Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
whoknew

The Russia Investigation: Mueller - "Over the course of my career, I've seen a number of challenges to our democracy.The Russian govt's effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious."

Recommended Posts

On 7/18/2019 at 11:11 PM, Bucky86 said:

I must've missed when Obama led chants against a member of the Republican Party, calling for them to be locked up or sent back to where they came from.

That dude was so divisive, being black and all.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

Limit how?

The Justice Department wrote to Robert Mueller Monday about his upcoming testimony, saying it “must remain within the boundaries of your public report because matters within the scope of your investigation were covered by executive privilege…”

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Bucky86 said:

The Justice Department wrote to Robert Mueller Monday about his upcoming testimony, saying it “must remain within the boundaries of your public report because matters within the scope of your investigation were covered by executive privilege…”

Just yesterday Trump and his followers were saying how stupid democrats were going to look.  

Edited by Sheriff Bart
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, the Rev. Wright thing was pretty divisive and we never got a good answer about he or Ayres. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Weebs210 said:

grasp straws

Quote

 

***

Intent. Substantial evidence indicates that the catalyst for the President’s decision to fire Comey was Comey’s unwillingness to publicly state that the President was not personally under investigation, despite the President’s repeated requests that Comey make such an announcement.1 In the week leading up to Comey’s May 3, 2017 Senate Judiciary Committee testimony, the President told McGahn that it would be the last straw if Comey did not set the record straight and publicly announce that the President was not under investigation. But during his May 3 testimony, Comey refused to answer questions about whether the President was being investigated. Comey’s refusal angered the President, who criticized Sessions for leaving him isolated and exposed, saying “You left me on an island.” Two days later, the President told advisors he had decided to fire Comey and dictated a letter to Stephen Miller that began with a reference to the fact that the President was not being investigated: “While I greatly appreciate you informing me that I am not under investigation concerning what I have often stated is a fabricated story on a Trump-Russia relationship ....” The President later asked Rosenstein to include “Russia” in his memorandum and to say that Comey had told the President that he was not under investigation. And the President’s final termination letter included a sentence, at the President’s insistence and against McGahn’s advice, stating that Comey had told the President on three separate occasions that he was not under investigation.

The President’s other stated rationales for why he fired Comey are not similarly supported by the evidence. The termination letter the President and Stephen Miller prepared in Bedminster cited Comey’s handling of the Clinton email investigation, and the President told McCabe he fired Comey for that reason. But the facts surrounding Comey’s handling of the Clinton email investigation were well known to the President at the time he assumed office, and the President had made it clear to both Comey and the President’s senior staff in early 2017 that he wanted Comey to stay on as director. And Rosenstein articulated his criticism of Comey’s handling of the Clinton investigation after the President had already decided to fire Comey. The President’s draft termination letter also stated that morale in the FBI was at an all-time low and Sanders told the press after Comey’s termination that the White House had heard from “countless” FBI agents who had lost confidence in Comey. But the evidence does not support those claims. The President told Comey at their January 27 dinner that “the people of the FBI really like [him],” no evidence suggests that the President heard otherwise before deciding to terminate Comey, and Sanders acknowledged to investigators that her comments were not founded on anything.

We also considered why it was important to the President that Comey announce publicly that he was not under investigation. Some evidence indicates that the President believed that the erroneous perception he was under investigation harmed his ability to manage domestic and foreign affairs, particularly in dealings with Russia. The President told Comey that the “cloud” of “this Russia business” was making it difficult to run the country. The President told Sessions and McGahn that foreign leaders had expressed sympathy to him for being under investigation and that the perception he was under investigation was hurting his ability to address foreign relations issues. The President complained to Rogers that “the thing with the Russians [was) messing up” his ability to get things done with Russia, and told Coats, “I can’t do anything with Russia, there’s things I’d like to do with Russia, with trade, with ISIS, they’re all over me with this.” The President also may have viewed Comey as insubordinate for his failure to make clear in the May 3 testimony that the President was not under investigation.

Other evidence, however, indicates that the President wanted to protect himself from an investigation into his campaign. The day after learning about the FBI’s interview of Flynn, the President had a one-on-one dinner with Comey, against the advice of senior aides, and told Comey he needed Comey’s “loyalty.” When the President later asked Comey for a second time to make public that he was not under investigation, he brought up loyalty again, saying “Because I have been very loyal to you, very loyal, we had that thing, you know.” After the President learned of Sessions’s recusal from the Russia investigation, the President was furious and said he wanted an Attorney General who would protect him the way he perceived Robert Kennedy and Eric Holder to have protected their presidents. The President also said he wanted to be able to tell his Attorney General “who to investigate.”

In addition, the President had a motive to put the FBI’s Russia investigation behind him. The evidence does not establish that the termination of Comey was designed to cover up a conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and Russia: As described in Volume I, the evidence uncovered in the investigation did not establish that the President or those close to him were involved in the charged Russian computer-hacking or active-measure conspiracies, or that the President otherwise had an unlawful relationship with any Russian official. But the evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns. Although the President publicly stated during and after the election that he had no connection to Russia, the Trump Organization, through Michael Cohen,  was pursuing the proposed Trump Tower Moscow project through June 2016 and candidate Trump was repeatedly briefed on the progress of those efforts.498 In addition, some witnesses said that Trump was aware that ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ at a time when public reports stated that Russian intelligence officials were behind the hacks, and that Trump privately sought information about future WikiLeaks releases.499 More broadly, multiple witnesses described the President’s preoccupation with press coverage of the Russia investigation and his persistent concern that it raised questions about the legitimacy of his election.500

Finally, the President and White House aides initially advanced a pretextual reason to the press and the public for Comey’s termination. In the immediate aftermath of the firing, the President dictated a press statement suggesting that he had acted based on the DOJ recommendations, and White House press officials repeated that story. But the President had decided to fire Comey before the White House solicited those recommendations. Although the President ultimately acknowledged that he was going to fire Comey regardless of the Department of Justice’s recommendations, he did so only after DOJ officials made clear to him that they would resist the White House’s suggestion that they had prompted the process that led to Comey’s termination. The initial reliance on a pretextual justification could support an inference that the President had concerns about providing the real reason for the firing, although the evidence does not resolve whether those concerns were personal, political, or both.

***

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Weebs210 said:

the entertainment and the continued entertainment

Quote

 

Russian-government-connected individuals and media entities began showing interest in Trump’s campaign in the months after he announced his candidacy in June 2015.288 Because Trump’s status as a public figure at the time was attributable in large part to his prior business and entertainment dealings, this Office investigated whether a business contact with Russia-linked individuals and entities during the campaign period — the Trump Tower Moscow project, see Volume I, Section IV.A.1, infra — led to or involved coordination of election assistance.

Outreach from individuals with ties to Russia continued in the spring and summer of 2016, when Trump was moving toward — and eventually becoming — the Republican nominee for President. 

 For example, on August 18, 2015, on behalf of the editor-in-chief of the internet newspaper Vzglyad, Georgi Asatryan emailed campaign press secretary Hope Hicks asking for a phone or in-person candidate interview. 8/18/15 Email, Asatryan to Hicks. One day earlier, the publication’s founder (and former Russian parliamentarian) Konstantin Rykov had registered two Russian websites — Trump2016.ru and DonaldTrump2016.ru. No interview took place.

 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG, a Bill Ayers sighting.

From way back in the olden days when Republicans pretended to care about who a politician used to hang out with. How quaint.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Weebs210 said:

witnessed

Quote

President Trump reacted negatively to the Special Counsel’s appointment. He told advisors that it was the end of his presidency, sought to have Attorney General Jefferson (Jeff) Sessions unrecuse from the Russia investigation and to have the Special Counsel removed, and engaged in efforts to curtail the Special Counsel’s investigation and prevent the disclosure of evidence to it, including through public and private contacts with potential witnesses.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neil Katyal was on MSNBC a little bit ago and offered an interesting twist that may happen with Mueller’s testimony. They were talking about how ‘by the book’ Mueller is but some of the ‘book’ has changed since he finished the report. Specifically he mentioned that Mueller previously believed he couldn’t accuse Trump of a crime but Barr came out and said that he could have. Katyal thinks that Mueller might take this as the new ‘book’ and will answer if he would have indicted Trump if he wasn’t president.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, Bucky86 said:

DOJ sent a letter to limit Muellers testimony. He’s a private citizen. Is this legal? Once again Trump, and his DOJ, are showing that they’re not worried at all since he’s been “totally exonerated!”

They did the same thing with McGahn, who complied even though he did not have to.

The administration has done it with others like Hicks.

I don’t think it’s legal but it’s not criminal either, it’s just that so far they’ve used it as a blanket pseudo pretext to block testimony to Congress and so far it’s been the willing it’s been used with, much like their use of the JDA. 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Biff84 said:

Neil Katyal was on MSNBC a little bit ago and offered an interesting twist that may happen with Mueller’s testimony. They were talking about how ‘by the book’ Mueller is but some of the ‘book’ has changed since he finished the report. Specifically he mentioned that Mueller previously believed he couldn’t accuse Trump of a crime but Barr came out and said that he could have. Katyal thinks that Mueller might take this as the new ‘book’ and will answer if he would have indicted Trump if he wasn’t president.

That would be swell. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rockaction said:

Cross-posted from the Epstein thread, I think. 

Thanks, wrong place please delete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Thanks, wrong place please delete.

Word. Back to Mueller 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sheriff Bart said:

That would be swell. 

But it won't happen

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

But it won't happen

It’s certainly wishful thinking but I wouldn’t be surprised to see one of the Democrats to try that line of questioning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Biff84 said:

Neil Katyal was on MSNBC a little bit ago and offered an interesting twist that may happen with Mueller’s testimony. They were talking about how ‘by the book’ Mueller is but some of the ‘book’ has changed since he finished the report. Specifically he mentioned that Mueller previously believed he couldn’t accuse Trump of a crime but Barr came out and said that he could have. Katyal thinks that Mueller might take this as the new ‘book’ and will answer if he would have indicted Trump if he wasn’t president.

The late movement on this is pretty weird, it's 36 hours to testimony. And there is no claim or basis for this. Privilege? No. Confidentiality? No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go in expecting the chances Mueller provides anything new at approx. 0% and you are unlikely to be disappointed.

Wont be new, won’t offer long or drawn out answers.  GOP won’t engage on any substance from report and will filibuster to discredit it.

Dems have a chance to focus the public on key parts of the report by condensing the content into tv-ready snippets that Mueller can confirm are accurate. Having multiple dems successfully do this is the best we can hope for.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, adonis said:

Go in expecting the chances Mueller provides anything new at approx. 0% and you are unlikely to be disappointed.

Wont be new, won’t offer long or drawn out answers.  GOP won’t engage on any substance from report and will filibuster to discredit it.

Dems have a chance to focus the public on key parts of the report by condensing the content into tv-ready snippets that Mueller can confirm are accurate. Having multiple dems successfully do this is the best we can hope for.

If it’s done right that will be enough. The report by itself is damning. 

I really wish they were going with one questioner though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

If it’s done right that will be enough. The report by itself is damning. 

I really wish they were going with one questioner though. 

It’ll be a political circus where the GOP hopes they throw up enough dust to allow Trump to escape during the next outrage he perpetrates on us.

Today he casually discussed killing millions of Afghans and dismissed it as a preference he didn’t favor.  The man is a walking outrage factory.  Dems would have to have Trump, running in wearing a bathrobe and confessing on TV to crimes to make a difference.  And even that wouldn’t be enough.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, adonis said:

Go in expecting the chances Mueller provides anything new at approx. 0% and you are unlikely to be disappointed.

Wont be new, won’t offer long or drawn out answers.  GOP won’t engage on any substance from report and will filibuster to discredit it.

Dems have a chance to focus the public on key parts of the report by condensing the content into tv-ready snippets that Mueller can confirm are accurate. Having multiple dems successfully do this is the best we can hope for.

I'll put my bill on Gohmert doing something supremely stupid.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, timschochet said:

If it’s done right that will be enough. The report by itself is damning. 

I really wish they were going with one questioner though. 

Did anyone comment on why they didn’t?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, adonis said:

Go in expecting the chances Mueller provides anything new at approx. 0% and you are unlikely to be disappointed.

Wont be new, won’t offer long or drawn out answers.  GOP won’t engage on any substance from report and will filibuster to discredit it.

Dems have a chance to focus the public on key parts of the report by condensing the content into tv-ready snippets that Mueller can confirm are accurate. Having multiple dems successfully do this is the best we can hope for.

Prediction: Jim Jordan will be a giant jerkhole. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sheriff Bart said:

Prediction: Jim Jordan will be a giant jerkhole. 

Would love to see any of those clowns take a swipe at Mueller to his face. 

That might offer the only color in the whole thing.  He and his team have been dragged through the mud by his own party in defense of a criminal sitting in the White House.

  • Like 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, adonis said:

Would love to see any of those clowns take a swipe at Mueller to his face. 

That might offer the only color in the whole thing.  He and his team have been dragged through the mud by his own party in defense of a criminal sitting in the White House.

I think if he let himself do it...I’m they would end up like the fool that kept going after Buzz Aldrin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rockaction said:

That's brutal. This is why you listen to your parents about style advice.  

Devin is somebody’s parent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, adonis said:

Devin is somebody’s parent.

That's a stunningly good point.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sheriff Bart said:

That would be swell. 

And absolutely won’t happen.  Mueller’s old school and not swayed by the whims of the day.  As much as I’d like this all to amount to something it clearly won’t.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

And absolutely won’t happen.  Mueller’s old school and not swayed by the whims of the day.  As much as I’d like this all to amount to something it clearly won’t.  

I don’t think that’s clear at all. 

Granted, there is not a single Trump fan, or Trump opponent for that matter, who is likely to change his or her mind because of this testimony. But there are still plenty of people who haven’t given this much thought. If Mueller reluctantly repeats stuff in that report, even verbatim without explanation, it’s going to be devastating for Trump. That’s why he keeps trying to find distractions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#BREAKING: Russian military aircraft violated South Korean airspace on Tuesday, ROK military said to have fired warning shots in response. Unprecedented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

I don’t think that’s clear at all. 

Granted, there is not a single Trump fan, or Trump opponent for that matter, who is likely to change his or her mind because of this testimony. But there are still plenty of people who haven’t given this much thought. If Mueller reluctantly repeats stuff in that report, even verbatim without explanation, it’s going to be devastating for Trump. That’s why he keeps trying to find distractions. 

A lot easier to replay a clip of Mueller over and over than telling them to read a report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I don’t think that’s clear at all. 

Granted, there is not a single Trump fan, or Trump opponent for that matter, who is likely to change his or her mind because of this testimony. But there are still plenty of people who haven’t given this much thought. If Mueller reluctantly repeats stuff in that report, even verbatim without explanation, it’s going to be devastating for Trump. That’s why he keeps trying to find distractions. 

🤞 but I wouldn’t bet on it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Bucky86 said:

#BREAKING: Russian military aircraft violated South Korean airspace on Tuesday, ROK military said to have fired warning shots in response. Unprecedented.

Great. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/432592-former-trump-white-house-counsel-mueller-is-an-american-hero

Ty Cobb, who represented the White House amid Robert Mueller’s ongoing probe into Russian election interference, called the special counsel an “American hero” in a recent interview.

“I think Bob Mueller's an American hero. … Even though he came from an arguably privileged background, he has a backbone of steel,” Cobb said during an appearance on the ABC News podcast "The Investigation" this week. 

“He walked into a firefight in Vietnam to pull out one of his injured colleagues and was appropriately honored for that,” he continued. “I've known him for 30 years as a prosecutor and a friend. And I think the world of Bob Mueller. He is a very deliberate guy. But he's also a class act and a very justice-oriented person.”

Cobb, who began working with the Trump administration’s legal team six months into President Trump’s term, also said that he does not share the president’s view that the Russia investigation is a politically motivated hoax. 

“I don't feel the investigation is a witch hunt,” he said.

 

Lets all remember this on Wednesday wirh his reluctant testimony. He doesn't want be there but whatever he says will be highly credible.

 

Edited by lazyike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ned said:

Why did he post that?

ROD IS "Q!!"  🤯 

 

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ned said:

Why did he post that?

He was responding to someone pointing out that he was in the same Harvard law school class as Mooch. 

It’s got all the Q-berts in a tizzy though. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: Mr. Mueller, why didn’t you subpoena Donald Trump Jr about the Trump Tower meeting with Russia? 

Mueller: Because he informed us that if we did he would take the 5th Amendment. 

I believe this question and answer alone may drastically alter public opinion on this entire subject. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, adonis said:

Would love to see any of those clowns take a swipe at Mueller to his face. 

That might offer the only color in the whole thing.  He and his team have been dragged through the mud by his own party in defense of a criminal sitting in the White House.

Still going with this even after the report was a nothing burger eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Weebs210 said:

Still going with this even after the report was a nothing burger eh?

Did you read the report? 

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, randall146 said:

He was responding to someone pointing out that he was in the same Harvard law school class as Mooch. 

It’s got all the Q-berts in a tizzy though. 

How many bosses have to die? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.