Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

The Russia Investigation: Trump Pardons Flynn


whoknew

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, knowledge dropper said:

You probably missed a couple of months ago when the crew had their pitchforks out demanding the mods ban pro-Trump posters that quoted what they felt were fake news sources. 

BuzzFeed.  :lmao:

Um. Within 24 hours every single person in here has been willing to adjust their views based on new info. 

The far right nut job media has one thing going for it - it neither cares if it’s accurate nor does its followers. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, BobbyLayne said:

In the last 7 days:

  • NYT reported the FBI opened an inquiry into whether DJT was working for the Russians while he was the PotUS
  • CNN published excerpts of the FBI counsel James Baker Congressional interview in which he stated "if President Trump fired James Comey at the behest of the Russian government, that would unlawful and unconstitutional." Asked if that's what happened here, Baker responded "I don't know." An FBI lawyer cut off any further questions in that line of inquiry.
  • WaPo reported President Trump confiscated notes from his translator and refused to allow any U.S. official to know anything that was discussed in that meeting or any of the five meetings he has had with Putin
  • NYT reported Trump called a reporter at the Times after meeting Puting at the G20 Summit to let them know that "Russia was falsely accused of interfering with the US Elections in 2016." Russia was not falsely accused.
  • NYT reported Trump has wanted to pull out of NATO repeatedly over the past year.
  • Michael Cohen expressed fears for his family if he goes ahead with his Congressional testimony on February 7th.
  • It was reported Cohen was paid $50K to rig online polls in favor of Trump.

I guess this is where the story left off if you reverse the BF piece.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I guess this is where the story left off if you reverse the BF piece.

We don’t know which part of the story they got wrong. Another wait and see.

But what a farce, eh? Literally hundred plus (denied) meetings, strange inexplicable behavior by PotUS, consistently alienating our historical allies (Russian goal to disrupt & create chaos), constantly aiding with or even espousing Russian policy, going against intelligence agencies or military recommendations, but hey....one sloppy story nullifies years of damning evidence. 

OooooKay :lol:

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, knowledge dropper said:

You probably missed a couple of months ago when the crew had their pitchforks out demanding the mods ban pro-Trump posters that quoted what they felt were fake news sources. 

BuzzFeed.  :lmao:

Assuming for a moment that BuzzFeed got this wrong (they continue, as of this morning, to stand by the story). The implication by you and t several other pro- Trump types (and by the President himself this morning) is that Buzzfeed is a form of liberal propaganda, and that the misreporting, if that’s what it was, was deliberate. I have my strong doubts that this is true. 

The “sources” that a very few people wanted banned included Gateway Pundit, The Daily Caller, Breitbart, World News Daily, etc. Norhing that happened last night has improved their credibility. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, BobbyLayne said:
  • Buzzfeed reported Trump told Cohen to lie to Congress about the Trump Tower Moscow project.
  • SC issued a statement "BuzzFeed's description of specific statements to the Special Counsel's Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen's Congressional testimony are not accurate." NOTE: The Spec Counsel statement DOES NOT say the BF story is made up or all wrong. It says its inaccurate. That COULD MEAN... - its partly wrong - the source(s) lied - evidence of suborning perjury is not there.

- Emphasis added.

- Basically OSC isn't leaking and no one speaks for what the OSC has except the OSC. That is whatever Mueller puts in the reports and indictments he submits is all that matters. 

- I'll also add that SDNY can mean the SDNY US attorneys office or the SDNY FBI office and they're different things. There is also Congressional staff, and there is also the people and their attorneys who have been involved in this case. There are people who would want to see BF spun and there are people who would want to see the president spun or other witnesses. It's interesting to me that just before this story Giuliani had thrown fellow JDA participants under the bus by suggesting that collusion was possible for some, just not for his client and those close to him. There are people at SDNY who feel that Mueller wasn't tough enough on Cohen, and there are people in Congress on both sides who have been jonesing to force Mueller to issue his report early. Lots of possible agendas.

- BF editors failed, period. Reporters get all sorts of stories that are just too awesome, and it's up to the editors to require more checking.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, timschochet said:

Also, as an aside: was anybody else reminded last night of the 2nd season of The Newsroom and that whole “Genoa” storyline? 

Not familiar with it, but it does remind me of the CNN-Scaramucci story which resulted in 3 people getting fired but which ultimately proved to be pretty well grounded. Sometimes boomerangs keep boomeranging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding SDNY & Mueller, I find it interesting they brought Cohen back into court for one more charge (lying to Congress), but then at sentencing they painted very different pictures. SDNY basically said this guys scum, throw the book at him your honor, and Mueller said “concurrent to the other 7 (8?) charges brought by SDNY is fine, no need to tack on a few more for lying to the Congressional Committee.”

Edited by BobbyLayne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Ronan Farrow indicated that he withheld a similar story because the source didn't check out. - I think NYT said something similar. It was a bit odd as other news orgs were reporting they could not confirm BF.

Yep, the fourth estate doesn’t just check the gov, they’re also watchdogs v each other. These are strange times, though - competition is fierce & the drive to be first with a story leads to lowered standards at some orgs.

I’d like to think that’s not the case at NYT or WaPo but they stubb their toe on the regular.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BobbyLayne said:

Regarding SDNY & Mueller, I find it interesting they brought Cohen back into court for one more charge (lying to Congress), but then at sentencing they painted very different pictures. SDNY basically said this guys scum, throw the book at him the honor, and Mueller said “concurrent to the other 7 (8?) charges brought to the state is fine, no need to tack on a few more for lying to the Congressional Committee.”

I think it was Cohen who in his own filing at sentencing who said what his motive was for lying to Congress, IIRC, which was that he wanted to support the President's political messaging but also because he was acting out of loyalty to him. That is pretty open ended about how that worked and not inconsistent with BF's reporting. We also know Trump contacted Cohen when his office was raided and we know that Trump's legal team has communicated with some targets even after plea deal, like Manafort. What Trump and Cohen and their teams discussed is still a blank slate. The OSC's correction does not mean that Trump and Cohen were not communicating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

BF editors failed, period. Reporters get all sorts of stories that are just too awesome, and it's up to the editors to require more checking.

I think the jury is still out on this, IMO. The BF story could be 100% fabricated from whole cloth. Or, the story could be structurally sound, but get important details incorrect.

We simply don't know right now.

This episode will either be a intriguing plot point in the Netflix miniseries, or it will be forgotten.  Time will tell.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I think it was Cohen who in his own filing at sentencing who said what his motive was for lying to Congress, IIRC, which was that he wanted to support the President's political messaging but also because he was acting out of loyalty to him. That is pretty open ended about how that worked and not inconsistent with BF's reporting. We also know Trump contacted Cohen when his office was raided and we know that Trump's legal team has communicated with some targets even after plea deal, like Manafort. What Trump and Cohen and their teams discussed is still a blank slate. The OSC's correction does not mean that Trump and Cohen were not communicating.

Well they can find witness tampering (multiple counts) on the Twitters. Clumsiest crooks ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Also, as an aside: was anybody else reminded last night of the 2nd season of The Newsroom and that whole “Genoa” storyline? 

More like in All the President’s Men when they ran the story that Mitchell controlled the fund that paid off the burglars

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, TobiasFunke said:

And honestly I'm not even sure why it still matters.  There was more than enough cause for suspicion based entirely on Trump and his team's behavior w/r/t Russia leading up to the appointment of Mueller to warrant a full special counsel investigation, if for no other reason than to put to bed legitimate concerns about the allegiances of the President.  And that's without considering the Helsinki fiasco, the secret meetings, the anti-NATO overtures, and God knows what else.

@ren hoek's argument that the reason for the investigation is somehow not valid and is sowing the seeds of suspicion is exactly backwards. The list of things unrelated to the investigation that have made many Americans reasonably and justifiably suspicious of Trump's motivations is a mile long; the investigation exists so that we can hopefully rid ourselves of those suspicions and replace them with fact as much as possible.

The point is that if even a single piece of evidence that was used to initiate an investigation is still considered circumspect, all of the crimes that are uncovered in that investigation "don't count."

@ren hoek, please correct me if I have this wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:
21 hours ago, Bucky86 said:

:coffee: I hope he told the truth.

Ken Dilanian‏Verified account @KenDilanianNBC

FollowFollow @KenDilanianNBC

More

According to the NYT story last fall, one of the written questions to Trump from Mueller was, “What communication did you have with Michael D. Cohen, Felix Sater, and others, including foreign nationals, about Russian real estate developments during the campaign?”

7:45 AM - 18 Jan 2019

Narrator: He didn't tell the truth.

It moved

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kyle Griffin‏Verified account @kylegriffin1 11h11 hours ago

Fascinating that Rudy Giuliani and Trump supporters are now taking Robert Mueller's office at their word about inaccuracies in the BuzzFeed report after attacking nearly every move that Mueller has made over the last year and a half. It's been an interesting night.

 

Fascinating indeed. I guess it was too much to have expected any consistency.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, squistion said:

Kyle Griffin‏Verified account @kylegriffin1 11h11 hours ago

Fascinating that Rudy Giuliani and Trump supporters are now taking Robert Mueller's office at their word about inaccuracies in the BuzzFeed report after attacking nearly every move that Mueller has made over the last year and a half. It's been an interesting night.

 

Fascinating indeed. I guess it was too much to have expected any consistency.

It really not that fascinating anymore.  Fake is just something they disagree with nothing more then that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ericttspikes said:

Victory! One of the laundry list of things a sitting president should be impeached for under the Constitution that Trump has committed might be totally or partially inaccurate. To celebrate Trump will intimidate witnesses on Twitter.

The United States has established precedent that suborning perjury and obstruction of justice do not warrant removal of office, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BobbyLayne said:

In the last 7 days:

  • NYT reported the FBI opened an inquiry into whether DJT was working for the Russians while he was the PotUS
  • CNN published excerpts of the FBI counsel James Baker Congressional interview in which he stated "if President Trump fired James Comey at the behest of the Russian government, that would unlawful and unconstitutional." Asked if that's what happened here, Baker responded "I don't know." An FBI lawyer cut off any further questions in that line of inquiry.
  • WaPo reported President Trump confiscated notes from his translator and refused to allow any U.S. official to know anything that was discussed in that meeting or any of the five meetings he has had with Putin
  • NYT reported Trump called a reporter at the Times after meeting Puting at the G20 Summit to let them know that "Russia was falsely accused of interfering with the US Elections in 2016." Russia was not falsely accused.
  • NYT reported Trump has wanted to pull out of NATO repeatedly over the past year.
  • Michael Cohen expressed fears for his family if he goes ahead with his Congressional testimony on February 7th.
  • It was reported Cohen was paid $50K to rig online polls in favor of Trump.
  • Buzzfeed reported Trump told Cohen to lie to Congress about the Trump Tower Moscow project.
  • SC issued a statement "BuzzFeed's description of specific statements to the Special Counsel's Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen's Congressional testimony are not accurate." NOTE: The Spec Counsel statement DOES NOT say the BF story is made up or all wrong. It says its inaccurate. That COULD MEAN... - its partly wrong - the source(s) lied - evidence of suborning perjury is not there.

The SC statement reminds me when the Trump crew high fives over a CNN firing 3 people over the process when their story ended up being true anyway.  Yet some kept calling it fake news.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, knowledge dropper said:

You probably missed a couple of months ago when the crew had their pitchforks out demanding the mods ban pro-Trump posters that quoted what they felt were fake news sources. 

BuzzFeed.  :lmao:

Link to that?  I think people stated that quoting things like conservative treehouse or CIS for immigration wouldn’t be taken seriously as they have shown their bias and lies.

Also note what the statement from Mueller actually says...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

- Basically OSC isn't leaking and no one speaks for what the OSC has except the OSC. That is whatever Mueller puts in the reports and indictments he submits is all that matters. 

I don’t understand how we get these headlines about what the SC is doing (ie: https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/07/26/politics/trump-twitter-mueller/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fduckduckgo.com%2F)without leaks from the OSC.  There’s been a lot of news stories like that 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

I don’t understand how we get these headlines about what the SC is doing (ie: https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/07/26/politics/trump-twitter-mueller/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fduckduckgo.com%2F)without leaks from the OSC.  There’s been a lot of news stories like that 

“citing three people briefed on the matter”

Now Google “Manafort’s lawyers relayed info about Mueller probe to WH”

rinse & repeat

not FROM the SC but folks who have been indicted / interviewed / investigated (or more likely, their lawyers)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

And that they ignore the 100s of stories that bury their guy in favor of the one (possible) mistake.

100s of stories proclaiming he is buried, 1000s of pages and posts swearing the same.  

Yet there he is.

Quote

It wasn’t until very much later that afternoon, that the boy sent to take over the shepherding from Peter found dead sheep’s bodies strewn all over the hillside, and Peter still up there in his tree, whimpering, that the villagers found out there really had been a wolf this time.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

I don’t understand how we get these headlines about what the SC is doing (ie: https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/07/26/politics/trump-twitter-mueller/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fduckduckgo.com%2F)without leaks from the OSC.  There’s been a lot of news stories like that 

What Bobby said, but typically there are a myriad of sources who deal with OSC who have their own agenda. Sometimes just consider that some subjects/targets are trying to provoke others, or the president, or other politicians R/D through the press. Sometimes they’re trying to provoke the press through the press.

I also know, and I said this somewhere in the long long ago, that the leak claims by Trumpites/GOP are very dangerous, and I don’t mean that just systematically . Leaks can scuttle an investigation. I am absolutely 100% positive that Mueller has known this since the beginning and acted to prevent it, because it would be a shortcut to easy victory by Trump, facts and law be damned. And I think that’s partly why Mueller acted here, the threat of the claim of an OSC leak was as big a problem as anything else that could have come out of this, like the early drive for impeachment by the Dems, spoiling Cohen as a witness, public credibility, etc.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Ignoramus said:

The point is that if even a single piece of evidence that was used to initiate an investigation is still considered circumspect, all of the crimes that are uncovered in that investigation "don't count."

@ren hoek, please correct me if I have this wrong.

I never said the crimes don’t count.  But I do think what’s happened has been blown way out of proportion.  People shouldn’t be talking about treason punishable by death.  Impeachable, sure, but there is nothing of substance that warrants this traitor talk, or for this thing to consume the country for as long as it has.  I agree with Tim on this- it’s gone on long enough. The country needs to move on from it one way or the other.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

I never said the crimes don’t count.  But I do think what’s happened has been blown way out of proportion.  People shouldn’t be talking about treason punishable by death.  Impeachable, sure, but there is nothing of substance that warrants this traitor talk, or for this thing to consume the country for as long as it has.  I agree with Tim on this- it’s gone on long enough. The country needs to move on from it one way or the other.  

Just curious where your line is. Do you think W/Cheney and the gang deserved some justice? If so, what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Mr. Ham said:

Unlike ANY other spokesperson for a Western democracy, Sanders lies routinely to the people she is supposed to serve.

If you want to claim some minor victory, fine. You’ve completely lost the plot. 

My post was simply in regard to the silly quote you made that claimed there was no denial, and implied the ability to "read" the response.

Only there was, in fact, a denial.

There is no victory here, and the regulars in this thread seem to have a hard time differentiating those of us who are simply mocking this farse of an "investigation" from those supporting Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

I never said the crimes don’t count.  But I do think what’s happened has been blown way out of proportion.  People shouldn’t be talking about treason punishable by death.  Impeachable, sure, but there is nothing of substance that warrants this traitor talk, or for this thing to consume the country for as long as it has.  I agree with Tim on this- it’s gone on long enough. The country needs to move on from it one way or the other.  

Glad you’ve finally gotten to here. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, knowledge dropper said:

George Costanza: Jerry, just remember, it’s not a lie if you believe it.

A lot of Costanza’s in here this morning.  

Maybe but what we know for sure, Trump supporter have owned this for 2 years now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, matuski said:

My post was simply in regard to the silly quote you made that claimed there was no denial, and implied the ability to "read" the response.

Only there was, in fact, a denial.

There is no victory here, and the regulars in this thread seem to have a hard time differentiating those of us who are simply mocking this farse of an "investigation" from those supporting Trump.

The investigation is not a farce and saying that shows your bias and well...disregard for the facts.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/17/2019 at 5:07 PM, squistion said:

Anastasia Vashukevich, the model from Belarus who claimed to have recordings involving Oleg Deripaska that she said would shed light on the Trump campaign's ties to Russia, has been detained at a Moscow airport on prostitution allegations, WaPo reports.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/model-who-claimed-us-russian-collusion-tape-arrested-in-moscow-on-prostitution-charges/2019/01/17/97a65db2-1a66-11e9-b8e6-567190c2fd08_story.html

 

On 1/17/2019 at 5:23 PM, Mr. Ham said:

That’s actually terrifying.  If there’s one precedent the Kremlin is going to set definitively, it’s in what happens to a whore who talks about an oligarch’s private dealings.  

Is this the sex therapist/ escort in Thailand who claimed Drumpf totally colluded with the Russians?

:lol:

Terrifying

:lmao:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr. Ham said:

I don’t care what she claimed. She betrayed the confidence of an oligarch and was dragged from the airport by thugs to what is almost assuredly torture and death.  Yes - that’s terrifying. (I don’t understand your laughing at it).  

Sure you do...I mean you don’t understand the mentality and wouldn’t do such a thing, but you understand him laughing at it and his purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have the time to go through the last 10 pages and call out the poor suckers who got dick slapped yet again by the fake news. You know who you are. Some of you are even doubling down on the lunacy on this page even after Honest Bob told you that BuzzFeed is full of ####. 

Sad!

I know it is hard to look yourself in the eye and admit you have been lied to for so long. The ego is a bad #####.

In case you were wondering how the rest of the world saw what happened yesterday, my gb bamarep put it very nicely here

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Mr. Ham said:

Let’s be honest.  Trump and Sanders have no credibility.  The point of the post I think you’re referring to is that Trump intimidated the witness on Twitter, which is telling.  Typically, that isn’t necessary if you’re innocent and disconcerned.

Can you clarify what you mean by the investigation being a farce?  (There are 35 indictments and counting).

I claimed neither.

You quoted a tweet that they could read the response.. that there was no denial.  I was simply pointing out that there was a denial.  Not the validity or credibility of it, just the factual existence of a denial your quote claimed wasn't there (and then made inferences on).

The 35 indictments are indicative of the size net that has now been cast.  I have predicted from the beginning that this would be the left's claim to victory, collateral damage  - you won't get Trump but will celebrate the validity of this mess because you got so many people around him.  The right will claim victory because Trump is still standing.

And in the end - a farce.  

Edited by matuski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, matuski said:

I claimed neither.

You quoted a tweet that they could read the response.. that there was no denial.  I was simply pointing out that there was a denial.  Not the validity or credibility of it, just the factual existence of a denial your quote claimed wasn't there (and then made inferences on).

The 35 indictments are indicative of the size net that has now been cast.  I have predicted from the beginning that this would be the left's claim to victory, collateral damage  - you won't get Trump but will celebrate the validity of this mess because you got so many people around him.  The right will claim victory because Trump is still standing.

And in the end - a farce.  

His campaign manager gave GOP political targeting data to an ex GRU Russian who is Deripaska’s right hand man. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Mr. Ham said:

I don’t care what she claimed. She betrayed the confidence of an oligarch and was dragged from the airport by thugs to what is almost assuredly torture and death.  Yes - that’s terrifying. (I don’t understand your laughing at it).  

Sounds similar to what the FBI did to Papadapolous. Remember when they laid in wait at the DC airport and dragged him away as soon as he stepped off the plane?

Was that terrifying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Henry Ford said:

His campaign manager gave GOP political targeting data to an ex GRU Russian who is Deripaska’s right hand man. 

Hillary Clinton gave millions to a foreign agent who worked directly with the Kremlin to affect the US election and spy on an opponent.

But muh polling data.

Crickets.

Link to comment
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   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...