Mueller's Patton the back (investigation thread v. 22)

Status
Not open for further replies.
waiguoren said:
Report: Federal Prosecutors Impanel Grand Jury in Andrew McCabe Probe


6 Sep 2018


Federal prosecutors reportedly impaneled a grand jury several months ago as part of an investigation into whether former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe intentionally misled investigators about improperly leaking information to a reporter.
According to The Washington Post, at least one witness was summoned to testify by the grand jury, in what is believed to be a sign that the probe has “intensified” in recent months.

“The presence of the grand jury shows prosecutors are treating the matter seriously, locking in the accounts of witnesses who might later have to testify at a trial. But such panels are sometimes used only as investigative tools, and it remains unclear if McCabe will ultimately be charged,” writes author Matt Zapotosky.

Neither McCabe’s spokesperson or a representative for U.S. attorney’s office in D.C. would comment on the matter.

In April, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s long-awaited report concluded McCabe made false statements to U.S. officials on at least four occasions and improperly disclosed information to then-Wall Street Journal reporter Devlin Barrett “to advance his personal interests over those of the Justice Department.”

As Breitbart News reported May 31, the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s office interviewed former FBI Director James Comey as part of the investigation in what insiders described as “an indication the office is seriously considering” whether McCabe should be criminally indicted. Reacting to the explosive report at the time, McCabe attorney Michael Bromwich accused U.S. Attorney’s Office of leaking details of the probe, a move he described as “extremely disturbing.”

Acting on the recommendation of the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility, Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired McCabe on March 16.



“The FBI’s OPR then reviewed the report and underlying documents and issued a disciplinary proposal recommending the dismissal of Mr. McCabe. Both the OIG and FBI OPR reports concluded that Mr. McCabe had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor − including under oath − on multiple occasions,” a statement issued by Sessions read. “Pursuant to Department Order 1202, and based on the report of the Inspector General, the findings of the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility, and the recommendation of the Department’s senior career official, I have terminated the employment of Andrew McCabe effective immediately.”

In March, the disgraced official launched a GoFundMe campaign, raising over $554,000 to fund his defense against multiple federal and congressional investigations. According to the campaign, “no funds raised for the Andrew McCabe Legal Defense Fund will be used for anything beyond his defense of the allegations against him. He will continue to fight for the pension and benefits he deserves, rather than accept any crowdfunding for that purpose. Following the conclusion of any related legal proceedings, any funds that remain in the Legal Defense Fund will be donated to charitable organizations of the McCabes’ choosing.”

McCabe is said to have stepped down from day-to-day operations as FBI Deputy Director and told colleagues he aimed to leave the bureau in the spring to be fully eligible for his pension.

https://www.breitbart.com/big-gover...rs-impanel-grand-jury-in-andrew-mccabe-probe/
Click to expand...

So the fuck what?
 
waiguoren said:
Couldn't disagree more. Sessions was brought on to be tough on the border, gangs, and drugs. He's doing an excellent job.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, at the heads of agencies, the reality is there’s a political element to the job, Sessions knows this and is hurting the country with his inaction.
 
bobgeese said:
Unfortunately, at the heads of agencies, the reality is there’s a political element to the job, Sessions knows this and is hurting the country with his inaction.
Click to expand...

I don't see how Sessions is hurting the country. What should he do? Fire Rosenstein/Mueller?

Realistically, Trump is coming out of this in great shape politically if he lets Mueller finish the job, keeps Giuliani and Sekulow working hard in his defense, and doesn't repeat the mistake of encouraging AG to politicize the timing of indictments/investigations as he did with that one tweet recently. Even if Trump is listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in a future indictment, it's going to be for something so minor that only the 30% rabid anti-Trumpers will care.
 
waiguoren said:
I don't see how Sessions is hurting the country. What should he do? Fire Rosenstein/Mueller?

Realistically, Trump is coming out of this in great shape politically if he lets Mueller finish the job, keeps Giuliani and Sekulow working hard in his defense, and doesn't repeat the mistake of encouraging AG to politicize the timing of indictments/investigations as he did with that one tweet recently. Even if Trump is listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in a future indictment, it's going to be for something so minor that only the 30% rabid anti-Trumpers will care.
Click to expand...


How many millions have this useless investigation cost the country? How much division and violence?

If Jeff had a backbone like trump, he would have told the hysterical democrats to fuck off.

The good news is when trump walks it will be THE death blow to the media’s credibility. And he will rightfully hammer them until his second term is finished.
 
bobgeese said:
How many millions have this useless investigation cost the country?
Click to expand...

About $20 million.

bobgeese said:
How much division and violence?
Click to expand...

Not sure how to quantify it. I think we were already very divided before the Mueller probe.

bobgeese said:
If Jeff had a backbone like trump, he would have told the hysterical democrats to fuck off.

The good news is when trump walks it will be THE death blow to the media’s credibility. And he will rightfully hammer them until his second term is finished.
Click to expand...

No way. The anti-Trump people will feel vindicated after the investigation concludes. There will be no bombshell, but enough scraps for them to continue to pursue many years into the future. MSM knows how their bread is buttered---by convincing financially capable Democrats to pay for subscriptions since "Democracy Dies in Darkness."

Trump will never stop attacking them, that much you got right.

Regarding Trump's political prospects, obviously I've been bullish. But he's signaling now that he will cave on the wall a second time. To me, this seems like a big political mistake that could be hard to recover from.
 
waiguoren said:
This is why I like you. You have much more honor than some of the bots in this thread. @Darkballs, like Donald Trump, never admits fault even when he's proved wrong.



According to FBI Director James Comey and DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, the DNC/Clinton campaign never allowed the FBI/DHS access to their servers. Instead, CrowdStrike, a private company, was allegedly given access to the servers. According to the DNC spokeswoman, CrowdStrike provided images of the servers to the FBI in addition to their own forensics/analysis. I'm assuming the indictment you referred to also relied heavily on CrowdStrike's work.

So as I see it, your belief in this narrative hinges entirely on the credibility of CrowdStrike. Why do you trust them so much, particularly given the claims of Comey and Johnson?

What do you think of this post? Just Russian propaganda?




Why would you throw this in there? We're talking about the hack of the DNC e-mail system and John Podesta's e-mails. None of those other indictments appear to have anything to do with that hack.
Click to expand...
I don't trust CrowdStrike but I do trust the FBI. There were some posts recently about Stalin ghost pictures, where people were erased from photos when they fell out of favor, so I understand being skeptical that the "images" that were handed over were somehow manipulated. I don't have knowledge of how you could accomplish something like that, or if it would leave a trace, but I think the FBI would have taken that into consideration when making their report.

I think we have to look at everything as a whole and not just pick and choose or harp on a single incident. If you consider the Mueller investigation as a whole then topics like any crimes Hillary or Obama may have committed need to be viewed with skepticism. These are investigations that have already run their course but seem to pop back up to take the spotlight off Trump.
 
waiguoren said:
I think you just demonstrated that Trump was interested in hushing Stephanie Clifford long before the campaign started. Again, politically, none of this matters. Morally, it's pretty meh. Legally, your account weakens the case that Trump's payment to Clifford was a "campaign contribution".



Dodge noted. No candidate has ever been convicted of a campaign finance violation in a similar case. It's important to lay out the limits of what constitutes a "campaign contribution". What is Trump whacked off to relieve stress, which allowed him to perform much better at one of his campaign rallies? Would that constitute a massive "in-kind campaign contribution" from himself to his campaign?



....Trump is praying that you will be the prosecutor in this case.

To reiterate, I of course believe that Trump paid Clifford primarily or entirely to prevent her from damaging his electoral success. Proving that beyond a reasonable doubt in court would be a daunting task.



Correct.



Erm...did you just copy-paste that from Washington Post? He read the statement off a teleprompter, and it was clearly in response to the allegations of four women ---none of whom were Stephanie Clifford---who spoke out publicly a few weeks before the Nov 2016 election. Here's a time-stamped video link for you to confirm: https://www.c-span.org/video/?417019-1/donald-trump-campaigns-green-bay-wisconsin&start=856




What's wrong with that?

I demonstrated that Trump's fixer made a phone call to a media outlet that was considering publishing a story about Stormy's and Spanky's evening together, and possibly directed a goon to threaten her. That is demonstrably different then how Cohen behaved during the campaign though, paying Stormy directly $130,000, and the different behavior of actually buying her off to sign an NDA was because of the threat she posed to the campaign. I am glad that you are willing to concede that the payment was made "primarily or entirely to prevent her from damaging his electoral success". As for proving that beyond a reasonable doubt, again, I think it will come down to more than a contest of who does a jury trust more, Trump vs. Cohen, and you are not willing to make that assumption.You asked though what was wrong with Trump denying the affair, denying knowledge of the payments, and saying his "You’ll have to ask Michael Cohen, Michael is my attorney. You’ll have to ask Michael” when questioned by reporters on Air Force One (which I assume you meant in a legal context)



No....


The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i)

any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump

(ii)
any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation
---------

You can argue that part (ii) would allow him to investigate anyone connected with Russia, but the primary focus is obviously the Russia-Trump connection.






o_O

Are you familiar with Andrew Weissman?

Robert Mueller's 'pit bull' is coming under intense scrutiny over perceived anti-Trump bias

Not only does this guy have it out for Trump, but he's famous for trying mafia families (Genovese, Colombo, Gambino). He is an expert at squeezing the little guys to hit the big fish.


I thought Giuliani already confirmed it?



Why would that put Trump in a tight spot? It seems like a pretty clear surrender by the Mueller people on the "Russia collusion" aspect of the investigation, i.e., the primary purpose of the investigation, i.e., the only part of the investigation that people really care about.
Click to expand...

I demonstrated that Trump's fixer made a phone call to a media outlet that was considering publishing a story about Stormy's and Spanky's evening together, and possibly directed a goon to threaten her. That is demonstrably different then how Cohen behaved during the campaign though, paying Stormy directly $130,000, and the different behavior of actually buying her off to sign an NDA was because of the threat she posed to the campaign. I am glad that you are willing to concede that the payment was made "primarily or entirely to prevent her from damaging his electoral success".

As for proving that beyond a reasonable doubt though, again, I think it will come down to more (with the FBI raids, Pecker, Weisselberg, Davidson, evidence Avenatti uncovered, and maybe depositions with Avenatti, potentially offering evidence to support Cohen's story) than a contest of who does a jury trust more Trump vs. Cohen, and you are not willing to make that assumption.You asked though what was wrong with Trump denying the affair, denying knowledge of the payments, and saying his "You’ll have to ask Michael Cohen, Michael is my attorney. You’ll have to ask Michael” when questioned by reporters on Air Force One, and my point was that these statements would not look good for him in a jury's eyes. Add to that how a jury would look at the blanket statements he was making about the media trying to "rig" the election against him by printing allegations made by women, including by Jessica Drake who claimed Trump offered her $10K for sex at the same event where he fucked Stormy, all while he was secretly paying off his porn star mistresses. So even if it were to only come down to a he said verses he said, I would certainly give Cohen a fighting chance, as Trump wouldn't be able to keep what he was saying straight, and the jury might just "have to ask Michael" about what really happened.

And accuse me of dodging all you want in terms of me not joining in on your thought experiment about a counterfactual massage scenario (which was actually better than your latest masturbation scenario:D), but the fact is that you are making a slippery slope argument to take the focus away from reality. Back in March, when it was just Stormy and Avenatti fighting against the world, you had Trevor Potter (former head of the FEC under GW Bush) saying: “If he does this on behalf of his client, the candidate, that is a coordinated, illegal, in-kind contribution by Cohen for the purpose of influencing the election, of benefiting the candidate by keeping this secret.” And then five months later after denials from Trump, Cohen, and one of Cohen's sleazeball lawyer friends, Cohen pleads guilty.

As for what Mueller was tasked with, read the first paragraph of Rosenstein's order where it says "in order...to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government's efforts to influence the 2016 election" and within that mission he is authorizing Mueller to investigate if anyone from the Trump campaign conspired with anyone linked to the Russian government. Again though, you said Trump is their "target," and that "implicating their target" is their "primary goal". Although Mueller is also tasked with investigating "any matters that arose or may arise from that investigation", his isn't the team pursuing the "possible "in-kind campaign contributions" from Trump to a former alleged mistress". I don't care that Trump defenders are trying to paint Weissmann as if he is Trump's Krampus, that doesn't support the point you are trying to make, and anyway, Weissmann's work on Manafort seemed to have impressed Manafort's jury.

What is known from his investigation isn't known outside of Mueller's team, so as I said, they may or may not know something that could put Trump in a tight spot, and we don't know if Cohen or Manafort have anything to tell about any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump. And, Roger Stone is still sitting around waiting for his letter from Mueller's team asking him to come in for a deposition, and he believes he was referenced but not named in the last round of indictments.

And yeah, Rudy G may or may not have his facts straight about what Mueller's team wants in terms of the written questions, he didn't seem to even have his facts straight about his side in terms of the obstruction of justice questions though. It seems like Rudy just plays a lawyer on TV these days.
 
bobgeese said:
Jeff Sessions was Trumps worst decision.
Click to expand...
d1qikntta4cp8k.cloudfront.net

Jr and Eric say hi
 
computer fogie said:
First, Trump said he would be happy to talk to Mueller face to face. Then, he said he would give written answers. Now, he won't communicate with the investigation at all. I can't imagine what has him so worried, unless he actually did obstruct justice.

He'll have to be served a subpoena before he cooperates, I hope that's possible and that it happens. I'd love to see what happens! This guy could not possibly act more guilty.
Click to expand...
Continuing his proud tradition of saying both yes and no, and taking all sides of any issue
 
waiguoren said:
I don't see how Sessions is hurting the country. What should he do? Fire Rosenstein/Mueller?

Realistically, Trump is coming out of this in great shape politically if he lets Mueller finish the job, keeps Giuliani and Sekulow working hard in his defense, and doesn't repeat the mistake of encouraging AG to politicize the timing of indictments/investigations as he did with that one tweet recently. Even if Trump is listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in a future indictment, it's going to be for something so minor that only the 30% rabid anti-Trumpers will care.
Click to expand...
Sessions hurting the country? Cancelling Obama's civil forfeiture reforms, being a corrupt drug warrior, fighting any sort of criminal justice reform tooth and nail for a start.
 
bobgeese said:
No, it’s that any contradictory statement can be twisted to state he lied under oath.

You know, like the media does every day. Remember, Trump literally made the media side with ms13.
Click to expand...
<Lmaoo>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,281,008
Messages
58,335,169
Members
176,003
Latest member
HeneryH

Share this page

Back
Top