Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
whoknew

The Russia Investigation: Mueller Testimony Moved to July 24

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, boots11234 said:

No clue. That’s his job. It’s clear that the Russian scandal was BS and now it’s time to pay the piper. 

Oh it was?

Thats odd...that’s not clear at all from any actual facts.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Oh it was?

Thats odd...that’s not clear at all from any actual facts.

I picture you like the Home Alone kid running around the house with his arms flailing yelling...”facts...facts”

  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Commish said:

Gun to his head, can Trump name the three branches of the government and their basic function?

Of course he can: me, myself, and I. Basic function? Line my pockets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Oh it was?

Thats odd...that’s not clear at all from any actual facts.

You mean the fact that trump is still president and no charges have been brought against him. That fact?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, boots11234 said:

You mean the fact that trump is still president and no charges have been brought against him. That fact?

Oh a pivot...nice.  Let me how that relates to anything that was said.  K thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Don't Noonan said:

Is the claim that the dossier totally failed because Mueller report hardly touched it or is the argument that the Mueller report validates the dossier? Because it sure seems like this piece is claiming the latter.

>>Mueller even kept alive one of the dossier’s most obscene accusations – that Moscow had "compromising tapes" of Trump with Russian hookers – by slipping into a footnote an October 2016 text Trump lawyer Michael Cohen received from a "Russian businessman," who cryptically intimated, “Stopped flow of tapes from Russia.”<<

Share this post


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

Oh a pivot...nice.  Let me how that relates to anything that was said.  K thanks.

He presented “facts”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Is the claim that the dossier totally failed because Mueller report hardly touched it or is the argument that the Mueller report validates the dossier? Because it sure seems like this piece is claiming the latter.

>>Mueller even kept alive one of the dossier’s most obscene accusations – that Moscow had "compromising tapes" of Trump with Russian hookers – by slipping into a footnote an October 2016 text Trump lawyer Michael Cohen received from a "Russian businessman," who cryptically intimated, “Stopped flow of tapes from Russia.”<<

Pretty alarming that Mueller may have relied on Fusion GPS or Crowdstrike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Don't Noonan said:

Pretty alarming that Mueller may have relied on Fusion GPS or Crowdstrike.

That’s not the source for that reference.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL Saints, you have the patience of.....a saint.

You quoted the source right to him and he went straight to "But Fusion GPS!!!". You'll never see a better example of the chasm between "unequivocal" and "obtuse".

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, sho nuff said:

Care to unpack what you think is actually going to happen?

Better yet....be like the typical Democrat has been for the past two years and tell us all what you KNOW is going to happen!!

Edited by Opie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mr. Pickles said:

Pretty strong Qanon vibe here. 

Also it's from the Daily Mail. Take everything with a grain of salt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Opie said:

Better yet....be like the typical Democrat has been for the past two years and tell us all what you KNOW is going to happen!!

Been pretty consistent that I doubted it would get all the way to Trump and that Manafort and Flynn were screwed.  That proving the conspiracy would be tough but it’s a pretty easy case for obstruction.

I thought Jr and Kushner would see more scrutiny. 

Though...that still doesn’t answer the actual question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Been pretty consistent that I doubted it would get all the way to Trump and that Manafort and Flynn were screwed.  That proving the conspiracy would be tough but it’s a pretty easy case for obstruction.

I thought Jr and Kushner would see more scrutiny. 

Though...that still doesn’t answer the actual question.

Wow....way to go Nostradamus.

Isn't hindsight grand?

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


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

Wow....way to go Nostradamus.

Isn't hindsight grand?

Sure. Though as I said it’s been consistently what I’ve said all along.  You can try showing where I said otherwise if you’d like.  Or you can keep trying to take potshots to avoid what was being discussed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Don't Noonan said:
3 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

That’s not the source for that reference.

Sure it was.  Did you read the article?

There are three sources for the statement that a Russian businessman told Michael Cohen that he'd stopped the flow of compromising tapes of Trump rumored to be held by people in Moscow associated with hosting the 2013 Miss Universe pageant:

1. A text message, reviewed by the Special Counsel's office, from Giorgi Rtskhiladze (the Russian businessman in question) to Michael Cohen dated October 30, 2016.

2. Two interviews of Giorgi Rtskhiladze by the Special Counsel's office (April 4, 2018, and May 10, 2018).

3. An interview of Michael Cohen by the Special Counsel's office (September 12, 2018).

Fusion GPS and Crowdstrike are not mentioned as sources for that statement.

(See footnote no. 112 on pages 27-28 of Volume II of the Mueller Report.)

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 2
  • Love 2

Share this post


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

There are three sources for the statement that a Russian businessman told Michael Cohen that he'd stopped the flow of compromising tapes of Trump rumored to be held by people in Moscow associated with hosting the 2013 Miss Universe pageant:

1. A text message, reviewed by the Special Counsel's office, from Giorgi (the Russian businessman in question) to Michael Cohen dated October 30, 2016.

2. Two interviews of Giorgi Rtskhiladze by the Special Counsel's office (April 4, 2018, and May 10, 2018).

3. An interview of Michael Cohen by the Special Counsel's office (September 12, 2018).

Fusion GPS and Crowdstrike are not mentioned as sources for that statement.

(See footnote no. 112 on pages 27-28 of Volume II of the Mueller Report.)

That looks like one source, Rtskhiladze, listed 3 different ways.

1. A text from the source to the useful idiot

2. An interview of the source

3. An interview of the useful idiot

Are you of the belief that Russia does in fact have video from 2013 of Russian hoors pissing on a bed that Obama slept in at the Ritz while Trump stood in the corner "watching"?

What do you call it in legalese when a claim is made but is not verifiable?

Hearsay?

If it is repeated multiple times by the same person does that make it more likely to be true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bozeman Bruiser said:

That looks like one source, Rtskhiladze, listed 3 different ways.

1. A text from the source to the useful idiot

2. An interview of the source

3. An interview of the useful idiot

Are you of the belief that Russia does in fact have video from 2013 of Russian hoors pissing on a bed that Obama slept in at the Ritz while Trump stood in the corner "watching"?

What do you call it in legalese when a claim is made but is not verifiable?

Hearsay?

If it is repeated multiple times by the same person does that make it more likely to be true?

I'll let the lawyers peck away at your hearsay entrails, but the whole point is that the evidence came from a clean source, NOT from the dirty dossier.

Also, the investigators were not necessarily interested in whether the pee tape was verified; they were interested in whether the text message was verified. Because once you verify the validity of that text message, then you've verified a motive for obstruction. Doesn't matter if the tape exists or not -- as long as Trump thinks it exists, then he's vulnerable to extortion.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Is the claim that the dossier totally failed because Mueller report hardly touched it or is the argument that the Mueller report validates the dossier? Because it sure seems like this piece is claiming the latter.

>>Mueller even kept alive one of the dossier’s most obscene accusations – that Moscow had "compromising tapes" of Trump with Russian hookers – by slipping into a footnote an October 2016 text Trump lawyer Michael Cohen received from a "Russian businessman," who cryptically intimated, “Stopped flow of tapes from Russia.”<<

Can you list a single thing from the dossier that has been verified? (And illegal or improper, because the fact that Page gave a commencement speech in Moscow is neither)

 

"Mueller kept alive ..... pee pee tape" doesn't verify anything other than he was inept at finding Trump/Russia collusion. He interviewed one Russian who made the claim but provided zero evidence, I believe there is a legal term for that.

Pee pee tape has as much credibility as Hillary raping and eating babies in the basement of Comet Pizza.

 

The leaks that are coming out now about emails between Comey and Brennan in December 2016 with regards to including the dossier in the official intelligence report do not look good. They are pointing the finger and playing hot potato with the dossier, not what you would expect if it was anything more than unverifiable opposition research/Russian disinformation.

 

It will be interesting to see what Horowitz, Huber, Durham, Barr, and the grand jury conclude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

I'll let the lawyers peck away at your hearsay entrails, but the whole point is that the evidence came from a clean source, NOT from the dirty dossier.

Also, the investigators were not necessarily interested in whether the pee tape was verified; they were interested in whether the text message was verified. Because once you verify the validity of that text message, then you've verified a motive for obstruction. Doesn't matter if the tape exists or not -- as long as Trump thinks it exists, then he's vulnerable to extortion.

What evidence?

A single Russian who texted Cohen and was interviewed by Mueller?

That is pretty flimsy "evidence" of the existence of a pee pee tape.

 

As for obstruction, if the video doesn't exist because it (hookers pissing on the bed) never happened then Trump has no reason to be worried about extortion.

As much as you guys hate Trump deep down I am sure you are capable of understanding this very basic concept.

Edited by Bozeman Bruiser
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is anyone even still arguing about obstruction?

He did it, in public, many many times. For all of us to see and hear.

The only question is whether he gets in any trouble for it.

 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

There are three sources for the statement that a Russian businessman told Michael Cohen that he'd stopped the flow of compromising tapes of Trump rumored to be held by people in Moscow associated with hosting the 2013 Miss Universe pageant:

1. A text message, reviewed by the Special Counsel's office, from Giorgi Rtskhiladze (the Russian businessman in question) to Michael Cohen dated October 30, 2016.

2. Two interviews of Giorgi Rtskhiladze by the Special Counsel's office (April 4, 2018, and May 10, 2018).

3. An interview of Michael Cohen by the Special Counsel's office (September 12, 2018).

Fusion GPS and Crowdstrike are not mentioned as sources for that statement.

(See footnote no. 112 on pages 27-28 of Volume II of the Mueller Report.)

I wasn't talking about Saints reference, sorry for the confusion.  I am only shocked that Mueller outsourced and may have relied on ultra sketchy outfits.

Edited by Don't Noonan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Don't Noonan said:

I wasn't talking about Saints reference, sorry for the confusion.  I am only shocked that Mueller outsourced and may have relied on ultra sketchy outfits.

Not to mention that if Mueller used private eyes, would that be an end run around the fourth amendment, as a private investigator is nit bound by that?  If so, that is even more troubling than the breaches of attorney client privilege.

Share this post


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

Not to mention that if Mueller used private eyes, would that be an end run around the fourth amendment, as a private investigator is nit bound by that?  If so, that is even more troubling than the breaches of attorney client privilege.

They're watching you. :clap:They see your every move. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, knowledge dropper said:

The tone of this thread has definitely changed after Trump’s “exoneration” and now opening an investigation into the source of this “witch hunt.”

It’s BARR TIME.  

Agreed....and I think many of us appreciate that.  It wasn't long ago that many here wouldn't bother to acknowledge reality by using quotes like you do here.  It's pretty refreshing :thumbup: 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "Steele" dossier source who falsely claimed there was a Russian Consulate in Miami was ALSO a source for the Moscow “pee tape” AND **the key source** alleging an “extensive conspiracy” between the Trump campaign & Russia involving Manafort and Page 🚨

https://twitter.com/johnwhuber/status/1129020561684869127

Either Steele lied to the FBI because he didn't admit he was revealing the contents of the dossier to the State Dept (as proven by Kavalec's notes) 

OR the FBI/DOJ lied to the FISC

Pick one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bozeman Bruiser said:

What do you call it in legalese when a claim is made but is not verifiable?

Hearsay?

No

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rove! said:

If Mueller used private eyes, would that be an end run around the fourth amendment, as a private investigator is nit bound by that?

No

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 2

Share this post


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

The tone of this thread has definitely changed after Trump’s “exoneration” and now opening an investigation into the source of this “witch hunt.”

It’s BARR TIME.  

Is "BARR TIME" the new "LOCK HER UP"? :lol:

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 3

Share this post


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

What do you call it in legalese when a claim is made but is not verifiable?

Tuesday at the White House.

  • Like 9
  • Laughing 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ren hoek said:

The "Steele" dossier source who falsely claimed there was a Russian Consulate in Miami was ALSO a source for the Moscow “pee tape” AND **the key source** alleging an “extensive conspiracy” between the Trump campaign & Russia involving Manafort and Page 🚨

https://twitter.com/johnwhuber/status/1129020561684869127

Either Steele lied to the FBI because he didn't admit he was revealing the contents of the dossier to the State Dept (as proven by Kavalec's notes) 

OR the FBI/DOJ lied to the FISC

Pick one.

Hannity's been on on the consulate kick. But accuracy of these statements aside from {squinting} Mr. Undercover Huber .... isn't this obvious from reading the dossier? The sources are shown as Source A-E. If Source A (or whichever) said any given things then you see that, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, knowledge dropper said:

The tone of this thread has definitely changed after Trump’s “exoneration” and now opening an investigation into the source of this “witch hunt.”

It’s BARR TIME.  

Seriously.  Where are all those who cried that "the American people DESERVE to know the truth"?

I am sure that everyone here would want to know if any administration had weaponized our intelligence agencies for the purpose of undoing an election and illegally spied on American citizens.
Most would agree that this far outweighs whether or not a sitting President fudged his taxes fifteen or twenty years ago.

....even if that President is named "Trump".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Opie said:

I am sure that everyone here would want to know if any administration had weaponized our intelligence agencies for the purpose of undoing an election and illegally spied on American citizens.
Most would agree that this far outweighs whether or not a sitting President fudged his taxes fifteen or twenty years ago.

Eh this is the same thing, either you feel Congress has authority and oversight under our Constitution or you’re for absolute authority of the President and the imperial system our founding fathers rejected. I have no problem with Nunes or Graham looking at the FISA process but also Neil getting the tax returns.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Eh this is the same thing, either you feel Congress has authority and oversight under our Constitution or you’re for authority of the President and the imperial system our founding fathers rejected. I have no problem with both Nunes or Graham looking at the FISA process but also Neil getting the tax returns.

It comes down to the matter of, exactly when does "oversight" end and "harassment" begin?

I am sure that you'd agree that there is a point where this occurs.

Now, If Trump's taxes could be tied to a crime that occured ....get them.  If they're simply looking for something...ANYTHING that he's done wrong....I'd say that line has been crossed.

Edited by Opie

Share this post


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

It comes down to the matter of, exactly when does "oversight" end and "harassment" begin?

I am sure that you'd agree that there is a point where this occurs.

Now, If Trump's taxes from a crime that occured ....get them.  If they're simply looking for something...ANYTHING that he's done wrong....I'd say that line has been crossed.

Before I address other points you should check something:

- Currently Trump’s position to Congress and to the courts, as to Russia, taxes and other investigations, is that Congress does ***not have authority to investigate crime.

So you’re directly contradicting Trump himself here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Before I address other points you should check something:

- Currently Trump’s position to Congress and to the courts, as to Russia, taxes and other investigations, is that Congress does ***not have authority to investigate crime.

So you’re directly contradicting Trump himself here.

What's the crime that they "don't have the authority to investigate"?

...or are they still looking for one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Opie said:

What's the crime that they "don't have the authority to investigate"?

...or are they still looking for one?

Trump is claiming that Congress is investigating possible crimes for impeachment for obstruction and taxes. That’s Trump’s argument. You should catch up to what the President is arguing. Again that’s his claim, not mine.

I'll be glad to post his lawyers’ letter if helpful.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who the hell investigates "possible crimes"?
Do you mean, "looking for a crime that may have been committed"?

Obstruction of what?

From what crime did Trump impede justice being delivered on?

Did he impede the investigation that already took place for a crime that wasn't committed?
Or....is he just refusing to give up any more information for the Democrats to crawl over in their search for a crime?

Again...when does the "oversight" end and "harassment" begin?

Edited by Opie

Share this post


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

Who the hell investigates "possible crimes"?
Do you mean, "looking for a crime that may have been committed?

Obstruction of what?

From what crime did Trump impede justice being delivered on?

Did he impede the investigation that already took place for a crime that wasn't committed?
Or....is he just refusing to give up any more information for the Democrats to crawl over in their search for a crime?

Again...when does the "oversight" end and "harassment" begin?

Trump is arguing Congress has no authority to explore these issues at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Opie said:

Who the hell investigates "possible crimes"?

The police do it all the time.

Find a dead body? Was it a crime or did the person die of natural causes? Well, how about we start an investigation to find out?

Come on, man.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Opie said:

Again...when does the "oversight" end and "harassment" begin?

There is never a point that it becomes harassment. It's a feature, not a bug. The American people weigh that when they vote every 2 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, [scooter] said:
11 minutes ago, Opie said:

Who the hell investigates "possible crimes"?

The police do it all the time.

Find a dead body? Was it a crime or did the person die of natural causes? Well, how about we start an investigation to find out?

Come on, man.

Also, hasn't Trump been implicated in possible crimes during sworn Congressional testimony?  And other indictments?

Trump has been implicated in crimes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

The police do it all the time.

Find a dead body? Was it a crime or did the person die of natural causes? Well, how about we start an investigation to find out?

Come on, man.

only see his posts when someone quotes him but.....holy hell.....he didn't really type that did he?

  • Laughing 4

Share this post


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

Also, hasn't Trump been implicated in possible crimes during sworn Congressional testimony?  And other indictments?

Trump has been implicated in crimes.

It was either yesterday or the day before but Trump’s lawyers told a federal judge that Congress did not have authority to conduct the Watergate or Whitewater investigations and hearings. Seriously. I don’t think even the Trump followers are tracking this.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

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.


  • Recently Browsing   1 member