guy ends up facing criminal liability.

Nah, I think the new guy is more like what you call a war consigliere.  Rather than guiding the Administration in its corrupt/criminal practices, he's the guy that's there when it comes home to roost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Trump, from a podium in Montana last might:  "Call it obstruction, call it whatever you want. We fight back."

Trump has certainly overcome many obstacles.  He should write a book about all of his struggles, and distribute copies to all of the volk throughout the fatherland.

  • Like 5
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

I didn't know about this part:

Quote

For starters, Mueller isn’t operating under the same ground rules as past high-profile government probes, including the Reagan-era investigation into Iranian arms sale and whether President Bill Clinton lied during a deposition about his extramarital affair with a White House intern. Those examinations worked under the guidelines of a post-Watergate law that expired in 1999 that required investigators to submit findings to Congress if they found impeachable offenses, a mandate that led to Starr’s salacious report that upended Clinton’s second term.

Mueller’s reporting mandate is much different. He must notify his Justice Department supervisor — currently Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein — on his budgeting needs and all “significant events” made by his office, including indictments, guilty pleas and subpoenas.

When Mueller is finished, he must turn in a “confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions” — essentially why he chose to bring charges against some people but not others. His reasoning, according to veterans of such investigations, could be as simple as “there wasn’t enough evidence” to support a winning court case.

Then, it will be up to DOJ leaders to make the politically turbo-charged decision of whether to make Mueller’s report public.

Man people will freak the fuck out if this report isn't released, at least in redacted form. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, shnsajax said:

He showed up in court in a wheelchair for foot inflammation. He actually found a way to top the Commander in Chief of Bonespurs. Can't imagine him being a bigger snowflake than this.

Mobsters' health conditions always seem to flare anywhere near a prison

Spoiler

1473726458_maxresdefault.jpg

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, shnsajax said:

He showed up in court in a wheelchair for foot inflammation. He actually found a way to top the Commander in Chief of Bonespurs. Can't imagine him being a bigger snowflake than this.

Actually probably because his asshole is TORN UP.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Khusyaynova Complaint

Filed by USA EDVa.  Deals with 2018 election, not 2016, so not a Mueller case.

Also, she lives in Leningrad, so another one of these kind of symbolic complaints.

Notably, no US conspirators identified, and the efforts were very "both sides."

Marcy Wheeler has some interesting observations comparing this "Complaint"  to the previous Concord/IRA "Indictments" which overlap.

 

- In What May Be a Second Bid to Go after Yevgeniy Prigozhin and Vladimir Putin, DOJ Charges Prigozhin's Troll Accountant

- There are multiple reasons this is more sustainable than Concord indictment: 1) It's a complaint, not an indictment 2) It would require a live body to challenge, not a corporate one 3) By charging the accountant, you focus on laundering $$ rather than just speech

- It'll be interesting to see if EDVA indicts this (no reason not to) and if so to then dismiss Concord in the IRA indictment.

 

- This is actually the fucking genius of citing all the trolling about the Mueller IRA indictment. If the trolls troll about an indictment saying their trolling is illegal, they can't very well claim to be ignorant that their trolling is illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Did you read the complaint?

 

I did indeed.  There's quite a bit of both sides efforts documented, although probably more Trump stuff insamuch as his people are generally weaker minded.  You wouldn't expect Natasha to report that would you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I did indeed.  There's quite a bit of both sides efforts documented, although probably more Trump stuff insamuch as his people are generally weaker minded.  You wouldn't expect Natasha to report that would you?

I just thought your “both sides” description wasn’t really telling the story that the Russians and Trump absolutely echo each other... which they have since the beginning.

That dynamic isn’t nearly as pronounced with prominent leaders on the left. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

- There are multiple reasons this is more sustainable than Concord indictment: 1) It's a complaint, not an indictment 2) It would require a live body to challenge, not a corporate one 3) By charging the accountant, you focus on laundering $$ rather than just speech

- It'll be interesting to see if EDVA indicts this (no reason not to) and if so to then dismiss Concord in the IRA indictment.

 

 

Not sure any of that makes much sense.  Complaint/indictment is a formality.  Point 2 is accurate, but no one is going to appear or be arrested in any of these, I don't believe.  Point 3 is nonsense, it isn't a laundering case.

 

And the mens rea thing doesn't work, either, simply because she isn't Concord or anyone else previously charged with wrongdoing.  Their knowledge is most likely not imputable to her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I just thought your “both sides” description wasn’t really telling the story that the Russians and Trump absolutely echo each other... which they have since the beginning.

That dynamic isn’t nearly as pronounced with prominent leaders on the left. 

The people trolled on the left were more like antifa types and grass-roots types than Democrats.  It's clearly a "bipartisan" effort, but the Trumpkins are easier to manipulate, and Teh Donald is, of course, the Trumpkin in chief.  The King of the Idiots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's clearly a "bipartisan" effort, but the Trumpkins are easier to manipulate, and Teh Donald is, of course, the Trumpkin in chief.  The King of the Idiots.

He’s the President of the United States benifiting from a Russian attack on the US and not doing anything about it. 

It just amazes me how you sugarcoat it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...