• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Mueller Investigation pt4

Status
Not open for further replies.
trump Tweets

It is being reported that Leakin' James Comey was told by Department of Justice attorneys not to answer the most important questions. Total bias and corruption at the highest levels of previous Administration. Force him to answer the questions under oath!
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Here’s the full Mueller doc for your reading pleasure. Only 7 pages

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5453422-Mueller-Cohen-Sentencing-Memo.html
Click to expand...

Some titbits:


The defendant’s crime was serious. He withheld information material to the investigations
of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election being conducted by the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence (“SSCI”), the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
(“HPSCI”), and the SCO. The defendant lied to Congress about a business project (the “Moscow
Project”) that he worked on during the 2016 presidential campaign, while he served as Executive
Vice President at a Manhattan-based real estate company (the “Company”) and as Special Counsel
to the owner of the Company (“Individual 1”). The defendant admitted he told these lies—which
he made publicly and in submissions to Congress—in order to (1) minimize links between the
Moscow Project and Individual 1 and (2) give the false impression that the Moscow Project had ended before the
Iowa caucus and the first presidential primaries, in hopes of limiting the ongoing
Russia investigations being conducted by Congress and the SCO.
In recent months, however, the defendant has taken significant steps to mitigate his
criminal conduct. He chose to accept responsibility for his false statements and admit to his
conduct in open court. He also has gone to significant lengths to assist the Special Counsel’s
investigation.

The defendant’s lies to Congress were deliberate and premeditated. His false statements
did not spring spontaneously from a line of examination or heated colloquy during a congressional
hearing. They started in a written submission that he chose to provide to both houses of Congress
ahead of his appearances. These circumstances show a deliberate effort to use his lies as a way to
set the tone and shape the course of the hearings in an effort to stymie the inquiries.
The defendant amplified his false statements by releasing and repeating his lies to the
public, including to other potential witnesses. The defendant was scheduled to appear before both
intelligence committees in closed sessions. Prior to testifying, the defendant made a public
appearance at the U.S. Capitol and released his prepared opening statement, which falsely claimed
that the Moscow Project “was terminated in January of 2016[,] which occurred before the Iowa
caucus and months before the very first primary.” By publicly presenting this false narrative, the
defendant deliberately shifted the timeline of what had occurred in the hopes of limiting the
investigations into possible Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election—an issue
of heightened national interest.
The defendant’s false statements obscured the fact that the Moscow Project was a lucrative business opportunity that sought, and likely required, the assistance of the Russian government. If the project was completed, the Company could have received hundreds of millions of dollars from Russian sources in licensing fees and other revenues. The fact that Cohen continued to work on the project and discuss it with Individual 1 well into the campaign was material to the ongoing congressional and SCO investigations, particularly because it occurred at a time of sustained efforts by the Russian government to interfere with the U.S. presidential election. Similarly, it was material that Cohen, during the campaign, had a substantive telephone call about the project with an assistant to the press secretary for the President of Russia.
The defendant, without prompting by the SCO, also corrected other false and misleading
statements that he had made concerning his outreach to and contacts with Russian officials during
the course of the campaign. For example, in a radio interview in September 2015, the defendant
suggested that Individual 1 meet with the President of Russia in New York City during his visit
for the United Nations General Assembly. When asked previously about these events, the
defendant claimed his public comments had been spontaneous and had not been discussed within
the campaign or the Company. During his proffer sessions, the defendant admitted that this
account was false and that he had in fact conferred with Individual 1 about contacting the Russian
government before reaching out to gauge Russia’s interest in such a meeting. The meeting
ultimately did not take place.​

So nothing to see here Woop woop
 
Imhotep said:
Getting people freshly riled up about Benghazi, 5-6 years after the fact... it's amazing. You have to give the conservative propaganda machine some credit.
Click to expand...

I repeat: I long fro the day when the only place I see the name Benghazi are books on the North African Campaign in World War 2.
 
The Big Dog said:
Comey not answering about:

“Let’s just say in broad strokes that everything related to Hillary’s investigation, everything related to how they got onto it and what their process was, everything related to the FISA warrants and the fake dossier,” Issa said. “Those are the areas in which time and time again he is not answering.”

House should hold him in contempt and have the House Sergeant slap his ass in the hoosegow.
Click to expand...
Any idea why they are not?
 
Paul2 said:
I don't get it. What's the point of the rule? Sorry for being dense.
Click to expand...

The "rule" is that it allows TBD to handwave away anything he likes by arbitrarily declaring it invalid.

In other news, it's nice to see the inconsistencies between what was claimed of the evidence re 302s and what the evidence actually showed being "look! A squirrel!"ed away.
 
Paul2 said:
I don't get it. What's the point of the rule? Sorry for being dense.
Click to expand...

That was a joke.

The real answer is that TBD has created a bizarre "rule" from his own imagination that if someone says "so" then it's some kind of mysterious fallacy and therefore he gets to disregard the post. He might try to explain it better, but it wouldn't make any more sense.
 
I Am The Scum said:
That was a joke.

The real answer is that TBD has created a bizarre "rule" from his own imagination that if someone says "so" then it's some kind of mysterious fallacy and therefore he gets to disregard the post. He might try to explain it better, but it wouldn't make any more sense.
Click to expand...

The "Rule of So" states when someone starts a response to an argument or an opinion with the words "So, you are saying that..." or "So, you think that...", "So, you claim that..." or similar, what follows very likely is a strawman.
 
Oystein said:
The "Rule of So" states when someone starts a response to an argument or an opinion with the words "So, you are saying that..." or "So, you think that...", "So, you claim that..." or similar, what follows very likely is a strawman.
Click to expand...

Thank you all for explaining that.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets

Totally clears the President. Thank you!


No context
Click to expand...

Only in Trumplandia does this totally clear the President. Talk about an alternate universe!

The SDNY prosecutors today in Cohen's sentencing memo concluded that:

But now we’re seeing that in a court filing for the first time, which, as some legal observers have noted with varying emphasis on the fact, means federal prosecutors have concluded that Trump directed someone to commit a crime, which is a crime. Put another way, SDNY prosecutors believe the president directed and coordinated felonies.
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...dent-of-the-united-states-committed-a-felony/

Let's see how Trumpers spin this one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom