Mueller's Russian Interference investigation

**Humbert** · 01-04-2019, 08:25 PM

Originally Posted by Klondyke

Are the ones who believe in the flat Earth included in the polls?
Are the ones who believe in the 9/11 included in the polls?
Are the ones who believe what the heavenly-minded G.W. told them about Saddam role in 9/11 and WMD included in the polls?
Are the ones who believe in US election meddling included in the polls?
Are the ones who believe what the TV preachers tell them whom to believe included in the polls?
In that case I will believe all that jazz either...

Incomprehensible broken English drivel in search of a point.

**harrybarracuda** · 01-04-2019, 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by Humbert

Incomprehensible broken English drivel in search of a point.

In a world of his own that boy.......

**barbaro** · 01-04-2019, 10:57 PM

Originally Posted by bsnub

How anyone can read this and not agree that the Trump campaign colluded with Russian allies/assets is truly mind blowing.
There is no other explanation other than they're brainwashed and/or stupid...

“My colleagues might think it’s OK that the Russians offered dirt on the Democratic candidate for president as part of what’s described as the Russian government’s effort to help the Trump campaign. You might think that’s OK.

“My colleagues might think it’s OK that when that was offered to the son of the president, who had a pivotal role in the campaign, that the president’s son did not call the FBI; he did not adamantly refuse that foreign help – no, instead that son said that he would ‘love’ the help with the Russians.

“You might think it’s OK that he took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that Paul Manafort, the campaign chair, someone with great experience running campaigns, also took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law also took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that they concealed it from the public. You might think it’s OK that their only disappointment after that meeting was that the dirt they received on Hillary Clinton wasn’t better. You might think that’s OK.

“You might think it’s OK that when it was discovered, a year later, that they then lied about that meeting and said that it was about adoptions. You might think that it’s OK that it was reported that the president helped dictate that lie. You might think that’s OK. I don’t.

“You might think it’s OK that the campaign chairman of a presidential campaign would offer information about that campaign to a Russian oligarch in exchange for money or debt forgiveness. You might think that’s OK, I don’t.

“You might think it’s OK that that campaign chairman offered polling data to someone linked to Russian intelligence. I don’t think that’s OK.

“You might think it’s OK that the president himself called on Russia to hack his opponent’s emails, if they were listening. You might think it’s OK that later that day, in fact, the Russians attempted to hack a server affiliated with that campaign. I don’t think that’s OK.

“You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law sought to establish a secret back channel of communication with the Russians through a Russian diplomatic facility. I don’t think that’s OK.

“You might think it’s OK that an associate of the president made direct contact with the GRU through Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks, that is considered a hostile intelligence agency. You might think it’s OK that a senior campaign official was instructed to reach that associate and find out what that hostile intelligence agency had to say in terms of dirt on his opponent.

“You might think it’s OK that the national security adviser designate secretly conferred with the Russian ambassador about undermining U.S. sanctions, and you might think it’s OK that he lied about it to the FBI.

“You might say that’s all OK, that’s just what you need to do to win. But I don’t think it’s OK. I don’t think it’s OK. I think it’s immoral, I think it’s unethical, I think it’s unpatriotic and, yes, I think it’s corrupt – and evidence of collusion.”

“Now I have always said that the question of whether this amounts to proof of conspiracy was another matter. Whether the special counsel could prove beyond a reasonable doubt the proof of that crime would be up to the special counsel, and I would accept his decision, and I do. He’s a good and honorable man, and he is a good prosecutor.

“But I do not think that conduct, criminal or not, is OK. And the day we do think that’s OK is the day we will look back and say that is the day that America lost its way.”

“And I will tell you one more thing that is apropos of the hearing today: I don’t think it’s OK that during a presidential campaign Mr. Trump sought the Kremlin’s help to consummate a real estate deal in Moscow that would make him a fortune – according to the special counsel, hundreds of millions of dollars. I don’t think it’s OK to conceal it from the public. I don’t think it’s OK that he advocated a new and more favorable policy towards the Russians even as he was seeking the Russians’ help, the Kremlin’s help to make money. I don’t think it’s OK that his attorney lied to our committee. There is a different word for that than collusion, and it’s called ‘compromise.’

“And that is the subject of our hearing today.”

Under partisan fire, Adam Schiff presents his case without apology | MSNBC

link to actual c-span video about 5 minutes

Maddow is your secondary source. C-span also.

Voters changed their vote because of this? Which is, false

You are a lap-dog.

It didn't happen; it didn't cause voters to change their mind.

**Humbert** · 02-04-2019, 06:51 AM

Originally Posted by barbaro

Maddow is your secondary source. C-span also.

Barbaro, you're a funny little troll. Are you denying that this happened?

Originally Posted by barbaro

Voters changed their vote because of this? Which is, false

Was there a recent election that we all missed?

**AntRobertson** · 02-04-2019, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by barbaro

You are a lap-dog.

Did Smeg send you here to post that?

**bsnub** · 02-04-2019, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by barbaro

Maddow is your secondary source. C-span also.

You imbecile that is a direct transcript of the speech that Schiff gave. Fuck off back to NTD you multi nicking retard.

**misskit** · 04-04-2019, 07:04 PM

After two years of keeping schtum, Mueller’s underlings are starting to leak. And, it ain’t good for Trump.

Mueller’s Team Gathered ‘Alarming’ Trump Obstruction Evidence: Washington Post

The Washington Post has backed up the New York Times report from late Wednesday that some members of Robert Mueller’s team have said the special counsel report is much worse for the president than was suggested by Attorney General William Barr.

In its report, the Post goes a step further, claiming some members of Mueller’s team have complained to close associates that they gathered “alarming and significant” evidence of obstruction by President Trump. “It was much more acute than Barr suggested,” one source is reported to have said.

In his summary, Barr said that the special counsel did not establish evidence for a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, and said that Mueller didn’t conclude “one way or the other” as to whether Trump’s conduct in office constituted obstruction of justice.

Barr also said that he concluded the evidence was not sufficient to prove obstruction. “There was immediate displeasure from the team when they saw how the attorney general had characterized their work,” said one official.

Summaries were reportedly prepared for different sections of the report, which Mueller’s team thought could be released immediately without redaction.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/muelle...ashington-post

**bsnub** · 04-04-2019, 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by misskit

“There was immediate displeasure from the team when they saw how the attorney general had characterized their work,” said one official.

I knew it...

**misskit** · 04-04-2019, 08:54 PM

That article is continued. The original NYT story is an interesting read also.

“Summaries were reportedly prepared for different sections of the report, which Mueller’s team thought could be released immediately without redaction.”

**bowie** · 04-04-2019, 09:22 PM

Now, let’s see if I get this right.

For the past couple of years we’ve been hearing about how meticulous, comprehensive, unwavering, focused, detailed and basically “impeccable” Special Investigator Mueller is, after all, ‘tis why it’s taken so long for his report to come out. And, don't forget, once it comes out Jared, Ivanka and Don'll be in striped shirts and handcuff ensembles.

Now it’s out – hmm... “no smoking gun” – so now we’re hearing about how he musta overlooked something and the full report has to be released. Going to subpoena the report to find out just where the impeccable Mueller fcuked up. Gonna get to the bottom of this…

Hmm… congress ever gonna get back to work and do their job –ya know – improve the country – or they gonna spend the entire four years of Trumps first term “Investigating” him, tryin’ to figure out just how Hill lost –by the way, Hill lost because she deserved to. Just like Romney and McCain. They’re all their own worst enemies.

Now, of course, after they find nothing in Mueller’s report they’ll be subpoenaing his, and all the many investigators “notes” to find the “smoking gun” that was accidentally overlooked.

**misskit** · 04-04-2019, 09:34 PM

^ The real problem is, we have not seen what is in the Mueller report. We have only a “summary “ provided by Barr, who is a Trump political appointee. Barr is the one who told us there is nothing to see here.

The people who wrote the actual report are saying Barr has lied to us.

They had a report prepared with redactions for public release. It didn’t get released.

**raycarey** · 04-04-2019, 10:02 PM

Originally Posted by bowie

Now it’s out

except it's not.

trump's hand picked AG (who auditioned for the job) wrote a summary that included only four incomplete sentences taken directly from the mueller report....that's what's "out".

Originally Posted by bowie

Now, let’s see if I get this right.

so...no, you didn't get it right.
at all.

**OhOh** · 04-04-2019, 10:35 PM

Is the USS Ship of Fools Taking on Water?

Mueller's Russian Interference investigation-ship-u00252bof-u00252bfools-jpg

"It certainly appears to be doing so, and the rate is accelerating. Having spent the last three weeks at an undisclosed location away from the internet has allowed me to observe the increase in its rate of sinkage. There was wifi at the airport and I downloaded three weeks' worth of articles, which I read on the long flight back to civilization. What I read came as a bit of a shock, especially after three weeks of nothing but surf, sea birds, crabs scampering about and lots of happy, friendly people who couldn't possibly care any less about the US.

For some time people have been telling me that I should watch the movie Idiocracy because it shows what the US is turning into. Well, I am not sure that a move about idiocy can avoid being idiotic, so I'll pass, but there is a definite increase in the level of stupidity displayed by those who are part of the US establishment. This shouldn't come as a surprise; after all, why would anyone possessed of wisdom and integrity want to have anything to do with it by this time? Points of extreme stupidity—so stupid it hurts to watch—are all around us at the moment. Let me point out a few important ones.

While I was busy twinkling my toes in the azure waters, special investigator Robert Mueller finally released his report. He had left no stupid stone unturned, but failed to accomplish his assigned task, which was to prove that Trump had colluded with Russia. In his report he claimed that although he found no evidence of collusion or obstruction of justice, his report does not exonerate Trump. Note these two points of extreme stupidity. First point: if there was no collusion, there was no crime, and no course of justice to obstruct. Second point: if, as Mueller admits, no crime has been committed, there is nothing to exonerate Trump from.

The Democrats, who have been hoping to impeach Trump on the basis of Mueller's report, should perhaps take hope in the fact that Mueller has turned out to be so incompetent that he can't understand such basics of his profession; perhaps there was collusion after all, but Mueller was too stupid to find evidence of it. Or perhaps the Democrats should collapse in a paroxysm of despair, because Mueller was their best and last chance and now they look like idiots for believing in him.

Next in the stupids parade we have attorney general William Barr, who, in his summary of Mueller's report, uncritically accepted the claims that Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election did take place. What meddling was that?

There was a St. Petersburg troll farm run by somebody who was said to have once cooked for Putin. The trolls put up click-bait ads on social media. The scope of their operation was minuscule and most of their activity took place after the election, making the claim that they manipulated the election preposterous. Mueller's effort to prosecute them stalled out when their lawyers turned up in court and demanded to see the evidence. Mueller couldn't let that happen because it would have caused the entire courtroom to die laughing.

There was also the claim that Russian hackers hacked into an email server at the DNC, stole a bunch of emails showing an effort to rig the primaries against Bernie Sanders, and leaked them to Wikileaks. But there is evidence that these emails were not hacked but leaked by being copied to a thumb drive by somebody with physical access to the server.

Is Barr too stupid to realize the foolishness of his claims that "the Russians"—whatever that means—had manipulated the US election? Yes, it appears to be the case. With officials this stupid, how stupid was it for the Democrats to spend two years nurturing their dream of getting rid of Trump with their help?

And so Trump is here to stay. Is this where stupidity ends? No, of course not, for here we simply enter the next circle of stupidity. Trump dreams of "making America great again"; but is his dream stupid? Let's look at the results.

His idea was to renegotiate trade deals in America's favor and to repatriate manufacturing which had been offshored to low-wage countries around the world, slash the trade deficit and create lots of good jobs. Seems like a good plan, but let's step back for a moment and look at what the real issue is.

The real issue is that there is a massive imbalance in the US between what Americans produce and what Americans consume: they consume a lot more than they can afford.

One solution would be to slash consumption, but it makes up 70% of the economy, and doing so would shrink it, blowing up the already disproportionately large debt bubble and sending the US economy into deepest depression. This doesn't sound great at all.

Another solution would be to devalue the dollar through uncontrolled dollar emission. This would make American exports competitive with those of lower-wage countries. But this would undermine the US dollar as a reserve currency, cause US debt holders around the world to stampede toward the exits and result in a hyperinflationary shock that would send the US economy into deepest depression, again. This doesn't sound great either, but that was the plan floated by Trump's former advisor Steve Bannon. Perhaps Steve is a bit dense.

Yet another solution, proposed by William Dudley of the Federal Reserve, was to use fiscal methods to stimulate a rebirth of production within the US, and this is the one that Trump fell for and cut corporate taxes, allowing companies to repatriate their foreign earnings tax-free. Did this work? Of course not! Instead of investing in production, the companies used the money to buy back their own stocks, allowing their major stockholders to sell their shares profitably at public expense. Here is Alice Walton, 10% owner of Walmart, liquidating over 700 million of her stock in just the month of March.

We can be sure that Alice Walton won't be investing this 700 million in retail stocks. Was it stupid of Dudley and Trump to think that this plan would ever work? Apparently so.

And so here is where the plan to "make America great again" currently stands. The economy is tanking. The Federal Reserve can't pull it out of the nosedive by lowering interest rates because they are already too low. There is massive carnage in the retail sector and numerous US companies are about to go bankrupt. The once great General Electric has been kicked out of Down Jones and is busy selling its crown jewels to the Russians. What is there left to do?

Enter Janet Yellen, the former Federal Reserve chair, with a plan that is truly stunning in its stupidity. She proposes that the Federal Reserve intervene and start directly buying up corporate debt using newly printed money. Note how Yellen's plan beautifully combines the stupidity of Bannon's plan (pulling the rug out from under the US dollar) with the stupidity of Dudley's plan (giving corporations another chance to buy back their own shares so that their major shareholders can continue bailing out and making a profit at public expense). Here's a chart showing how well that's going even without Yellen's brilliant suggestion.

Mueller's Russian Interference investigation-corporate-u00252bdebt-png

Mueller's Russian Interference investigation-corporate-u00252bdebt-png

This dearth of non-stupid ideas leaves Trump bouncing around in his padded cell issuing stupid tweets such as the following: "Very important that OPEC increase the flow of Oil. World Markets are fragile, price of Oil getting too high. Thank you!" Meanwhile, he banned US heavy oil imports from Venezuela (needed to make diesel) while US light oil exports (from fracking) are running into problems because of low quality, investment in fracking has fallen off a cliff, and energy companies that are in the fracking business, most of which never made any money, are reporting that there is a shortage of productive new places to drill for oil. It is stupid to think that tweeting will fix any of these problems.

To summarize, this ship of fools is taking on water and all of the proposals voiced so far are stupid ones and amount to attempting to bail it out using a sieve. It's really nauseating to watch! It makes me want to fly back to that beach and there to subsist on coconut milk, fresh-caught fish and tropical fruit, and to never connect to the internet again.

But I'll suck it up and carry on as before. Tuesdays will still be freebie days, while on Thursdays I'll treat my faithful supporters to grand new visions. Coming up next: the human ethnosphere, as an evolutionary aspect of the biosphere—a topic I thoroughly reserached while lying on the beach. It holds the key to understanding the life cycle of nations, some of which are full of energy and drive while others are well past their prime and run by some manifestly stupid people. "

https://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2019/...-on-water.html

**harrybarracuda** · 04-04-2019, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by bowie

Now, let’s see if I get this right.

OK...

Now it’s out

So you didn't then.

**Maanaam** · 05-04-2019, 06:03 AM

Originally Posted by bowie

Hill lost because she deserved to.

No. She didn't deserve to lose to Trump. It is more accurate to say she didn't win because she didn't deserve to.

**Humbert** · 05-04-2019, 06:19 AM

Originally Posted by bowie

Now it’s out – hmm... “no smoking gun” – so now we’re hearing about how he musta overlooked something and the full report has to be released. Going to subpoena the report to find out just where the impeccable Mueller fcuked up. Gonna get to the bottom of this…

So you've bought in to the Fox News explanation of what is occuring instead of thinking rationally. Don't get too near your fan, you may develop brain cancer.

**RPETER65** · 05-04-2019, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by bsnub

How anyone can read this and not agree that the Trump campaign colluded with Russian allies/assets is truly mind blowing.
There is no other explanation other than they're brainwashed and/or stupid...

“My colleagues might think it’s OK that the Russians offered dirt on the Democratic candidate for president as part of what’s described as the Russian government’s effort to help the Trump campaign. You might think that’s OK.

“My colleagues might think it’s OK that when that was offered to the son of the president, who had a pivotal role in the campaign, that the president’s son did not call the FBI; he did not adamantly refuse that foreign help – no, instead that son said that he would ‘love’ the help with the Russians.

“You might think it’s OK that he took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that Paul Manafort, the campaign chair, someone with great experience running campaigns, also took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law also took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that they concealed it from the public. You might think it’s OK that their only disappointment after that meeting was that the dirt they received on Hillary Clinton wasn’t better. You might think that’s OK.

“You might think it’s OK that when it was discovered, a year later, that they then lied about that meeting and said that it was about adoptions. You might think that it’s OK that it was reported that the president helped dictate that lie. You might think that’s OK. I don’t.

“You might think it’s OK that the campaign chairman of a presidential campaign would offer information about that campaign to a Russian oligarch in exchange for money or debt forgiveness. You might think that’s OK, I don’t.

“You might think it’s OK that that campaign chairman offered polling data to someone linked to Russian intelligence. I don’t think that’s OK.

“You might think it’s OK that the president himself called on Russia to hack his opponent’s emails, if they were listening. You might think it’s OK that later that day, in fact, the Russians attempted to hack a server affiliated with that campaign. I don’t think that’s OK.

“You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law sought to establish a secret back channel of communication with the Russians through a Russian diplomatic facility. I don’t think that’s OK.

“You might think it’s OK that an associate of the president made direct contact with the GRU through Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks, that is considered a hostile intelligence agency. You might think it’s OK that a senior campaign official was instructed to reach that associate and find out what that hostile intelligence agency had to say in terms of dirt on his opponent.

“You might think it’s OK that the national security adviser designate secretly conferred with the Russian ambassador about undermining U.S. sanctions, and you might think it’s OK that he lied about it to the FBI.

“You might say that’s all OK, that’s just what you need to do to win. But I don’t think it’s OK. I don’t think it’s OK. I think it’s immoral, I think it’s unethical, I think it’s unpatriotic and, yes, I think it’s corrupt – and evidence of collusion.”

“Now I have always said that the question of whether this amounts to proof of conspiracy was another matter. Whether the special counsel could prove beyond a reasonable doubt the proof of that crime would be up to the special counsel, and I would accept his decision, and I do. He’s a good and honorable man, and he is a good prosecutor.

“But I do not think that conduct, criminal or not, is OK. And the day we do think that’s OK is the day we will look back and say that is the day that America lost its way.”

“And I will tell you one more thing that is apropos of the hearing today: I don’t think it’s OK that during a presidential campaign Mr. Trump sought the Kremlin’s help to consummate a real estate deal in Moscow that would make him a fortune – according to the special counsel, hundreds of millions of dollars. I don’t think it’s OK to conceal it from the public. I don’t think it’s OK that he advocated a new and more favorable policy towards the Russians even as he was seeking the Russians’ help, the Kremlin’s help to make money. I don’t think it’s OK that his attorney lied to our committee. There is a different word for that than collusion, and it’s called ‘compromise.’

“And that is the subject of our hearing today.”

Under partisan fire, Adam Schiff presents his case without apology | MSNBC

link to actual c-span video about 5 minutes

With this post post are you saying all the money spent on Muellers investigations,all the interviews,all the subpoenas were bogus.

**bsnub** · 05-04-2019, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

With this post post are you saying all the money spent on Muellers investigations,all the interviews,all the subpoenas were bogus.

As usual you post gibberish that makes no sense. That is a transcript of a a speech by Adam Schiff. Your senility is getting worse.

**RPETER65** · 05-04-2019, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by bsnub

As usual you post gibberish that makes no sense. That is a transcript of a a speech by Adam Schiff. Your senility is getting worse.

Yes it is and you posted it. My question was,in posting Schiff’s speech are you then using his speech to profess your belief that Muellers investigation was a waste of time as it hasn’t really produced the results you would have like to have seen.

**AntRobertson** · 05-04-2019, 09:06 AM

In other words you're doing what you always do... 'Asking' specious and spurious 'questions'.

**Maanaam** · 05-04-2019, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Muellers investigation was a waste of time as it hasn’t really produced the results you would have like to have seen.

Only a Fox viewer or trailer trash mouth breather currently believes Mueller's report has produced nothing. I don't believe Snubby is either

.
Barr's synopsis was far too brief and quickly completed to take at face value, and leaks coming out suggest there is far worse to come.

**bsnub** · 05-04-2019, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

n posting Schiff’s speech are you then using his speech to profess your belief that Muellers investigation was a waste of time as it hasn’t really produced the results you would have like to have seen.

JFK you are a moron. How you can make an assumption like that based on that speech is confounding to say the least, but you have been known to display an epic level of stupidity.

**RPETER65** · 06-04-2019, 03:29 AM

Originally Posted by bsnub

JFK you are a moron. How you can make an assumption like that based on that speech is confounding to say the least, but you have been known to display an epic level of stupidity.

An epic level of stupidity is you not being able to see the correlation between you posting Schiff’S speech and you believing Muellers investigation to be a waste of money as it did not indict Trump or any of his family. So now I will ask you directly,do you believe Mueller’s investigation was a waste of money as no indictments of Trump coming directly from Mueller.

**RPETER65** · 06-04-2019, 03:34 AM

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Only a Fox viewer or trailer trash mouth breather currently believes Mueller's report has produced nothing. I don't believe Snubby is either

.
Barr's synopsis was far too brief and quickly completed to take at face value, and leaks coming out suggest there is far worse to come.

Just to to help you with your reading comprehension,I did not say Muellers report produced nothing,I asked if it was disappointing as it didn’t produce the results Snubbs was looking for.
By the way what exactly do you consider trailer trash mouth breather?

**Maanaam** · 06-04-2019, 06:05 AM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Just to to help you with your reading comprehension,I did not say Muellers report produced nothing,I asked if it was disappointing as it didn’t produce the results Snubbs was looking for.
By the way what exactly do you consider trailer trash mouth breather?

Au contraire, re "comprehension". Muellers report is not a disappointment (yet) to anyone who realises Barr's rapid and brief interpretation was partisan and very likely incorrect/incomplete.

A trailer trash mouth-breather is someone who shouts, for example, "lock her up, lock her up" and other brainless chants, hailing Trump as a messiah. They also avidly watch Fox, professional wrestling and Duck Dynasty.

Thread: Mueller's Russian Interference investigation

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions