DOJ Appoints Robert Mueller as Special Counsel - Jerome Corsi Rejects Plea Deal

[GG]

20 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

The indictment states that the indicted people were coordinating w/ people in the Trump campaign & others (read: Sanders campaign workers) without the Trump (& Sanders) people realizing they were Russians.

 

Pretty sure you can't be conspiring intentionally to benefit Russia when you don't realize the people you are dealing w/ are essentially Russian spies.

 

And it keeps me burning that Sanders' campaign isn't catching any flak. 

 

So here's my theory:

 

I always thought there was something amiss about the treatment the DNC gave Bernie, and these indictments answer a lot of questions for me. 

 

It never made any sense to me why DNC would go so far in the tank for Hillary against another opponent in the primaries (even for the most qualified candidate ever).  They stacked the odds in her favor so much in the beginning that it was impossible for anyone to win the nomination, and they ran a facade slate of candidates to at least show some competition.  But they were clearly surprised at the sudden Bernie surge, and I think now we're seeing why that happened.

 

My guess is that DNC & Obama knew of Russian meddling to help Bernie all along, and weren't too pleased about it.  Yet, there's no way in hell they could go public with the allegations that Russians are overtly helping a Democratic candidate, even though he's a socialist crank with a Soviet fondness.  So DNC did as much as they could behind the scenes to subvert Bernie, whose support was gaining traction from real people.   

 

Bernie lost, and Russian meddling turned to Trump, and with that the attention of DNC, Clintons & White House.  They figured to keep tabs on anyone who could be associated with Russians and that's when the dossier came in handy.  I think the primary reason for spying on Trump's team was to get to the Russians and deal with them after Hillary got elected.   I'm not certain Obama was using FISA to spy on Trump, but hey, may as well get the info as long as you're snooping. 

 

So, what may have been a valid investigation at the start, turned into a fiasco because corners were cut and laws possibly broken to get access to that info.

 

When Hillary lost, everyone went into panic mode because the probability of everything getting uncovered just went up a lot.  So in typical CYA mode, someone had the bright idea to tie the Russia collusion to Trump betting that Trump would resign within 90 days anyway.

 

They lost.

 

 

[Tiberius]

50 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Hell, I was so anti-Trump I was actually pro-Trump, figuring he'd do such a ****ty job that Congress and the Courts would be forced to step in as checks and balances.  Funny how I was...not entirely incorrect, really. 

 

But morons like "Logic" or Tibs or others here have their heads stuck so far up their asses they honestly believe that disagreeing with them means you support Trump.  News flash, morons: it is entirely possible to be against Trump AND disagree with you.  Likely, even, given that Trump and you morons share the same fundamental characteristic of being complete ****heads.

This is laughable. Sure, you can disagree, but you defend him at every turn. You can look silly ball washing each other

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

Rod Rosenstein: “No allegation that any American was a knowing participant”

 

Rod Rosenstein: "No allegation in the indictment of any effect on the outcome of the American election."

 

 

 

 

Dems:..........

This is another thing you clowns do. Ignoring other facts we already know. 

 

You people are seriously trying to act to act like today's news is happening in a vacuum. We already know Trump's closest advisors were meeting Russians to get dirt on Hillary Clintons campaign. Yes, I get the White House is writing the talking points. Heck, DR is literally posting the WH's statements! 

[Keukasmallie]

So working against Shrillary's election was a bad thing...?

 

I was unashamedly pro-Trump until the Wednesday after the first Tuesday in November, 2016.  At that point it was clear he had defeated what's-her-name, so I dumped him like a steaming pile of dung.

Edited February 16, 2018 by Keukasmallie

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, Logic said:

Voted for one criminal to keep another out. Right on. And you approve of the job he's doing thus far?

I do.

[Doc Brown]

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

It does but he never planned on firing him. 

 

Mueller is key to his vindication. 

If he looks hard into his financial affairs (unrelated to original purpose of special counsel), I could see Trump wanting to fire him and it would be justifiable.

[Tiberius]

Just now, Doc Brown said:

If he looks hard into his financial affairs (unrelated to original purpose of special counsel), I could see Trump wanting to fire him and it would be justifiable.

Even if those financials show he was compromised by money laundering crimes? You think it would be ok to fire him? 

 

 

And we we can all agree Trump was lying when he said the Russian thing was a hoax, right? 

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

This is laughable. Sure, you can disagree, but you defend him at every turn. You can look silly ball washing each other

This is another thing you clowns do. Ignoring other facts we already know. 

 

You people are seriously trying to act to act like today's news is happening in a vacuum. We already know Trump's closest advisors were meeting Russians to get dirt on Hillary Clintons campaign. Yes, I get the White House is writing the talking points. Heck, DR is literally posting the WH's statements! 

 

And what do you think the "Trump dossier" was all about? 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

1 hour ago, GG said:

 

And it keeps me burning that Sanders' campaign isn't catching any flak. 

 

So here's my theory:

 

I always thought there was something amiss about the treatment the DNC gave Bernie, and these indictments answer a lot of questions for me. 

 

It never made any sense to me why DNC would go so far in the tank for Hillary against another opponent in the primaries (even for the most qualified candidate ever).  They stacked the odds in her favor so much in the beginning that it was impossible for anyone to win the nomination, and they ran a facade slate of candidates to at least show some competition.  But they were clearly surprised at the sudden Bernie surge, and I think now we're seeing why that happened.

 

My guess is that DNC & Obama knew of Russian meddling to help Bernie all along, and weren't too pleased about it.  Yet, there's no way in hell they could go public with the allegations that Russians are overtly helping a Democratic candidate, even though he's a socialist crank with a Soviet fondness.  So DNC did as much as they could behind the scenes to subvert Bernie, whose support was gaining traction from real people.   

 

Bernie lost, and Russian meddling turned to Trump, and with that the attention of DNC, Clintons & White House.  They figured to keep tabs on anyone who could be associated with Russians and that's when the dossier came in handy.  I think the primary reason for spying on Trump's team was to get to the Russians and deal with them after Hillary got elected.   I'm not certain Obama was using FISA to spy on Trump, but hey, may as well get the info as long as you're snooping. 

 

So, what may have been a valid investigation at the start, turned into a fiasco because corners were cut and laws possibly broken to get access to that info.

 

When Hillary lost, everyone went into panic mode because the probability of everything getting uncovered just went up a lot.  So in typical CYA mode, someone had the bright idea to tie the Russia collusion to Trump betting that Trump would resign within 90 days anyway.

 

They lost.

 

 

 

The problem with this theory is the timeline of when the investigation began. The FBI didn't begin investigating Russian meddling or collusion until the end of June of '16 - and it was started by Peter Strzok whom we now know was heavily compromised - which was after Sanders had already lost. If 44 knew or was concerned about Russia propping Sanders up, he did nothing about it until well after the fact which makes this a tough sell. 

[Koko78]

11 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

The problem with this theory is the timeline of when the investigation began. The FBI didn't begin investigating Russian meddling or collusion until the end of June of '16 - and it was started by Peter Strzok whom we now know was heavily compromised - which was after Sanders had already lost. If 44 knew or was concerned about Russia propping Sanders up, he did nothing about it until well after the fact which makes this a tough sell. 

 

Obama didn't need to worry about Sanders. The fix had long been in with Hillary's campaign running the DNC from the outset.

[B-Man]

.........................Here's what happened.

 

 

.............................

 

 

 

 

 

 

[GG]

30 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

The problem with this theory is the timeline of when the investigation began. The FBI didn't begin investigating Russian meddling or collusion until the end of June of '16 - and it was started by Peter Strzok whom we now know was heavily compromised - which was after Sanders had already lost. If 44 knew or was concerned about Russia propping Sanders up, he did nothing about it until well after the fact which makes this a tough sell. 

 

That's the timeline of the FBI investigation.  There's a very good chance other intel agencies knew much earlier.

[Doc]

23 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

Obama didn't need to worry about Sanders. The fix had long been in with Hillary's campaign running the DNC from the outset.

 

Hilly was promised the nomination in 2016 in exchange for stepping-aside for Barry in 2008.

[Deranged Rhino]

9 minutes ago, GG said:

 

That's the timeline of the FBI investigation.  There's a very good chance other intel agencies knew much earlier.

 

I'm not saying that's impossible because I don't know for sure, but I find it highly unlikely based on what we know. 

 

We know, for example, that the FBI tried - and failed - to get a FISA to investigate this precise thing several times between June and September '16. It wasn't until the dossier was created and bolstered in the media (mid June through October) that they got their approval. This is relevant because we now know Brennan was directly involved with the bolstering of the dossier to the media - as was DNI Clapper. 

 

The office of the DNI supervises all the other intelligence agencies. So, if Brennan or CIA had an existing investigation/intelligence on this issue neither he nor Clapper would have needed to manipulate the media to bolster a dossier just to get a backdoor FISA. They'd be able to apply their own evidence from this other investigation(s) to the matter. 

 

We also know NSA was not actively investigating this (per Mike Rogers testimony) - in fact he was more concerned with the meddling coming in the form of the FBI and DNC working together.

 

We also know the DHS investigation did not start until late October. 

 

I'm not sure who else that leaves to investigate it before June. 

 

Bottom line, the DNI and CIA were actively working with Comey, Priestap, Baker and Carlin during the dossier's creation. This begs the question why they would waste their time propping up easily debunked garbage, violating dozens of laws in order to rig the FISC, if they had ongoing investigations with evidence showing the Russian meddling had actually bolstered Bernie's numbers... 

 

And, if they had evidence Bernie's votes were the product of active meddling/changing of votes - it would have come out in the DNI in January of 17. 

 

(imo of course  )

[DC Tom]

As much as I keep reading about this indictment, and the outrage it's generating, I still see nothing more than "People pretending to be people they're not trolled gullible Americans on Facebook."  This indictment is less an indictment of Russians than it is an indictment of an ignorant and indolent American public for literally being incapable of handling free speech on the internet.  It's embarrassing.  The end result of this is less "protecting American democracy" than it is ending it by admitting we're too incompetent to think for ourselves, and need a higher authority to sanction information for us.

[Warren Zevon]

I would be interested to see What percentage of anti Hillary/Obama and pro Trump/Bernie memes on this forum are born from the accounts named in today's indictment.

[DC Tom]

2 minutes ago, garybusey said:

I would be interested to see What percentage of anti Hillary/Obama and pro Trump/Bernie memes on this forum are born from the accounts named in today's indictment.

 

There are a few mentioned in the indictment that I've seen here.

[snafu]

5 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

I tend to agree, but if one WAS to speculate...you could argue that an effort to build a case regarding collusion would necessitate foundational indictments unimpeachable from a legal point of view, and thus the adherence to very specific phrasing and deliberate opacity. THAT'S the long game.

 

The problem, then, is that these 13 individuals are presumed innocent and they will never see the inside of a US courtroom.  So how would indicting people who will never be proven guilty help build a case for Trump, or anyone else's, collusion?  Starting here -- with these indictments -- is a REALLY long game.

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, snafu said:

 

The problem, then, is that these 13 individuals are presumed innocent and they will never see the inside of a US courtroom.  So how would indicting people who will never be proven guilty help build a case for Trump, or anyone else's, collusion?  Starting here -- with these indictments -- is a REALLY long game.

Well this is the beginning, but the beginning of what is unclear at this point. However I think the DoJ indicting Russians isn't really the point...they were never going to see the inside of a US courtroom, evidence or no. The indictment itself is, much like the conspiracy charges in the indictment against Manafort and Gates, is IMO meant for public consumption as to shed a bit of light on the manner in which they're preceding...slowly, methodically, linear. They're meant to be explanatory in lieu of having to explain the direction of the investigation through the idiot filter of the media. I think the more interesting stuff will be how much testimony Flynn will agree to as part of the plea deal, and whether or not yesterday's decision by Sullivan to retroactively grant Flynn discovery re: the gov't info that could be 'favorable' (unlikely exculpatory, but who knows) to the defense will alter those proceedings.

[snafu]

4 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Well this is the beginning, but the beginning of what is unclear at this point. However I think the DoJ indicting Russians isn't really the point...they were never going to see the inside of a US courtroom, evidence or no. The indictment itself is, much like the conspiracy charges in the indictment against Manafort and Gates, is IMO meant for public consumption as to shed a bit of light on the manner in which they're preceding...slowly, methodically, linear. They're meant to be explanatory in lieu of having to explain the direction of the investigation through the idiot filter of the media. I think the more interesting stuff will be how much testimony Flynn will agree to as part of the plea deal, and whether or not yesterday's decision by Sullivan to retroactively grant Flynn discovery re: the gov't info that could be 'favorable' (unlikely exculpatory, but who knows) to the defense will alter those proceedings.

 

I don't see it that way.  Honestly, if today's indictment was just to shed light on the manner in which they're proceeding, then they're doing a poor job.  Anyone can run in several directions with this document.  Few of those directions lead to conspiracy to commit election fraud.    Instead of using a fairly useless indictment to communicate with the public, how about Mueller actually communicates with the public.  No need to go through the media.  Mueller, or a spokesperson, could use their own words.  I've said it before that the longer this goes on and the quieter Mueller remains, the more like a partisan hack he's going to appear (and there's a chance that he could end up looking like a Trump hack). 

 

Side note: since it has come out that this Russian chaos plan was in effect since 2013(?), why wasn't anything done about it before the 2016 election? Why did it take Mueller's group to do anything about it?

 

As for Flynn and the protective order from yesterday, that looks like exactly what it is meant to be -- an order preventing materials to be leaked to the press or to congress, or anyone outside of the Flynn matter.  That order cuts both ways.  Mueller's group leaks a lot more than Flynn.  I don't think Flynn will suffer much from his charge when it is all said and done.

 

 

[3rdnlng]

19 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Well this is the beginning, but the beginning of what is unclear at this point. However I think the DoJ indicting Russians isn't really the point...they were never going to see the inside of a US courtroom, evidence or no. The indictment itself is, much like the conspiracy charges in the indictment against Manafort and Gates, is IMO meant for public consumption as to shed a bit of light on the manner in which they're preceding...slowly, methodically, linear. They're meant to be explanatory in lieu of having to explain the direction of the investigation through the idiot filter of the media. I think the more interesting stuff will be how much testimony Flynn will agree to as part of the plea deal, and whether or not yesterday's decision by Sullivan to retroactively grant Flynn discovery re: the gov't info that could be 'favorable' (unlikely exculpatory, but who knows) to the defense will alter those proceedings.

Flynn is not only going to walk but be given credit for being a big part of exposing the swampsters. The left, including Obama despised him for what he could do to them. Why does anyone not correlate this with them trying to discredit him to Trump?