Mueller shifts to Tony Podesta, Democratic lobbying firm

bobgeese

Banned
Banned
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Messages
29,670
Reaction score
13,881
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/35...-tony-podesta-democratic-lobbying-firm-report

"The sources said the investigation into Podesta and his company began as more of a fact-finding mission about the ECMU and Manafort's role in the campaign, but has now morphed into a criminal inquiry into whether the firm violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act, known as FARA.”

...

“The Podesta Group filed a FARA registration for its work with ECMU only after the payments were reported by the media"


................


LOL


Not that anything will actually come of this, or anything else. You have to admit this is a shitshow for the ages.



PS, Tony Podesta is a pedophile piece of shit with pictures of half naked little kids on his wall.


http://canadafreepress.com/article/...my-piece-on-podesta-and-naked-teen-art-photos






PPS, WTF sherdog, there wasn't a thread on this already? This place is starting to be not even worth coming to...
 
Last edited:
Mueller is hopelessly compromised on several levels.

I support an investigation into Russia's meddling in US politics. But we picked the wrong guy to head it up.
 
Cool. Do you think anyone actually cares about Podesta? If he broke the law, let him burn for it. Just like everyone in the WH.
 
Mueller is hopelessly compromised on several levels.

I support an investigation into Russia's meddling in US politics. But we picked the wrong guy to head it up.

No more so than Ken Starr, did you forget how that whole investigation went?
 
Democrats should be careful for what they wish for. They are now the ones under investigation. It will probably go no where though because crooked Hillary will put a kybosh to it as usual.
 
No more so than Ken Starr, did you forget how that whole investigation went?
I don't know much about Ken Starr. I remember the investigation, but I didn't follow it closely. I am open to hear your criticisms of him if you care to elaborate.

But Mueller has several disqualifying issues as prosecutor. One is his closeness to Comey, which Comey testified to. Another is the way he has picked so many partisan political types to staff his group. That's not disqualifying, but it is unwise. The key issue for me is Mueller's involvement with the Russians in the Uranium One deal.

Putting Mueller in charge on an investigation into collusion with the Russian government is putting the fox in charge of the hen house. Mueller is one of the people who needs investigated.
 
I don't know much about Ken Starr. I remember the investigation, but I didn't follow it closely. I am open to hear your criticisms of him if you care to elaborate.

But Mueller has several disqualifying issues as prosecutor. One is his closeness to Comey, which Comey testified to. Another is the way he has picked so many partisan political types to staff his group. That's not disqualifying, but it is unwise. The key issue for me is Mueller's involvement with the Russians in the Uranium One deal.

Putting Mueller in charge on an investigation into collusion with the Russian government is putting the fox in charge of the hen house. Mueller is one of the people who needs investigated.

1. Comey isn't the subject of the investigation, nor is their relationship even relevant to the investigation as a whole. That's the cool thing about criminal charges, if they apply, they apply. If Trump committed OOJ by firing Comey, then he committed OOJ whether Mueller is saying it or Sessions is saying it. I prefer to leave it to the person who doesn't have any incentive to pull punches.

2. Prosecutors don't have to be nonpartisan, whoever was the first person to insinuate that is a liar. If anything, this is absolving Trump if nothing is found. If someone who has it out for him can't find any dirt, then he REALLY didn't do anything. This criticism is super weak.

3. If the Uranium One conspiracy theory is correct, then Mueller covered up Rosatom's crimes to broker the deal. So why, pray tell, would Mueller put the screws to Russia if he helped cover up their dirt to broker the deal? Do you see how accusations of partisanship and also collusion don't even remotely mesh together? Can't have it both ways. Either he's looking for anything to pin on Trump regarding Russian collusion or he's using kiddie gloves because of his affinity to Rosatom via the Uranium One deal. So, which is it?

As far as Ken Starr goes, look up the Starr Report and give it a gander. Then remember that that report was supposed to be about Whitewater and wonder why it only appears in passing statements. Starr was brought on to investigate crooked land deals and ended with a blowjob, that's why Clinton's approval rating went up when he got impeached.
 
Last edited:
Oh, and just for the record, I don't give a shit about Tony Podesta. Lock all them motherfuckers up.
 
1. Comey isn't the subject of the investigation, nor is their relationship even relevant to the investigation as a whole. That's the cool thing about criminal charges, if they apply, they apply. If Trump committed OOJ by firing Comey, then he committed OOJ whether Mueller is saying it or Sessions is saying it. I prefer to leave it to the person who doesn't have any incentive to pull punches.

Of course Mueller's relationship with a man who was fired by Trump is of note. Comey is a major witness and figure in the matters being investigated and he is the investigator's protege. It creates a conflict of interest.

Of course, if criminal charges are leveled, then you're correct. But I find that very improbable.

2. Prosecutors don't have to be nonpartisan, whoever was the first person to insinuate that is a liar. If anything, this is absolving Trump if nothing is found. If someone who has it out for him can't find any dirt, then he REALLY didn't do anything. This criticism is super weak.

I clearly said I thought this was unwise rather than disqualifying. Filling his staff with partisan hacks isn't going to earn him any credibility.

3. If the Russia One conspiracy theory is correct, then Mueller covered up Rosatom's crimes to broker the deal. So why, pray tell, would Mueller put the screws to Russia if he helped cover up their dirt to broker the deal? Do you see how accusations of partisanship and also collusion don't even remotely mesh together? Can't have it both ways. Either he's looking for anything to pin on Trump regarding Russian collusion or he's using kiddie gloves because of his affinity to Rosatom via the Russia One deal. So, which is it?

You ask good questions that should be asked of Mueller by a special investigator much more removed from Russian meddling. Do you see how one doesn't need to think Mueller did anything wrong , and I have no reason to believe he did, to think that his being enmeshed in the very matters being investigated is disqualifying.

As far as Ken Starr goes, look up the Starr Report and give it a gander. Then remember that that report was supposed to be about Whitewater and wonder why it only appears in passing statements. Starr was brought on to investigate crooked land deals and ended with a blowjob, that's why Clinton's approval rating went up when he got impeached.

I'm not going to read the Starr Report, but if you could summarize the issues with it then I'd be interested. Ken Starr was never my friend.

As far as blowjobs go, it wasn't a mere affair, but corraborating evidence in a sexual harassment trial. Bill knew that it greatly strengthened the case against him, which is why he lied about it. Was it Starr who brought the matter up? I thought it was the result of the Jones' trial.
 
Oh, and just for the record, I don't give a shit about Tony Podesta. Lock all them motherfuckers up.

You can tell the OP was really hoping that this would somehow discredit Mueller with the "Other Side".

But he ended the OP with "Still a nothingburger" because he wasn't sure they would share the outrage he feels when his side is being investigated.

A rational person looks at this and thinks "Mueller is going wherever the investigation leads him"....
 
You can tell the OP was really hoping that this would somehow discredit Mueller with the "Other Side".

But he ended the OP with "Still a nothingburger" because he wasn't sure they would share the outrage he feels when his side is being investigated.

A rational person looks at this and thinks "Mueller is going wherever the investigation leads him"....
I would be amused if after all this hillary got charged with Russia connections but let’s be honest at best some guy we never heard of will have said his candy bar was 89 cents and it was 79 so he gets an obstruction or perjury charge that basically gets thrown out
 
Cool. Do you think anyone actually cares about Podesta? If he broke the law, let him burn for it. Just like everyone in the WH.

As crazy it sounds, there are several posters here who voted for Hillary Clinton.
 
Of course Mueller's relationship with a man who was fired by Trump is of note. Comey is a major witness and figure in the matters being investigated and he is the investigator's protege. It creates a conflict of interest.

Of course, if criminal charges are leveled, then you're correct. But I find that very improbable.

So what's the conflict of interest? Do you think he's going to take Comey's testimony at face value without investigating? Do you think Comey has said anything beyond what Trump, Rosenstein, and Sessions have already said regarding Comey's firing? What exactly do you think the conflict is? This whole narrative went out the window when the chucklefuck in chief went full retard on twitter and made his subordinates have to tell the truth for once.

I clearly said I thought this was unwise rather than disqualifying. Filling his staff with partisan hacks isn't going to earn him any credibility.

He's the special counsel, he doesn't need credibility beyond that bestowed upon him by congress and the Attorney General. Just because you don't like him doesn't mean that he's any less credible than he was at the beginning. Again, Ken Starr was far more ridiculous in where he went, this isn't anything worth being concerned.

You ask good questions that should be asked of Mueller by a special investigator much more removed from Russian meddling. Do you see how one doesn't need to think Mueller did anything wrong , and I have no reason to believe he did, to think that his being enmeshed in the very matters being investigated is disqualifying.

Yeah, the matter being investigated is Russian interference in the election (and possible collusion by domestic actors), not suspected impropriety of a deal authorized by a former president of the United States. You appear to be confused as to what's actually being looked into, hopefully that clarifies things.

I'm not going to read the Starr Report, but if you could summarize the issues with it then I'd be interested. Ken Starr was never my friend.

As far as blowjobs go, it wasn't a mere affair, but corraborating evidence in a sexual harassment trial. Bill knew that it greatly strengthened the case against him, which is why he lied about it. Was it Starr who brought the matter up? I thought it was the result of the Jones' trial.

I mean, if you want to act like Mueller is hopelessly compromised while being willfully ignorant on Ken Starr, that's on you not me. The report is out there, you're more than welcome to reference the primary source instead of relying on my personal biases. In fact, that would be quite prudent of you.
 
It's going to end bad for the DNC and associates. Didn't take Nostradamus to make that prediction but still. Many have been saying this for quite a long time.
 
Back
Top