US Politics The Mueller Investigation - report is out

[Sturnam]

The dossier was comprised of uncorroborated rumors. Buzzfeed were the only news outlet dumb enough to publish it and now they're being sued by some Russians.
And why are crimes Manafort committed a decade ago with Democrats relevant to Trump today?

I agree with you; Buzzfeed is built on clickbait (IME), and this was obviously gold as far as clickbait is concerned. I think it is somewhat telling that even after Buzzfeed published the full dossier, no other news organizations (that I know of) have published the dossier, including those 'fake news' outlets CNN and MSNBC.

On the second point, the crimes Manafort is accused of aren't necessarily relevant to Trump. They might be, but given the available evidence I would say that there's nothing that concretely connects his crimes and Trump. Now, there are some 'could-be' and 'what-if' links that could be conspiracy-theory'd into evidence, but nothing that I consider real evidence.

As far as I'm aware, he's been caught up in this because he was associated with Trump's campaign, and it appears that some shady shit went down in his past. Even if he is convicted of these crimes, it doesn't necessarily say anything about Trump's guilt or involvement.

The Mueller witch hunt is reaching new heights. With the 12 Russians indicted today, the corrupt Mueller team has now indicted 31 individuals and 3 companies, with more than 80% of the indictments related to Russians who we really don?t even know if they are real or whether they did anything to interfere in our 2016 election. These indictments today only diminish the validity of the ?witch hunt? by adding more ?fake indictments? to the already pitiful list.

I'm guessing you agree with this statement? It seems you have already made up your mind about this investigation and its legitimacy. Do you believe that every member of Mueller's team is corrupt? They are:

Michael Dreeben
Andrew Weissmann
Jeannie Rhee
James L. Quarles
Aaron Zebley
Greg Andres
Zainab Ahmad
Aaron Zelinsky
Kyle Freeny
Andrew Goldstein
Elizabeth Prelogar
Brandon Van Grack
Adam Jed
Scott Meisler
Rush Atkinson
Brian Richardson
Ryan Dickey
Uzo Asonye

I used wikipedia as a link for these individuals where possible, to be as 'neutral' as possible.

 

[JGrimez]

I think it is somewhat telling that even after Buzzfeed published the full dossier, no other news organizations (that I know of) have published the dossier, including those 'fake news' outlets CNN and MSNBC.

Also telling that the first FISA surveillance warrant application against Trump's team was denied (from a a court that has denied only 12 out of 37,000+ applications in its existence).
The team then came back with the uncorroborated dossier and used that to get a warrant. Literally worse than Watergate.

On the second point, the crimes Manafort is accused of aren't necessarily relevant to Trump. They might be, but given the available evidence I would say that there's nothing that concretely connects his crimes and Trump. Now, there are some 'could-be' and 'what-if' links that could be conspiracy-theory'd into evidence, but nothing that I consider real evidence.
As far as I'm aware, he's been caught up in this because he was associated with Trump's campaign, and it appears that some shady shit went down in his past. Even if he is convicted of these crimes, it doesn't necessarily say anything about Trump's guilt or involvement.

I'm guessing you agree with this statement? It seems you have already made up your mind about this investigation and its legitimacy. Do you believe that every member of Mueller's team is corrupt? They are:

Naming them proves what? Yes they could all be corrupt. Or they just could be doing their jobs but following directions from a corrupt boss.
When you look at evidence of who is guilty of what, we can see how these criminals are attempting to cover for each other.
A whole bunch of them are at risk of being completely exposed.

Did anyone watch the Peter Strzok hearing? How all the Democrats were continuously interrupting and obstructing the questioning.
Why are they trying to protect this guy?

 

[JGrimez]

REPORT: House Conservatives Prepare to Impeach Rosenstein as Soon as Monday
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...ring-to-impeach-rosenstein-as-soon-as-monday/

House GOP lawmakers are preparing to push to impeach Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein as soon as Monday, according to three conservative Capitol Hill sources.

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows previously drafted the impeachment documents, however nothing has been filed yet.

GOP Congressmen are fed up with Rosenstein?s continued stonewalling of their probe of the FBI?s and DOJ?s corruption, Spygate and Russiagate during the 2016 election.
Politico reported:

House conservatives are preparing a new push to oust Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, according to three conservative Capitol Hill sources ? putting the finishing touches on an impeachment filing even as Rosenstein announced the indictment of 12 Russian intelligence officers for interfering in the 2016 election.

House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows, in fact, had the impeachment document on the floor of the House at the very moment that Rosenstein spoke to reporters and TV cameras Friday.

Conservative sources say they could file the impeachment document as soon as Monday, as Meadows and Freedom Caucus founder Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) look to build Republican support in the House. One source cautioned, however, that the timing was still fluid.

?It has not been filed today,? was all Meadows spokesman Ben Williamson would say. Williamson declined to rule out whether Meadows intended to file the document next week.

Republicans could also try to hold Rosenstein in contempt of Congress, if they want to go a step before impeachment.

​

Does it matter that the top brass of the FBI that started the investigation against Trump are all getting fired or charged with something?

 

[PriestTheyCalledHim]

Russia invaded Crimea. The Ukrainians don?t want to be Russian citizens.

Do you know anyone who actually is from Crimea? Any Ukrainians, or Russians? Or other people from Eastern Europe, former Soviet countries, or any Slavic people? I do not mean people who are Ukrainian-American or Russian-American who cannot and do not want to speak, read, or write a word of either either Russian, Ukrainian, or other Slavic languages. Or know the history of Crimea? Despite the faux concern of North American governments and the UN, Crimea been Russian, both culturally, and as a part of Russia and the former Soviet Union, for centuries.

Thanks God it's the 21st century and we're living in civilized world. I suggest you to visit Crimea or talk to people who are from the Ukraine, Russia, or Crimea, and ask people living there about it. 99% of them will answer you they go with Russia and this is what they voted for on the referendum, and they would still gladly vote this way today. Nobody actually cares about what officials of the United States, or the failed experiments known as the UN and European Union think about how they claim it is a violation of human rights or other nonsense.

Crimea belongs to Crimean people, who voted to join Russia in a legitimate referendum, and hence, now Crimea is Russian. Crimeans never considered their transfer to Ukraine anything else but an administrative adjustment.

Both ethnic Russians and Ukrainians, and mixtures of both ethnicities in Crimea are fine with being a part of Russia or considered Russian culturally.

 

[Sturnam]

Naming them proves what? Yes they could all be corrupt. Or they just could be doing their jobs but following directions from a corrupt boss.
When you look at evidence of who is guilty of what, we can see how these criminals are attempting to cover for each other.
A whole bunch of them are at risk of being completely exposed.

Naming them doesn't prove anything; it's not supposed to. The purpose was to illustrate that there's a large number of investigators, and most of them have long and distinguished careers. While not impossible, it seems unlikely to me that all of them would purposefully engage in such a high profile fraudulent inestigation. Shit, some of them are known for their careers prosecuting fraud. Likewise, they do not seem like the type to have the wool pulled over their eyes.

Now, if they end their investigation and say, "Trump is innocent", I'll believe them. I have faith that they will do their job, and that if the evidence fails to convincing implicate Trump they will be honest in their assessment of that.

 

[swilow]

I would agree Sturnam. I think reflexively doubting the integrity of those in power, simply because they are in power, isn't a viable method to attaining truth. At some point, you need to step back and assess the trustworthiness of these investigators, and the only way is to examine their preceding careers.

 

[JGrimez]

I would agree Sturnam. I think reflexively doubting the integrity of those in power, simply because they are in power, isn't a viable method to attaining truth. At some point, you need to step back and assess the trustworthiness of these investigators, and the only way is to examine their preceding careers.

Comey - disgraced and fired
McCabe - disgraced and fired
Rosenstein - refusing to cooperate with Congress and facing imminent impeachment.

Peter Strzok - didn't follow the law during a previous investigation. Showed massive anti-Trump bias in private comms. Currently being grilled.

Robert Mueller - was director of the FBI when Russians were engaging in bribery and extortion to co-opt a uranium transport company.
So Mueller either didn't inform Obama/Clinton of those crimes before the U1 deal went through, or he was complicit in the deal (far more likely)

Considering all this Swilow your comment doesn't make sense. Do you consider all of this is false, irrelevant or are you just ignoring it?


“Foreign entity, NOT RUSSIA” hacked Hillary Clinton’s emails (Video)
http://theduran.com/foreign-entity-not-russia-hacked-hillary-clintons-emails-video/

A stunning revelation that hardly anyone in the mainstream media is covering.

Fox News gave Louie Gohmert (R-Tx) the opportunity to explain what was going on during his questioning of Peter Strzok, when the the Texas Congressman stated that a “foreign entity, NOT RUSSIA” hacked Hillary Clinton’s emails.

Aside from this segment on Fox News, this story is not getting any coverage, and we know why. It destroys the entire ‘Russia hacked Hillary’ narrative.

Gohmert states that this evidence is irrefutable and shows that a foreign actor, not connected to Russia in any way, intercepted and distributed Hillary Clinton’s cache of 30,000 emails.

As we sift through the ashes of Thursday’s dumpster-fire Congressional hearing with still employed FBI agent Peter Strzok, Luke Rosiak of the Daily Caller plucked out a key exchange between Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tx) and Strzok which revealed a yet-unknown bombshell about the Clinton email case.

Nearly all of Hillary Clinton’s emails on her homebrew server went to a foreign entity that isn’t Russia. When this was discovered by the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG), IG Chuck McCullough sent his investigator Frank Ruckner and an attorney to notify Strzok along with three other people about the “anomaly.”

Four separate attempts were also made to notify DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz to brief him on the massive security breach, however Horowitz “never returned the call.” Recall that Horowitz concluded last month that despite Strzok’s extreme bias towards Hillary Clinton and against Donald Trump – none of it translated to Strzok’s work at the FBI.
In other words; Strzok, while investigating Clinton’s email server, completely ignored the fact that most of Clinton’s emails were sent to a foreign entity – while IG Horowitz simply didn’t want to know about it.​

​

Daily Caller reports…

The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) found an “anomaly on Hillary Clinton’s emails going through their private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except four, over 30,000, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list,” Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas said during a hearing with FBI official Peter Strzok.​

​

​

 

[spacejunk]

Thanks God it's the 21st century and we're living in civilized world. I suggest you to visit Crimea or talk to people who are from the Ukraine, Russia, or Crimea, and ask people living there about it. 99% of them will answer you they go with Russia and this is what they voted for on the referendum, and they would still gladly vote this way today. Nobody actually cares about what officials of the United States, or the failed experiments known as the UN and European Union think about how they claim it is a violation of human rights or other nonsense.

"Failed experiment known as the UN"?

As for the bit i've bolded here - do you have an sources for this "99%" claim?

I'm not sure what purpose is served by outright denying the military annexation of crimea, but it seems as though you are either unwittingly, or deliberately, pushing a false narrative.

If it is the latter, i'm sort of curious why

 

[swilow]

Comey - disgraced and fired
McCabe - disgraced and fired
Rosenstein - refusing to cooperate with Congress and facing imminent impeachment.

Peter Strzok - didn't follow the law during a previous investigation. Showed massive anti-Trump bias in private comms. Currently being grilled.

Robert Mueller - was director of the FBI when Russians were engaging in bribery and extortion to co-opt a uranium transport company.
So Mueller either didn't inform Obama/Clinton of those crimes before the U1 deal went through, or he was complicit in the deal (far more likely)

Considering all this Swilow your comment doesn't make sense. Do you consider all of this is false, irrelevant or are you just ignoring it?]

Its a red herring to mention the people "disgraced" and "fired" by the guy being investigated. It doesn't mean much.

Is Comey an investigator for Mueller?

Anti-Trump bias is a pretty broad statement. Not sure it means much though.

Your statement about Mueller seems more like something the Russians did. So Russian actions should condemn Mueller but NOT Trump?

 

[Captain.Heroin]

I really hope Comey ends up in prison too. Probably won't, though.

 

[spacejunk]

"Anti-trump bias" must refer to respect for democracy and integrity.

If someone is "biased" against fascistic, criminal administrations like trump's, it's not always a bad thing.

FBI agents are supposed to monitor criminals - that's their job

If FBI agents "showed massive anti-trump bias in private comms" - what exactly is the problem?

They didn't prevent the russian mafia candidate from winning the election - and if trump or his supporters have a problem with people hating that vapid, hateful gasbag - that's tough.

If you are suggesting that he doesn't have a right to privately criticise trump, you are wrong.

I think trump fans need to realise that if they're going to lob around claims of corruption, it would probably be wise to take a good hard look at their own candidate - he's shamelessly corrupt - yet he won the presidency.

Maybe consider holding off on crying about the FBI targeting trump - because i think they're just getting started.
Personally, i wish them all the best - i really hope they destroy trump and his racist kleptocrat administration.

Given how long mueller's investigation seems to be going on for, i expect there are still many revelations to come - and many more charges.

 

[swilow]

I'm not a huge fan, he seems like a blowhard. I feel like he might want a spot on the big chair one day.

 

[quiet roar]

The Strzok comms were pretty bad. It's ok for us to feel that way but an officer of the law should be above that.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

The Strzok comms were pretty bad. It's ok for us to feel that way but an officer of the law should be above that.

They were jocular comments. I didn't see the harm in it. The R's will fuss about anything and everything.

 

[spacejunk]

I have a close acquaintance who works for the US state department.
He's been a diplomat for over 20 years, and he's become very apolitical as his career has progressed - as is expected in his profession.

It used to drive me nuts, because this guy who used to seem quite politically sophisticated grew into a guy that would publically - and privately - support the government of the day.

Anyway, when trump came along, that changed. The way trump is conducting himself, and (more importantly) the things he is doing in office (deconstructing and deliberately destroying lots of government institutions.

He's not "draining the swamp" - he's sabotaging government support of things related to science and environmental regulation and education - and he is moving towards a more aggressive global stance; increasing military spending, but destroying diplomatic efforts (both personally and by firing ambassadors, gutting the state department).

Lots of career diplomats have left the state department (or been fired by trump) - and from what i hear, many more are also planning to leave.

It's easy to get sucked into trump's distraction efforts - or to be so sick of them you just stop paying attention - but trump is causing a shitload of damage. Don't be fooled by all the bullshit.

I really don't care so much about trump's crass personality - but i'm disturbed by a lot of the stuff he's doing politically - both inside america and with regards to the rest of the world too..

I'm sure that like the people i know who work for the US government - who support republican and democrats alike normally - strzok was expressing sentiments that are totally reasonable - that this guy is going to be a disasterous president.

He has been a disasterous president - he's creating a lot of really fucked up problems, from trade wars and showing public support for dictators (north korea, philippines, saudi arabia, russia) and been hostile and infantile in dealing with allies from western democracies - and he's divided his people like no president in living memory.

I think it's a bit rich to complain about federal government employees expressing political views in private.

In any case, if the FBI was somehow dedicated to preventing trump from winning, they didn't succeed.

Personally i think this is a beat-up to try to distract from - or turn public opinion against - the russia probe, and just another cheap stunt which has backfired on trump, because all of his desperate efforts to shut down this "witch hunt" only make him look more guilty.

 

[JGrimez]

Do we all know what the FBI's role is and what they should/shouldn't be doing when it comes to playing politics?

Its a red herring to mention the people "disgraced" and "fired" by the guy being investigated. It doesn't mean much.

You made two mistakes in one sentence. It is in fact important to mention if investigators were breaking the law themselves.
There were already grounds to fire Comey before Trump (for mishandling a previous investigation and obstructing justice), but then there was even more provable crimes like willingly leaking classified information to the press (and perjury iirc). So in that case the superior to the FBI Director had grounds for dismissal. Your insinuation of bias doesn't change the facts of Comey breaking laws.

With McCabe it wasn't even Trump, he was ordered to be fired by The Justice Department "after determining that he lied to investigators reviewing the bureau?s probe of Hillary Clinton?s email server."

Is Comey an investigator for Mueller?

They're on the same team. Their relationship is worth looking into and goes back to the early 90's.

"Since May 2017, the investigation has been led by a United States Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, a former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Mueller's investigation took over several FBI investigations..."

"Former FBI boss James Comey talked with mentor and close friend Robert Mueller within hours after he was fired by President Trump, according to Bureau insiders with direct knowledge of the correspondences."

Mueller was appointed U.S. Special Counsel by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein - who is currently on the brink of impeachment for failing to turn over files to Congress, files that will probably incriminate himself and many others. Why else refuse to do one's job and risk impeachment?

Anti-Trump bias is a pretty broad statement. Not sure it means much hough.

I'm going to get to this later because it's complicated. The recovered texts are important and tell us a lot.

Your statement about Mueller seems more like something the Russians did. So Russian actions should condemn Mueller but NOT Trump?

If a chief of police (Mueller) comes across a group of Russian organized crime gangsters loading contraband onto a truck and then does nothing who's at fault? Yes of course the Russian criminals for committing the crime, but the police chief has not performed his duties entrusted in him by the people, and he even may be at risk of criminal prosecution for negligent behavior.
Now that's one possibility but the least plausible, that the entire FBI incl. Mueller were simply dumb incompetents.

Other explanations: Mueller found evidence of Russian crime but was instructed by corrupt higher-ups in the govt to turn a blind eye. If this is the case then we need to go higher to the DOJ, Clinton, Obama etc.

or - Mueller was in on the shady deal with Clinton/Obama, and is now after Trump so that he himself is not investigated for actual Russian collusion (how's that for a twist?).
Remember that around the time Mueller's FBI was ignoring a Russian takeover of a uranium transport company, the Clinton Foundation received $145 million (undeclared) from Russians connected to the deal which handed over 20% of US uranium to Russia, which they were not allowed to export. The reason they were able to smuggle yellowcake uranium out of the US to Canada/Europe was because Mueller didn't do his job.

So this guy Bob Mueller that we know was involved directly or indirectly in Russian collusion, we are trusting to investigate Russian collusion..... which also we don't have any solid evidence of yet. Does nobody see a conflict of interest here?

What about a hypothetical: if it is in fact true that the entire top level of the FBI were crooked cops, does that tar the Trump investigation? Should they begin again?

 

[JGrimez]

I have a close acquaintance who works for the US state department.

If all that was true then that acquaintance is knowingly or unknowingly part of the swamp.
I also find it surprising that you'd defend the US State Dept, of all institutions.

I'm sure that like the people i know who work for the US government - who support republican and democrats alike normally - strzok was expressing sentiments that are totally reasonable - that this guy is going to be a disasterous president.

Instead of assuming, can you state that your government contacts completely agreed with the conduct of Peter Strzok?
And it wasn't just complaining about Trump being a disaster, it was interfering in an election and weaponizing the FBI in order to target a presidential candidate.
You may say that the ends justify the means but it doesn't work that way we have laws.

showing public support for dictators (north korea

You actually did it. You spun the de-escalation of tensions in the Korea peninsula as a negative.
If I'm trying to talk a crazy guy with a knife down from stabbing hostages and I tell him that he's a good person, would you hassle me about that after?

In any case, if the FBI was somehow dedicated to preventing trump from winning, they didn't succeed.

That's why they're all getting fired and investigated. If Clinton had won or they'd managed to remove Trump then all of this would have been covered up. Unfortunately Trump won and that has shone a massive light on the corruption in the highest levels of the government, and it ain't pretty.

 

[spacejunk]

Trump will not be vindicated. He will be remembered for being a criminal president.

It's not too late to get on the right side of history.

 

[pharmakos]

Do you know anyone who actually is from Crimea? Any Ukrainians, or Russians? Or other people from Eastern Europe, former Soviet countries, or any Slavic people? I do not mean people who are Ukrainian-American or Russian-American who cannot and do not want to speak, read, or write a word of either either Russian, Ukrainian, or other Slavic languages. Or know the history of Crimea? Despite the faux concern of North American governments and the UN, Crimea been Russian, both culturally, and as a part of Russia and the former Soviet Union, for centuries.

Thanks God it's the 21st century and we're living in civilized world. I suggest you to visit Crimea or talk to people who are from the Ukraine, Russia, or Crimea, and ask people living there about it. 99% of them will answer you they go with Russia and this is what they voted for on the referendum, and they would still gladly vote this way today. Nobody actually cares about what officials of the United States, or the failed experiments known as the UN and European Union think about how they claim it is a violation of human rights or other nonsense.

Crimea belongs to Crimean people, who voted to join Russia in a legitimate referendum, and hence, now Crimea is Russian. Crimeans never considered their transfer to Ukraine anything else but an administrative adjustment.

Both ethnic Russians and Ukrainians, and mixtures of both ethnicities in Crimea are fine with being a part of Russia or considered Russian culturally.

The one Ukranian guy I know (met him in chemotherapy) is anti-Russia.

 

[Sturnam]

You actually did it. You spun the de-escalation of tensions in the Korea peninsula as a negative.
If I'm trying to talk a crazy guy with a knife down from stabbing hostages and I tell him that he's a good person, would you hassle me about that after?

I think it's fair to hassle you if you profusely compliment the crazy guy and he still doesn't release the hostages. My understanding is that it's normal to want to get something in return for giving in to the crazy guy's demands.

Speaking of which, how's that North Korea thing going? I think I recall you saying something along the lines of "Enjoy the show. The deal's already been made." about the North Korea talks.

Do we have an idea what this deal is? Do we know what we're getting?