Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[Garnier Fructis]

No, just continues to make him a fucking moron:

-Mueller knows a lot that we don't know

NO SHIT! OMG, I had NO idea that Mueller, the Head Man in Charge of the entire investigation, would know more things about the investigation than the average citizen. What a fucking profound statement!

That would be an inane statement if people didn't behave as if it weren't true. We've got people on this forum that argue that anything Mueller knows would be leaked, i.e. all we've seen is all he's got and therefore nothingburger.

He's speaking to the lowest common denominators, and we've got some of those LCD's on this forum.

[Breccia]

While we're on the topic: how's it going, Kushner?

Last fall, Kushner turned over documents pertaining to the campaign and transition to both Mueller and congressional investigators, sources told CNN in November. Kushner spoke to investigators in November for less than two hours, and the dominant topic was Michael Flynn, according to two people familiar with the meeting who spoke to CNN at the time.

Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and is cooperating with the investigation, attended some of Kushner's meetings with foreign nationals. Under his plea deal, Flynn is obligated to tell Mueller's investigators everything he knows about these meetings.

Last year, Trump said he would view any investigation of his or his family's personal finances as a "violation" by Mueller that crosses a red line. A personal familiar with the investigation who supports Trump suggested that the expanded inquiry falls outside of Mueller's purview. Mueller is authorized to investigate links between Trump associates and Russia as well as "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation."

Not only could Mueller go after Kushner for his public attempt to sell real estate to foreign governments while working in the White House, there's the option to get him for lying to the FBI about it.

[wunksta]

I wonder if this whole thing could be considered 'draining the swamp'?

[Tijuana]

Facebook seems to have updated the number to $100k. The article linked states that the IRA had a $1.25mil monthly budget.


Except we do know, from the article I linked earlier (that shouldn't have a paywall)



The focus purely on money is silly when there are state actors involved. The budget of the IRA and their bots aren't included despite their reach. As for how much that kind of money gets you, an interesting read.

So, are you saying Facebook lied in their testimony? But even if we accept your premise, there was still 2 BILLION dollars spent on advertising. This is peanuts. I don't really hear any reasonable liberals saying the outcome of the election was changed, despite their huffing and puffing over this.

I can't read your article, (ad block) but I don't need to read it, to know that the Russians didn't spend 42k in Facebook ads, the majority of which were in blue states, so effectively that they out performed 80 freaking million dollars in Facebook ads. It's preposterous to even think that, sorry. They were not masterminds; they didn't even know the right states to do this in. There is testimony that they didn't seem to know what the term "purple state" even means. They may have not even known about the electoral college. These were not pros, they were just random Russians. In fact, they were so ignorant, US political consultants are joking about how successful they might be working in Russia, since they don't seem to understand democracy very well.

I mean, we don't really have all the facts yet, if we are being fair. But specifically to the 13 Russians indicted, this was a keystone cops operation. This is a joke. I mean, they held a bunch of rallies where only a dozen losers showed up. They were not good at this.

[Antiganon]

Yep, almost as bad as someone running for President swearing to uphold Article XII of the Constitution.

I'll wait. No rush.

Easy with the friendly fire there chief.

[Deleted]

That would be an inane statement if people didn't behave as if it weren't true. We've got people on this forum that argue that anything Mueller knows would be leaked, i.e. all we've seen is all he's got and therefore nothingburger.

Mueller has run a pretty tight ship. And do you notice, he never makes any appearances, gets in front of a mic, or waxes daily about the investigation? I respect that about him. He is just keeping his head down and doing his job.

[Garnier Fructis]

Mueller has run a pretty tight ship. And do you notice, he never makes any appearances, gets in front of a mic, or waxes daily about the investigation? I respect that about him. He is just keeping his head down and doing his job.

That's cool, and almost completely unrelated to what we were talking about.

You said that it was a dumb statement to make, and I pointed out that there are people on this very forum that actually believe that shit.

[NYC17]

Mueller has run a pretty tight ship. And do you notice, he never makes any appearances, gets in front of a mic, or waxes daily about the investigation? I respect that about him. He is just keeping his head down and doing his job.

And you use that very same reasoning to support your assertion that there is no collusion. Mueller has given you zero indication of that being true or false.

Learn the lesson Mueller is teaching you.

[Deleted]

Does that mean you think Trump us a fucking moron...

LOL - ya, a fucking moron that kicked 2 political dynasties to the curb, 16 other Republican candidates, and took out the "most qualified person to ever run for President". And he did so without ever holding a prior public office.

Sorry to hear that the "most qualified person to ever run for President" couldn't beat a moron.

Oh, and don't say anything about "Russia" got Trump elected. Remember, you people are VERY fond of pointing out that Crooked Hillary WON the popular vote - and if our Republic was a Democracy that she would actually be the President.

[Machismo]

LOL - ya, a fucking moron that kicked 2 political dynasties to the curb, 16 other Republican candidates, and took out the "most qualified person to ever run for President". And he did so without ever holding a prior public office.

Sorry to hear that the "most qualified person to ever run for President" couldn't beat a moron.

Oh, and don't say anything about "Russia" got Trump elected. Remember, you people are VERY fond of pointing out that Crooked Hillary WON the popular vote - and if our Republic was a Democracy that she would actually be the President.

I'm simply trying to push you to be logically consistent. You wanted to judge someone based off of a stupid comment, and a lack of understanding of a document. Trump did the same thing.

It's a shame you want to deflect, and avoid being logically consistent. Maybe you should try to avoid hypocrisy in the future, just a thought.

[Deleted]

That's cool, and almost completely unrelated to what we were talking about.

You said that it was a dumb statement to make, and I pointed out that there are people on this very forum that actually believe that shit.

And I commented back to you regarding the people on the board that think that and I was agreeing with you that their opinion is wrong?

[Shadowmelded]

I can't read your article, (ad block) but I don't need to read it, to know that the Russians didn't spend 42k in Facebook ads, the majority of which were in blue states, so effectively that they out performed 80 freaking million dollars in Facebook ads. It's preposterous to even think that, sorry.

You're once again ignoring viewers reached in favour of raw dollars spent which is misleading due to the outside influence and round-the-clock disinformation campaign being waged. You don't need 80 million dollars to artificially inflate content through bots and throwaway accounts. This isn't the 90s anymore, digital advertising is way more complex.

They were not masterminds; they didn't even know the right states to do this in. There is testimony that they didn't seem to know what the term "purple state" even means. They may have not even known about the electoral college. These were not pros, they were just random Russians. In fact, they were so ignorant, US political consultants are joking about how successful they might be working in Russia, since they don't seem to understand democracy very well.

They didn't, at first, until told to focus on purple states by a US person, according to the indictment. While that would give them the most bang for their buck, they didn't need to target swing states specifically, just create a media milieu where their disinformation can propagate.

[Deleted]

I'm simply trying to push you to be logically consistent. You wanted to judge someone based off of a stupid comment, and a lack of understanding of a document. Trump did the same thing.

Ted Lieu is a fucking moron - that is an aggregate opinion, not based on one statement. I just happened to highlight one of them.

[Machismo]

Ted Lieu is a fucking moron - that is an aggregate opinion, not based on one statement. I just happened to highlight one of them.

Like I said, it's a shame you cannot be more consistent...

I recommend you try being a bit more consistent in the future, just a thought.

[Breccia]

This Esquire article says a lot of things, but amongst them, they talk about Bannon. Basically, he can't refuse Mueller, but he can testify under the certainity that he doesn't have a "smoking gun" either. By contrast, if he has less critical bits of information to give, he's concerned they'll be leaked -- by either side, just to be clear -- and has no interest in making Trump's poll numbers worse. So he'll risk a contempt charge, which he thinks is unlikely, rather than spoil Trump's name.

It also talks in detail about the language of the Russian indictments and by proxy Rosenstein's characterization. The rules about Americans helping the Russians illegally donate to a campaign are murky. The rules about Americans helping defraud the US government are not. By pursuing the charges as such, people who, say, met with Russians in Trump Tower are more likely to face conspiracy charges that will stick.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Money laundering, especially prior to his election? I couldn't give a flying fuck.

Ah right, you only care if people commit crimes while they hold office. Quite a strange standard to hold people to that being a criminal BEFORE you hold office would be fine.

[Tijuana]

And if you have paid ANY attention you would know this went far beyond facebook ads.

I never said that it didn't. In fact, I specifically just said in regards to these 13 indictments. You're coming in late making accusations that are refuted by things you missed, sorry.

[Tijuana]

You're once again ignoring viewers reached in favour of raw dollars spent which is misleading due to the outside influence and round-the-clock disinformation campaign being waged. You don't need 80 million dollars to artificially inflate content through bots and throwaway accounts. This isn't the 90s anymore, digital advertising is way more complex.


They didn't, at first, until told to focus on purple states by a US person, according to the indictment. While that would give them the most bang for their buck, they didn't need to target swing states specifically, just create a media milieu where their disinformation can propagate.

No, I'm not. What I am saying, which is quite logical and sound, is that you CAN'T reach more voters by spending 42k really well, than you can doing the SAME THINGS, but with 80 million dollars. I don't know why you are so hung up on viewers reached, when very clearly 80 million dollars reaches more viewers than 42 thousand does. That is just a fact. We are talking about ads in the SAME PLACE, on Facebook. I mean, I can't even believe you are arguing this point. It's ludicrous.

[NYC17]

These 13 indictments went far beyond facebook ads as well.

It's an ignorant argument to make anyway. The idea that "because they spent less" proves they were less effective is pretty absurd. The whole point of the social media campaign was due to its effectiveness and the way Facebook advertising is structured.

Tijuana is once again making a pointless argument.

[Shadowmelded]

No, I'm not. What I am saying, which is quite logical and sound, is that you CAN'T reach more voters by spending 42k really well, than you can doing the SAME THINGS, but with 80 million dollars. I don't know why you are so hung up on viewers reached, when very clearly 80 million dollars reaches more viewers than 42 thousand does. That is just a fact. We are talking about ads in the SAME PLACE, on Facebook. I mean, I can't even believe you are arguing this point. It's ludicrous.

The 42k number is misleading, and at this point it seems deliberately so. They spent more than that on just ads on just one platform (facebook) and that's before you factor in the campaigning the IRA did and the free advertising and campaigning they got from people retweeting and sharing links. That's why total viewers reached matters, because a raw dollar figure doesn't begin to touch the surface of how the information spread.