Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[Bodakane]

Ok, I take back my earlier statement.

This is clearly politically motivated. I don't feel bad for Aventti though, i feel bad for the non Trump supporters here that are going to have top explain how this different than Kavanaugh over and over and over while the Trump supporters never get it.

[Stormspark]

Ok, I take back my earlier statement.

This is clearly politically motivated. I don't feel bad for Aventti though, i feel bad for the non Trump supporters here that are going to have top explain how this different than Kavanaugh over and over and over while the Trump supporters never get it.

I just block Trump supporters and don't ever engage them. Noone has to explain anything. They are not worth talking to. They are literally not worth my time.

[PACOX]

*Puts the ear to the ground*

Yup, I can hear the faint echos of Trump tweeting about Mueller again. What is he trying to get ahead of this time?

[kaelleria]

I've heard we may be getting indictments on Tuesday... but it's from BusinessInsider so who the fuck knows.

[Breccia]

It's a minor point, but little things add up. A Russian firm Mueller accused of illegally funding a 2016 campaign propaganda fest challenged Mueller in court.

It went about as well as expected.

There is, of course, going to be no extradition and no trial.

- - - Updated - - -

Graham, who recently choked out a bipartisan piece of legislation to protect the Mueller investigation, says he met with Whitaker, says Whitaker claims there's no reason to end the Mueller probe, and that he believes Whitaker.

There’s no reason to fire him. I asked him, ‘Do you have any reason to [fire] Mr. Mueller? He said he has zero reason to believe anything is being done wrong with the Mueller investigation

So there you have it. An old man believes the word of Whitaker, currently under investigation for defrauding old men.

[Paranoid Android]

Sorta off topic. Has anyone watched "Get me Roger Stone" on Netflix? I haven't, but I believe it's some grandious piece about the brilliance of Roger Stone as a political operative and Stone getting trump elected. Maybe I'll take a quick look.

So without watching it, I wonder if they mention all the criminal crap he has done (allegedly).

I don't why I thought about this, but this supposed documentary seems to look as a joke.

- - - Updated - - -

It's a minor point, but little things add up. A Russian firm Mueller accused of illegally funding a 2016 campaign propaganda fest challenged Mueller in court.

It went about as well as expected.

There is, of course, going to be no extradition and no trial.

- - - Updated - - -

Graham, who recently choked out a bipartisan piece of legislation to protect the Mueller investigation, says he met with Whitaker, says Whitaker claims there's no reason to end the Mueller probe, and that he believes Whitaker.



So there you have it. An old man believes the word of Whitaker, currently under investigation for defrauding old men.

Oh yeah. We all know Graham is a joke.

I guess most should hammer home the fact that Whitaker has access to Mueller's evidence. I admit I don't know how much, but Graham giving Whitaker the vote of confidence as if he can't do damage is a lie.

[DarkTZeratul]

Sorta off topic. Has anyone watched "Get me Roger Stone" on Netflix? I haven't, but I believe it's some grandious piece about the brilliance of Roger Stone as a political operative and Stone getting trump elected. Maybe I'll take a quick look.

So without watching it, I wonder if they mention all the criminal crap he has done (allegedly).

I don't why I thought about this, but this supposed documentary seems to look as a joke.

My friend recommended it to me once, though I haven't watched it either. It's not a joke, but it sounds like it takes the view that Roger Stone's influence is deeply troubling (it was made right around the time of the 2016 election, IIRC, so well before Stone was actively in Mueller's sights).

[Paranoid Android]

My friend recommended it to me once, though I haven't watched it either. It's not a joke, but it sounds like it takes the view that Roger Stone's influence is deeply troubling (it was made right around the time of the 2016 election, IIRC, so well before Stone was actively in Mueller's sights).

Yeah so it is a fluff piece or an in depth piece of "yeah this guy is kinda shady". I know you haven't watched it and I must decide by myself.

[DarkTZeratul]

Yeah so it is a fluff piece or an in depth piece of "yeah this guy is kinda shady".

My friend's description made it sound very much like the latter, only replace "kinda shady" with "really shady."

[Bullettime]

Yeah so it is a fluff piece or an in depth piece of "yeah this guy is kinda shady". I know you haven't watched it and I must decide by myself.

More of the latter. It's a decent look into Stone, how shady of a bastard he really is, and overall gives a look into how people like him manage to worm their way through American politics to spread their influence.

[Paranoid Android]

So Don, Jr. Rumor is might be this week.

[Deleted]

so who was involved with the man who has lived in a cupboard for 6 years?

Stone, Credico, Don Jr, Kushner, Bannon, Flynn, Jerome Corsi, Giuliani, Margaret Ratner Kunstler, Farage, Hannity? thats all ive got off the top of my head.

probs your man papadopalos as well?

[Machismo]

so who was involved with the man who has lived in a cupboard for 6 years?

Stone, Credico, Don Jr, Kushner, Bannon, Flynn, Jerome Corsi, Giuliani, Margaret Ratner Kunstler, Farage, Hannity? thats all ive got off the top of my head.

probs your man papadopalos as well?

Well, you know for a fact that Stone and Trump Jr. were involved with them.

[Belize]

So Don, Jr. Rumor is might be this week.

I certainly hope so! What an exciting weekend this would be!

[Breccia]

So Trump claims he has finished the written answers to the written questions and his lawyers need multiple days to go over them before giving them to Mueller.

Just a reminder:
1) Trump decided which questions he would answer and which topics they'd be about.
2) Then his lawyers got days, plural, to edit them.
3) Nothing about obstruction, which of course involves firing Comey, which is why Mueller was hired, and
4) He was allowed to write WITCH HUNT in all caps.

Oh, one more thing:

5) Trump's written responses will be evidence.

NPR explains part of the "perjury trap" Trump is worried about:

Trump's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., hosted a meeting with a Russian delegation in 2016 after receiving an offer via intermediaries of damaging information about Hillary Clinton.

Although the Trump family has changed its story about the meeting, the president's position since has been that Trump Jr. did nothing wrong and that it is fair game in politics to meet with people who make these kinds of offers.

At the same time, Trump has said he did not authorize or know about the meeting beforehand. The special counsel's investigators likely want him to address that for the record in their questions.

Congressional investigators asked Trump Jr. about the contacts he was making in the early summer of 2016 as he set up the Trump Tower meeting in New York City. He made two phone calls to a blocked number. Trump Jr. told lawmakers he didn't remember whom he called. Other witnesses said that Trump Sr. used a blocked number.

If investigators were to establish that Trump Jr. had called his father at the time he was scheduling the meeting with the Russians, it might undercut the president's denials. And if the president declined to answer a question about that to Mueller under penalty of perjury, that too could be suggestive.

Now, let's say that Trump answers the question "Did your son tell you about the Trump Tower meeting?" Trump has four options.

1) Tell the Truth and say "No".

This would be the safest option if Trump could actually take it. Giving him the credit that it's possible Trump could be running a presidential campaign, during which Stone, Jr, and the like find something they believe will kill his enemy's campaign and choose not to tell him, I admit it's possible that Trump could say "No" while telling the truth.

Possible.

2) Tell the Truth and say "Yes."

In what I find to be the most likely option, Trump could revise his previous years of protest and instead say "Yes, Donnie Dum-Dum Jr mentioned it in passing, but said it was about adoption and I chose to believe him." This would, of course, be selling his son down the river in exchange for some leeway should he actually be called to the stand.

3) Lie and say "No"

In order to keep up the charade, possibly augmented by knowing he's doomed anyhow, Trump might continue to lie and say "No" despite being informed. Clinton got impeached for lying about a blow job. Trump would be lying about directly working with Russia to change a federal election. Trump and his lawyers would only take this option if they knew, for a fact, Mueller had enough evidence to hang them high anyhow, and basically stall for time. I consider this to be the second most likely option.

I admit it's possible they could also lie with "No" and hope Mueller doesn't know the truth. It's gutsy, and by "gutsy" I mean stupid, but it's possible and the third most likely option.0

4) Lie and say "Yes".

This would be suicide. I include it for the sake of completion and nothing else.

"But Breccia! Surely he can refuse to answer!"

No. He can't.

Trump is already picking the most rotten of the cherries here. If he is directly asked about "NO COLLUSION!" and refuses to answer that, too, then he'll be dragged before a Bible within minutes. Trump can't even pretend to be cooperating, while not answering any relevant questions in any way. Especially with the Democrats controlling the House, to whom Trump has made zero attempts to bargain.

It won't be long to find out if Trump's pants set the California wildfires.

[Canpinter]

Breccia i think your missing one option "I don't recall". he can simply claim he doesn't remember if he knew about the meeting before it happened or after.

[some guy]

Breccia i think your missing one option "I don't recall". he can simply claim he doesn't remember if he knew about the meeting before it happened or after.

But Trump has a really good memory. A great memory. The best memory. In the history of ... well ... ever.

[Adam Jensen]

But Trump has a really good memory. A great memory. The best memory. In the history of ... well ... ever.

But he doesn't remember having any sort of relationship with Whitaker.

[Breccia]

Breccia i think your missing one option "I don't recall".

I struggled with this one.

While everyone and their three wives they've cheated on know that "I don't remember" is the Get Out Of Jail card of answers, remember that Trump has, multiple times, publicly, denied knowing of the meeting in no uncertain terms. Admitting he does not know, when he says he knows he didn't, counts as a lie. The rabid fanbase will accept that, but they don't make the rules.

Also, "I don't remember" is a non-answer. If Trump, again, only chooses to answer a few questions, and says "I don't remember" to the rest, that's still non-compliance.

So, no, he can't do that.

[Canpinter]

I struggled with this one.

While everyone and their three wives they've cheated on know that "I don't remember" is the Get Out Of Jail card of answers, remember that Trump has, multiple times, publicly, denied knowing of the meeting in no uncertain terms. Admitting he does not know, when he says he knows he didn't, counts as a lie. The rabid fanbase will accept that, but they don't make the rules.

Also, "I don't remember" is a non-answer. If Trump, again, only chooses to answer a few questions, and says "I don't remember" to the rest, that's still non-compliance.

So, no, he can't do that.

Except none of those denials where under oath so he can just say he lied.

At this point i think trump and his team have one main goal, avoiding any criminal punishment, they can count on enough of the republicans in the senate to not vote for impeachment so "i dont recall" is the legally safest option.