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

[AndroidRage]

Ugh, why? Why would you do this to my eyes tonni?

 

[tonni]

Ugh, why? Why would you do this to my eyes tonni?

why should I be the only one to suffer?

 

[waiguoren]

There are not that many Trump supporters with 2 brain cells to rub together

That's about 45% of the voters you're shitting on.

Carry on.

 

[waiguoren]

TRUMP REPORTEDLY CLOSE TO DECLASSIFYING CARTER PAGE AND BRUCE OHR DOCUMENTS

President Trump is reportedly on the verge of declassifying documents related to the government’s surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page and FBI documents regarding Justice Department official Bruce Ohr.

House Republicans have recently pressed Trump to declassify the documents, which they claim undercuts the FBI and Justice Department’s rationale for opening an investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government.

Axios reported on Sunday that Trump’s allies say that he is close to declassifying the documents.

Sources familiar with Trump’s thinking have told The Daily Caller News Foundation over the past week that they believed Trump was close to releasing the documents.

Trump himself told The Daily Caller in an Oval Office interview on Sept. 4 that he is “very seriously” considering declassifying the documents.


....

https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/09/trump-declassify-bruce-ohr-carter-page/

 

[waiguoren]

Federal prosecutors acknowledged in a court filing submitted late Friday that they were “mistaken” in accusing alleged Russian agent Maria Butina of offering “sex in exchange for a position within a special interest organization.”

The sex allegation was made in a July 18 court filing submitted by U.S. Attorney Jessie K. Liu. Liu leveled the allegation in an effort to convince a federal judge to hold the 29-year-old Butina in jail while she awaits trial on charges of conspiracy and of acting as an unregistered foreign agent of Russia.

Butina is accused of working under the direction of a top Russian government official to infiltrate conservative political groups in the U.S., including the National Rifle Association.

Liu argued that Butina posed a flight risk because she had few ties to the U.S. The alleged offer of sex showed that Butina’s claims to have strong ties to the U.S. through her boyfriend, a Republican political operative named Paul Erickson, were unfounded, Liu asserted.

Butina’s attorney, Robert Driscoll, shot back at the allegation in August, arguing that the government was waging a “smear campaign” against his client. Prosecutors were attempting to portray her as “some type of Kremlin-trained seductress, or spy novel honeypot character, trading sex for access and power,” he said in an Aug. 24 court filing.

Driscoll said the government’s allegation was a reference to a joke between Butina and a friend who worked with her at the Russian pro-gun group, The Right to Bear Arms. Butina jokingly said in a text message that she would have sex with her friend in lieu of payment after he helped repair her car, Driscoll claimed.

Prosecutors appeared to accept the Butina team’s explanation for the text message, though they still argued that other evidence exists showing that Butina has weak ties to the U.S.

“Even granting that the government’s understanding of this particular text conversation was mistaken, other communications and materials in the government’s possession (and produced to the defense) call into doubt the defendant’s claim that her relationship with U.S. Person 1 is a sufficiently strong tie to ensure her appearance in court to face the charges against her if she is released,” Liu wrote in Friday’s court filing.

Driscoll shot back at the government’s admission in a statement to The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“I hope the government’s walk back of their false allegation that Maria offered sex for a job gets as much coverage, as prominently, as the initial false claim,” Driscoll said.

https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/08/maria-butina-sex-mistake/

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

Federal prosecutors acknowledged in a court filing submitted late Friday that they were “mistaken” in accusing alleged Russian agent Maria Butina of offering “sex in exchange for a position within a special interest organization.”

The sex allegation was made in a July 18 court filing submitted by U.S. Attorney Jessie K. Liu. Liu leveled the allegation in an effort to convince a federal judge to hold the 29-year-old Butina in jail while she awaits trial on charges of conspiracy and of acting as an unregistered foreign agent of Russia.

Butina is accused of working under the direction of a top Russian government official to infiltrate conservative political groups in the U.S., including the National Rifle Association.

Liu argued that Butina posed a flight risk because she had few ties to the U.S. The alleged offer of sex showed that Butina’s claims to have strong ties to the U.S. through her boyfriend, a Republican political operative named Paul Erickson, were unfounded, Liu asserted.

Butina’s attorney, Robert Driscoll, shot back at the allegation in August, arguing that the government was waging a “smear campaign” against his client. Prosecutors were attempting to portray her as “some type of Kremlin-trained seductress, or spy novel honeypot character, trading sex for access and power,” he said in an Aug. 24 court filing.

Driscoll said the government’s allegation was a reference to a joke between Butina and a friend who worked with her at the Russian pro-gun group, The Right to Bear Arms. Butina jokingly said in a text message that she would have sex with her friend in lieu of payment after he helped repair her car, Driscoll claimed.

Prosecutors appeared to accept the Butina team’s explanation for the text message, though they still argued that other evidence exists showing that Butina has weak ties to the U.S.

“Even granting that the government’s understanding of this particular text conversation was mistaken, other communications and materials in the government’s possession (and produced to the defense) call into doubt the defendant’s claim that her relationship with U.S. Person 1 is a sufficiently strong tie to ensure her appearance in court to face the charges against her if she is released,” Liu wrote in Friday’s court filing.

Driscoll shot back at the government’s admission in a statement to The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“I hope the government’s walk back of their false allegation that Maria offered sex for a job gets as much coverage, as prominently, as the initial false claim,” Driscoll said.

https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/08/maria-butina-sex-mistake/

That's cool now talk about the rest of the filing

US Person 1 aka Erickson was concerned the Russian interference would ruin the backchannel he and Butina had established

Reporters came looking in 2017 curious about her relationship with Erickson . She communicated her issues with someone leaking to reporters and worried it would blow everything

She acted under the direction of a Russian official (Torshin) to try to sway US policies to favor Russia for after the 2016 elections


I get why you who didn't read the motion obviously latched onto the sex text story . It's sensationalism media at it's best . But really it's irrelevant in the grand scheme of how she was using the NRA to try to undermine the US political process. Without the sex part the story isn't az enticing but she's still a Russian spy.

You're welcome for the lesson again . Back to more shit posting by you

 

[Ophydian]

That's cool now talk about the rest of the filing

US Person 1 aka Erickson was concerned the Russian interference would ruin the backchannel he and Butina had established

Reporters came looking in 2017 curious about her relationship with Erickson . She communicated her issues with someone leaking to reporters and worried it would blow everything

She acted under the direction of a Russian official (Torshin) to try to sway US policies to favor Russia for after the 2016 elections


I get why you who didn't read the motion obviously latched onto the sex text story . It's sensationalism media at it's best . But really it's irrelevant in the grand scheme of how she was using the NRA to try to undermine the US political process. Without the sex part the story isn't az enticing but she's still a Russian spy.

You're welcome for the lesson again . Back to more shit posting by you

Don’t worry about this much, comrade Waigouren Esq. loves Russian support of our democratic elections. Without the support of fair countries like the CCCP our election could be seen as corrupt and biased.

 

[waiguoren]

Don’t worry about this much, comrade Waigouren Esq. loves Russian support of our democratic elections. Without the support of fair countries like the CCCP our election could be seen as corrupt and biased.

How you and the bots in this thread will feel after the Page/Ohr documents are released:

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

How you and the bots in this thread will feel after the Page/Ohr documents are released:

Will this be like that bombshell IG report that turned out to be not shit

 

[Falsedawn]

Will this be like that bombshell IG report that turned out to be not shit

N U N E S M E M O

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

N U N E S M E M O

Oh yes you're right. My bad

Spoiler: Spoiler

 

[waiguoren]

Will this be like that bombshell IG report that turned out to be not shit

-----------

Host: I thought that George Papadopolous was the key to this whole case, at least that's what we first heard. We don't want to minimize the fact that he lied to the FBI. You should tell the truth to the FBI. We talked about this with General Flynn and others. But professor, a lot of people were claiming months ago that this was going to somehow prove Russian collusion.

Dershowitz: Well it certainly hasn't done that. I think it reflects what a lot of judges feel. That the law today that permits people to be prosecuted for lying without taking an oath is very dangerous to all Americans. There should be a law that says you can't be prosecuted for lying unless you put your hand in the air, on a bible and swore to tell the truth. The FBI finds it so easy, and the prosecutors find it so easy to just approach somebody, talk to him on the street, ask him a question, get them to tell something which is then contradicted, and suddenly they have committed a felony. So there's a lot of feeling that there's a difference between lying under oath to Congress, lying under oath to a grand jury, or telling a fib to somebody who is talking to you whether they are an FBI agent or a prosecutor. So I suspect the sentence reflects that. The sentence also reflects
that the alleged lie or the lie was not particularly material to the investigation. The claim is that it prevented them from interviewing a witness which they might otherwise been allowed to interview. The judge, obviously, by his sentence, indicated that he wasn't impressed with that argument. That's why we have judges. Prosecutors shouldn't be the ones to determine in the end the truth or the extent of the truth or the sanction for telling an untruth.

Host: Professor, we're a long way from when he originally pleaded guilty and everyone thought this was the beginning of the end, "the walls are closing in" as we heard time and time again. This is how the media framed the original guilty plea. Listen:

(montage of Jim Acosta and others taking about "bombshells")

Host: Jim Acosta was all over it! Bombshells everywhere! Now here we are: 14 days.

Dershowitz: I thought there was a weakness right away in the beginning because they indicted him for the weakest charge, that is, lying to an FBI agent instead of conspiracy to commit some crime in relation to Russia. Charging someone with lying to a law enforcement official is usually a signal that they don't have a strong case against him. That's obviously what happened here.

Host: Last question: what signals do you read from what we're now hearing that Special Counsel Mueller has indicated to the Trump team that he can give written answers on Russian collusion?

Dershowitz: I think we're seeing a charade where both sides know that the president is not going to sit down and talk, but each side would like to be able to say, "oh, I wanted to talk" or "oh, I wanted to give him an opportunity to talk" and it's his fault. You know, I hope we can also mention just for a minute, I know you wanted me to talk about the 25th Amendment and my friend, Senator Warren, calling for its invocation. You have to read the 25th Amendment and understand that it was never intended to medicalize political differences. Even President Obama yesterday used the term "paranoia". It's very dangerous when we try to psychiatrize political differences. That's not what the 25th Amendment was about. It was about a president who was shot, or a president who was having a psychotic breakdown, and didn't know the difference between right and wrong. It was not intended for a substitute for impeachment and we ought to get off that as soon as possible. Otherwise we will really really undercut the important meaning of the 25th Amendment.

 

[andnowweknow]

-----------

Host: I thought that George Papadopolous was the key to this whole case, at least that's what we first heard. We don't want to minimize the fact that he lied to the FBI. You should tell the truth to the FBI. We talked about this with General Flynn and others. But professor, a lot of people were claiming months ago that this was going to somehow prove Russian collusion.

Dershowitz: Well it certainly hasn't done that. I think it reflects what a lot of judges feel. That the law today that permits people to be prosecuted for lying without taking an oath is very dangerous to all Americans. There should be a law that says you can't be prosecuted for lying unless you put your hand in the air, on a bible and swore to tell the truth. The FBI finds it so easy, and the prosecutors find it so easy to just approach somebody, talk to him on the street, ask him a question, get them to tell something which is then contradicted, and suddenly they have committed a felony. So there's a lot of feeling that there's a difference between lying under oath to Congress, lying under oath to a grand jury, or telling a fib to somebody who is talking to you whether they are an FBI agent or a prosecutor. So I suspect the sentence reflects that. The sentence also reflects
that the alleged lie or the lie was not particularly material to the investigation. The claim is that it prevented them from interviewing a witness which they might otherwise been allowed to interview. The judge, obviously, by his sentence, indicated that he wasn't impressed with that argument. That's why we have judges. Prosecutors shouldn't be the ones to determine in the end the truth or the extent of the truth or the sanction for telling an untruth.

Host: Professor, we're a long way from when he originally pleaded guilty and everyone thought this was the beginning of the end, "the walls are closing in" as we heard time and time again. This is how the media framed the original guilty plea. Listen:

(montage of Jim Acosta and others taking about "bombshells")

Host: Jim Acosta was all over it! Bombshells everywhere! Now here we are: 14 days.

Dershowitz: I thought there was a weakness right away in the beginning because they indicted him for the weakest charge, that is, lying to an FBI agent instead of conspiracy to commit some crime in relation to Russia. Charging someone with lying to a law enforcement official is usually a signal that they don't have a strong case against him. That's obviously what happened here.

Host: Last question: what signals do you read from what we're now hearing that Special Counsel Mueller has indicated to the Trump team that he can give written answers on Russian collusion?

Dershowitz: I think we're seeing a charade where both sides know that the president is not going to sit down and talk, but each side would like to be able to say, "oh, I wanted to talk" or "oh, I wanted to give him an opportunity to talk" and it's his fault. You know, I hope we can also mention just for a minute, I know you wanted me to talk about the 25th Amendment and my friend, Senator Warren, calling for its invocation. You have to read the 25th Amendment and understand that it was never intended to medicalize political differences. Even President Obama yesterday used the term "paranoia". It's very dangerous when we try to psychiatrize political differences. That's not what the 25th Amendment was about. It was about a president who was shot, or a president who was having a psychotic breakdown, and didn't know the difference between right and wrong. It was not intended for a substitute for impeachment and we ought to get off that as soon as possible. Otherwise we will really really undercut the important meaning of the 25th Amendment.

Are you sure Dershowitz is all over the news because he thinks these things? Or maybe he's a professional arguer looking for attention...again?

 

[waiguoren]

Are you sure Dershowitz is all over the news because he thinks these things? Or maybe he's a professional arguer looking for attention...again?

I think he's consistently a civil libertarian

I do think he loves attention.

If you want to be a conspiracy theorist about it, your best line of attack is that he is very high on Trump since seeing the various pro-Israel actions Trump has taken since inauguration

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

-----------

Host: I thought that George Papadopolous was the key to this whole case, at least that's what we first heard. We don't want to minimize the fact that he lied to the FBI. You should tell the truth to the FBI. We talked about this with General Flynn and others. But professor, a lot of people were claiming months ago that this was going to somehow prove Russian collusion.

Dershowitz: Well it certainly hasn't done that. I think it reflects what a lot of judges feel. That the law today that permits people to be prosecuted for lying without taking an oath is very dangerous to all Americans. There should be a law that says you can't be prosecuted for lying unless you put your hand in the air, on a bible and swore to tell the truth. The FBI finds it so easy, and the prosecutors find it so easy to just approach somebody, talk to him on the street, ask him a question, get them to tell something which is then contradicted, and suddenly they have committed a felony. So there's a lot of feeling that there's a difference between lying under oath to Congress, lying under oath to a grand jury, or telling a fib to somebody who is talking to you whether they are an FBI agent or a prosecutor. So I suspect the sentence reflects that. The sentence also reflects
that the alleged lie or the lie was not particularly material to the investigation. The claim is that it prevented them from interviewing a witness which they might otherwise been allowed to interview. The judge, obviously, by his sentence, indicated that he wasn't impressed with that argument. That's why we have judges. Prosecutors shouldn't be the ones to determine in the end the truth or the extent of the truth or the sanction for telling an untruth.

Host: Professor, we're a long way from when he originally pleaded guilty and everyone thought this was the beginning of the end, "the walls are closing in" as we heard time and time again. This is how the media framed the original guilty plea. Listen:

(montage of Jim Acosta and others taking about "bombshells")

Host: Jim Acosta was all over it! Bombshells everywhere! Now here we are: 14 days.

Dershowitz: I thought there was a weakness right away in the beginning because they indicted him for the weakest charge, that is, lying to an FBI agent instead of conspiracy to commit some crime in relation to Russia. Charging someone with lying to a law enforcement official is usually a signal that they don't have a strong case against him. That's obviously what happened here.

Host: Last question: what signals do you read from what we're now hearing that Special Counsel Mueller has indicated to the Trump team that he can give written answers on Russian collusion?

Dershowitz: I think we're seeing a charade where both sides know that the president is not going to sit down and talk, but each side would like to be able to say, "oh, I wanted to talk" or "oh, I wanted to give him an opportunity to talk" and it's his fault. You know, I hope we can also mention just for a minute, I know you wanted me to talk about the 25th Amendment and my friend, Senator Warren, calling for its invocation. You have to read the 25th Amendment and understand that it was never intended to medicalize political differences. Even President Obama yesterday used the term "paranoia". It's very dangerous when we try to psychiatrize political differences. That's not what the 25th Amendment was about. It was about a president who was shot, or a president who was having a psychotic breakdown, and didn't know the difference between right and wrong. It was not intended for a substitute for impeachment and we ought to get off that as soon as possible. Otherwise we will really really undercut the important meaning of the 25th Amendment.

Stopped reading when I read Derschowitz

Also find it humorous that you just don't respond when I refute your shitstain posts. Good to know you're learning to concede

 

[andnowweknow]

I think he's consistently a civil libertarian

I do think he loves attention.

If you want to be a conspiracy theorist about it, your best line of attack is that he is very high on Trump since seeing the various pro-Israel actions Trump has taken since inauguration

Measured. Ok, fair enough.

Over/Under on Stone indictment before the election? I can't see Mueller doing it prior...

 

[waiguoren]

Stopped reading when I read Derschowitz

Also find it humorous that you just don't respond when I refute your shitstain posts. Good to know you're learning to concede

lol!

I posted nothing but a complete news article with a laughing face.

You went through the trouble of posting a "rebuttal" to that news article.

What is there to say to you other than to laugh? You assumed I had an angle. You were wrong. It's hilarious.

 

[waiguoren]

Over/Under on Stone indictment before the election? I can't see Mueller doing it prior...

Now you're speaking my language.

Umm.....I think we're probably on the same side of that one.

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

lol!

I posted nothing but a complete news article with a laughing face.

You went through the trouble of posting a "rebuttal" to that news article.

What is there to say to you other than to laugh? You assumed I had an angle. You were wrong. It's hilarious.

The other reply I gave you dipshit . The you ignored . The one where you blatantly haven't read the government's motion

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

Measured. Ok, fair enough.

Over/Under on Stone indictment before the election? I can't see Mueller doing it prior...

Given the number of Stone associates who have met with Mueller and the grand jury, Mueller may