Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[PACOX]

Can someone just pay Omarosa so she can release the tapes already? I'm tired of waiting. I'll throw in 2 cents if that helps.

[draynay]

So, SHS trotted out for What He Meant Was duty and was asked point-blank if Trump used the n-word.

She refused to say "no". She only said she didn't personally hear him say it.

Better than usual. Most of the time it would be absolute that he never did the thing and then a couple days later would be a recording or an admission that he did the thing.

[Shadowferal]

https://twitter.com/Evan_McMullin

Updated progression of Trump defenses:

1. There was no contact with Russians.
2. OK, only appropriate contact.
3. It didn’t go anywhere.
4. I didn’t know about it.
5. NO COLLUSION.
6. Collusion is not a crime.
7. I was framed!

[Breccia]

So, something else in the Manafort trial: Jared Kushner.

Prosecutors entered into evidence Manafort's emails asking for three people to get cushy White House jobs, three people who helped him get a large loan even though it was known to be a high-risk one.

They also entered into evidence Kushner's positive reply.

I'm not sure what crime "bribing someone to give you a loan, with a federal position they're not qualified for" is, so I'm going to say "collusion".

[Cthulhu 2020]

So, something else in the Manafort trial: Jared Kushner.

Prosecutors entered into evidence Manafort's emails asking for three people to get cushy White House jobs, three people who helped him get a large loan even though it was known to be a high-risk one.

They also entered into evidence Kushner's positive reply.

I'm not sure what crime "bribing someone to give you a loan, with a federal position they're not qualified for" is, so I'm going to say "collusion".

I mean, even if some of the things this administration does aren't specifically crimes, they'd be considered corrupt as fuck by any normal people under normal circumstances. And if a Democrat was doing 1/10 of what the Trump administration was, conservatives would be marching in the streets with their guns demanding blood. Remember how about 6 months into the Trump administration, we found out that most people who believe in and support Trump have just stopped watching news all together, because even Fox is filled with negative stuff that they can't even spin into positives? Yeah, we literally have almost an entire party who's plugging their ears with their fingers, closing their eyes and going "LALALALALALALALA I DON'T SEE OR HEAR ANY CORRUPTION!"

[Forogil]

Remember how about 6 months into the Trump administration, we found out that most people who believe in and support Trump have just stopped watching news all together, because even Fox is filled with negative stuff that they can't even spin into positives?

There is a solution for that - the parents (who live in the US) of a friend of a friend have begun watching RT.

No kidding.

[Breccia]

Okay so this one's kind of involved.

As discussed in another thread, Trump just did something UnPresidented -- revoked Brennan's security because Brennan tweeted something Trump didn't like. He did so without following the usual channels, even the "national security weak excuse" one. It's never been done.

Turns out, there's more. Giulliani has recently accused Brennan of being the mastermind of the Mueller probe. Evidently, Trump bought in on that. (Or, he's really that blatantly petty. Neither trait is redeeming, but Giulliani's option is obstruction of justice)

And, well, FOX News had enough.

In an interview on Fox News on Monday, Giuliani claimed that former CIA Director John Brennan brought the dossier to the special counsel's attention, kicking off the more than year-long investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.

"Much of Giuliani’s attack on Brennan involved the dossier compiled by the former British spy Christopher Steele, that the administration has repeatedly asserted was what began the Russia investigation," Smith said on Wednesday.

"It was not," Smith continued. "The Russia investigation began after the former Trump policy adviser George Papadopoulos told an Australian diplomat that the Russians had dirt on his then-political opponent Hillary Clinton. That information was passed on to intelligence officials."

Smith cast doubt on Giuliani's assertions that the dossier is "laughable."

"For context, the research in the dossier includes 17 memos produced by the former spy Christopher Steele," Smith explained. "They allege misconduct and a conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russian government during the 2016 election."

"Some assertions in the dossier have been confirmed," he continued. "Other parts are unconfirmed."

"None of the dossier, to Fox News’s knowledge, has been disproven," Smith added.

[Edge-]

And, well, FOX News had enough.

They didn't, but Sheperd Smith did. He's legitimately the only credible news person on Fox, and the only one not towing the propaganda lie. He's basically his own independent network separate from Fox entirely.

[Dontrike]

Okay so this one's kind of involved.

As discussed in another thread, Trump just did something UnPresidented -- revoked Brennan's security because Brennan tweeted something Trump didn't like. He did so without following the usual channels, even the "national security weak excuse" one. It's never been done.

Turns out, there's more. Giulliani has recently accused Brennan of being the mastermind of the Mueller probe. Evidently, Trump bought in on that. (Or, he's really that blatantly petty. Neither trait is redeeming, but Giulliani's option is obstruction of justice)

And, well, FOX News had enough.

Smith is the #1 sane guy there, and then one other that's like half way down on the sane/insane train but I forgot his name. The rest make that whole channel state propaganda.

[Breccia]

A senile old man got in front of the camera to say Team Trump is ready to fight the Mueller subpoena before SCOTUS.

"So? He's not really Trump's lawyer, and he's routinely wrong, lying, and crazy."

Yes. But. Bear in mind, he just announced
a) Team Trump knows the subpoenas are coming, and
b) they're not going to agree.

Maybe Giulliani is lying, in which case, announcing "come at me bro!" just before you cower whimpering in a corner seems like a questionable move...but whatever. More likely, even Giulliani knows Mueller is scraping at the door.

[Felya]

Maybe Giulliani is lying, in which case, announcing "come at me bro!" just before you cower whimpering in a corner seems like a questionable move...but whatever. More likely, even Giulliani knows Mueller is scraping at the door.

I trust Giuliani on his FBI leaks... he has proven to have mole in the FBI, to get info before it is public. Like Comey and the Wiener... lol

[PACOX]

Now taking bets on the Manafort Trial.

- Verdict by the end of the week or not
- Guilty or Innocent
- Trumps Reaction: Silent or Twitter Storm. 5% bonus if the latter is him throwing Manafort under the bus.

TAKING ALL BETS NOW!

[Bullettime]

I trust Giuliani on his FBI leaks... he has proven to have mole in the FBI, to get info before it is public. Like Comey and the Wiener... lol

And the fact that while Mueller may not necessarily need Trump's testimony in normal circumstances, having Trump's testimony or his reaction to the subpoena would be a huge boon in having the report get more weight behind it due to the fallout of said report ultimately going to be up to congress.

Mueller has been playing shit by the book and doing a great job at it but his findings won't do much of shit unless he scores some major victories in the court of public opinion. Having Trump challenge the subpoena can provide that, and it's honestly doubtful that even with Kavanaugh and Gorsuch that they would claim the president can't be subpoenaed. Indicted maybe, but subpoenaed is a super long shot, but it's Trump's only real move so of course he's going to roll the dice.

So ultimately Giuliani may be telling the truth here.

[Ripster42]

I trust Giuliani on his FBI leaks... he has proven to have mole in the FBI, to get info before it is public. Like Comey and the Wiener... lol

Which, as I understand it, is still the subject of an IG review.

[Skroe]

Now taking bets on the Manafort Trial.

- Verdict by the end of the week or not
- Guilty or Innocent
- Trumps Reaction: Silent or Twitter Storm. 5% bonus if the latter is him throwing Manafort under the bus.

TAKING ALL BETS NOW!

- Verdict by next Thursday (because there is so much evidence to review and this is complicated)

- Guilty

- Twitterstorm, distancing himself from Manafort and some stunt, like stripping somebody else of security clearence. Something to show the traitorous base "he's a fighter".

[Breccia]

Verdict by the end of the week or not

I want to say "yes". The prosecution put up direct, relevant evidence and the defense did jack shit. Whether the defense is hoping for a pardon, appeal, or mistrial doesn't matter, the result of this trial can't possibly take that long.

[Skroe]

I want to say "yes". The prosecution put up direct, relevant evidence and the defense did jack shit. Whether the defense is hoping for a pardon, appeal, or mistrial doesn't matter, the result of this trial can't possibly take that long.

I'm just thinking there is so much evidence, much of it technical in nature, it could take significant time to sort through it all.

It's the evidence (specifically of how money is moved), not the testimony, that puts people away in cases like this according to prosecutors who have done it. Testimony sets the scene and offers context.

Jurors probably already made up their minds on the witnesses, but it could take some time to go through documents.

[Breccia]

I'm just thinking there is so much evidence, much of it technical in nature, it could take significant time to sort through it all.

Whereas I'm looking at it from the other direction. The jury was told by the prosecutors how much evidence they had, and how damning it was. The jury was told by the defense that the defense couldn't explain any of it. If a jury was shown ballistics reports and told "these prove the defendant's gun fired the killing bullet" and the defense didn't say a word on the matter, I don't expect the jury to start examining those photos with microscopes.

[Skroe]

Whereas I'm looking at it from the other direction. The jury was told by the prosecutors how much evidence they had, and how damning it was. The jury was told by the defense that the defense couldn't explain any of it. If a jury was shown ballistics reports and told "these prove the defendant's gun fired the killing bullet" and the defense didn't say a word on the matter, I don't expect the jury to start examining those photos with microscopes.

Oh I'd certainly love for it to be that fast. Don't get me wrong. My faith in my fellow man for anything remotely technical nowdays is rather low though.

[Breccia]

My faith in my fellow man for anything remotely technical nowdays is rather low though.

Perhaps, but don't confuse that with the legal system OH SHIT HE GOT BANNED! All hands, brace for impact!