Octopus Overlords

Posted: **Sat Feb 24, 2018 6:44 pm**

Holman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2018 5:53 pm an actual asset of Russian intelligence.

Isn't that, like, treasonous and stuff?

Posted: **Sat Feb 24, 2018 9:56 pm**

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:13 pm Gates is pleading guilty to lying to the FBI *on February 1st*. After he first pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI last year.

February 1st is also the date that his previous attorneys filed to withdraw. So....probably not a coincidence there.

From that link.

This is why the internet was invented.

Posted: **Sat Feb 24, 2018 9:58 pm**

All that's missing is a "From the desk of Sean Hannity" header on top.

Posted: **Sun Feb 25, 2018 1:25 am**

That's right up there with the Kriminal Sopina.

Posted: **Sun Feb 25, 2018 12:11 pm**

Posted: **Sun Feb 25, 2018 12:30 pm**

Surprising no one [with half a brain], the Democratic memo shows Nunes to be either an idiot or a deeply partisan hack. Or both.

Posted: **Sun Feb 25, 2018 6:55 pm**

Trump’s lawyers are considering allowing him to testify before Mueller as long as the questions “don’t test his recollections in ways that amount to a potential perjury trap,” according to the source cited in Sunday's report.

link

So nothing that he might lie on? I guess that leaves them with rhetorical questions.

Posted: **Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:43 am**

Defiant wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 6:55 pm
Trump’s lawyers are considering allowing him to testify before Mueller as long as the questions “don’t test his recollections in ways that amount to a potential perjury trap,” according to the source cited in Sunday's report.
link

So nothing that he might lie on? I guess that leaves them with rhetorical questions.

That seems like a deal that Mueller would take in a heartbeat. First, it seems entirely unenforceable - "you said you wouldn't try to trick me" doesn't seem like a great defense to any criminal charges. Second, I doubt Mueller is really looking for perjury charges against Trump anyway (unless it's something *really* egregious).

Posted: **Mon Feb 26, 2018 2:55 am**

You can interview Trump, but don't ask him any trick questions. The double standard is incredible.

Remember how Hillary not only survived 11 hours before Republicans testifying on Benghazi, but emerged triumphant? Who lacks the stamina now?

Posted: **Mon Feb 26, 2018 6:55 am**

Hillary, obviously. She lost in a landslide. Biggest election loss in the history of voting. She didn't even testify, that was just fake news.

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:38 pm**

So I guess there's a reason after all behind Trump's recent Twitter meltdown. Looks like someone close to him is testifying today and maybe he's a bit nervous?

Hicks has already been interviewed by Mueller's team. She has also been questioned by the Senate Intelligence Committee, a source familiar with the committee's schedule confirmed.

One of the few White House staffers that has been at Trump's side since the early days of his campaign, Hicks is expected to face questions about the campaign, transition and first year of the administration -- including her role in the White House response to The New York Times report about Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner's meeting with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower in June 2016.

EDIT: Oh, and maybe this motion to dismiss all charges against Gates. I'm not a lawyer, but I have to believe having all charges dropped would involve the exchange of some pretty big information, right?

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2018 6:15 pm**

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:38 pm EDIT: Oh, and maybe this motion to dismiss all charges against Gates. I'm not a lawyer, but I have to believe having all charges dropped would involve the exchange of some pretty big information, right?

Even with only the bits of evidence we've seen, we know they have Gates dead to rights... common wisdom is dismissing all charges would indicate he gave them the goods they needed on a bigger fish, presumably Manafort, but who knows.

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2018 6:43 pm**

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:10 pm**

Sepiche wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 6:15 pm
Smoove_B wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:38 pm EDIT: Oh, and maybe this motion to dismiss all charges against Gates. I'm not a lawyer, but I have to believe having all charges dropped would involve the exchange of some pretty big information, right?
Even with only the bits of evidence we've seen, we know they have Gates dead to rights... common wisdom is dismissing all charges would indicate he gave them the goods they needed on a bigger fish, presumably Manafort, but who knows.

Popehat wrote:Twitter: OMG MUELLER DISMISSED ALL CHARGES AGAINST GATES, THE FIX IS IN AND/OR THE COLLAPSE OF MUELLER'S CASE HAS BEGUN

Me: No, he dismissed charges in one district, as part of a multi-district settlement.

Twitter: I'M TOO EXCITED TO LISTEN TO YOUR WORDY WORD WORDS

Word is also that this pertains only to the most recent charges, not the original ones.

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:18 pm**

The charges all pertain to financial crimes which, while considerable in the sense of the dollar amount, are really nothing compared to the big picturefish that Mueller is after.

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:07 pm**

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:10 pm
Sepiche wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 6:15 pm
Smoove_B wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:38 pm EDIT: Oh, and maybe this motion to dismiss all charges against Gates. I'm not a lawyer, but I have to believe having all charges dropped would involve the exchange of some pretty big information, right?
Even with only the bits of evidence we've seen, we know they have Gates dead to rights... common wisdom is dismissing all charges would indicate he gave them the goods they needed on a bigger fish, presumably Manafort, but who knows.

Popehat wrote:Twitter: OMG MUELLER DISMISSED ALL CHARGES AGAINST GATES, THE FIX IS IN AND/OR THE COLLAPSE OF MUELLER'S CASE HAS BEGUN

Me: No, he dismissed charges in one district, as part of a multi-district settlement.

Twitter: I'M TOO EXCITED TO LISTEN TO YOUR WORDY WORD WORDS
Word is also that this pertains only to the most recent charges, not the original ones.

Mr Fed also indicated that the motion was to dismiss without prejudice. Which means that Mueller could simply refile them, if he chose.

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:09 pm**

Kushner loses Top Secret security clearance - here's why:

Officials in at least four countries have privately discussed ways they can manipulate Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser, by taking advantage of his complex business arrangements, financial difficulties and lack of foreign policy experience, according to current and former U.S. officials familiar with intelligence reports on the matter.

Among those nations discussing ways to influence Kushner to their advantage were the United Arab Emirates, China, Israel and Mexico, the current and former officials said.

Gee, is there anyone else in the White House with "complex business arrangements, financial difficulties and (a) lack of foreign policy experience" who could be similarly manipulated?

Anyone? Hmmm...

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2018 10:33 pm**

And Mueller's now looking into Trump's Russian business ties and how they played into his decision to run.

Posted: **Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:09 am**

YellowKing wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 10:33 pm And Mueller's now looking into Trump's Russian business ties and how they played into his decision to run.

Link? I thought his process was relatively leak-free?

The mere fact that Trump has been shown time and again that there was, and continues to be interference in our elections, and is not even talking about it, much less doing something, is pretty telling. Isn't someone on his staff smart enough to tell him: "hey, we should at least ADDRESS this...it's a pretty big deal, and it would look bad if we didn't". Gah.

Posted: **Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:29 am**

CNN

Investigators for special counsel Robert Mueller have recently been asking witnesses about Donald Trump's business activities in Russia prior to the 2016 presidential campaign as he considered a run for president, according to three people familiar with the matter.

Questions to some witnesses during wide-ranging interviews included the timing of Trump's decision to seek the presidency, potentially compromising information the Russians may have had about him, and why efforts to brand a Trump Tower in Moscow fell through, two sources said.

The lines of inquiry indicate Mueller's team is reaching beyond the campaign to explore how the Russians might have sought to influence Trump at a time when he was discussing deals in Moscow and contemplating a presidential run.

Posted: **Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:31 am**

I like how we have to justify revoking his clearance by blaming other nations and letting them know we can see/hear their private discussions. I thought his clearance should have been revoked after the first, maybe second time be lied on his application.

Posted: **Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:06 am**

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:09 am
YellowKing wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 10:33 pm And Mueller's now looking into Trump's Russian business ties and how they played into his decision to run.
Link? I thought his process was relatively leak-free?

The mere fact that Trump has been shown time and again that there was, and continues to be interference in our elections, and is not even talking about it, much less doing something, is pretty telling. Isn't someone on his staff smart enough to tell him: "hey, we should at least ADDRESS this...it's a pretty big deal, and it would look bad if we didn't". Gah.

"How we going to run reform when we're the damn incumbent?"

Posted: **Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:35 am**

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:09 pm Kushner loses Top Secret security clearance - here's why:

Officials in at least four countries have privately discussed ways they can manipulate Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser, by taking advantage of his complex business arrangements, financial difficulties and lack of foreign policy experience, according to current and former U.S. officials familiar with intelligence reports on the matter.

Among those nations discussing ways to influence Kushner to their advantage were the United Arab Emirates, China, Israel and Mexico, the current and former officials said.
Gee, is there anyone else in the White House with "complex business arrangements, financial difficulties and (a) lack of foreign policy experience" who could be similarly manipulated?

Anyone? Hmmm...

This op-ed by Rick Wilson is pretty funny: SF-86’D: The Deep State Takes Out the White House’s Dark Clown Prince

Posted: **Wed Feb 28, 2018 12:32 pm**

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:06 am
Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:09 am
YellowKing wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 10:33 pm And Mueller's now looking into Trump's Russian business ties and how they played into his decision to run.
Link? I thought his process was relatively leak-free?

The mere fact that Trump has been shown time and again that there was, and continues to be interference in our elections, and is not even talking about it, much less doing something, is pretty telling. Isn't someone on his staff smart enough to tell him: "hey, we should at least ADDRESS this...it's a pretty big deal, and it would look bad if we didn't". Gah.
"How we going to run reform when we're the damn incumbent?"

LOVE that movie.

Posted: **Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:59 pm**

Trump doing his twittering:

'Why is A.G. Jeff Sessions asking the Inspector General to investigate potentially massive FISA abuse. Will take forever, has no prosecutorial power and already late with reports on Comey etc. Isn’t the I.G. an Obama guy? Why not use Justice Department lawyers? DISGRACEFUL!'

I seriously don't get this guy. Sessions was HIS guy. This is something HE wanted investigated. Yet, he's calling out his own dude on Twitter, to the public? Why? If you don't like who he chose to investigate, why not bring him in the office and rail on him privately? Why does he want the world to know he is pissed at his own guy?

I know he's a terrible piece of shit human being, but I'm not sure that's the whole answer. I just don't see the angle, because this makes HIM look like an idiot.

Posted: **Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:00 pm**

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:09 am Link? I thought his process was relatively leak-free?

My read from the article was this information was leaked by the interviewees or their people rather than Mueller's team.

Posted: **Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:05 pm**

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:59 pm I know he's a terrible piece of shit human being, but I'm not sure that's the whole answer. I just don't see the angle, because this makes HIM look like an idiot.

My educated guess is Drumpf is a coward when it comes to direct confrontation. We see it in his sending his bodyguard to fire Comey among many other instances where he'll talk a big game, but when directly confronted with something back down.

So rather than have a direct conversation with Sessions, he tweets passive aggressive comments to try to get Sessions to resign, get stories in the press to pressure Sessions, and get his congress/media goons to puff up the story.

Posted: **Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:10 pm**

Sepiche wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:05 pm
Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:59 pm I know he's a terrible piece of shit human being, but I'm not sure that's the whole answer. I just don't see the angle, because this makes HIM look like an idiot.
My educated guess is Drumpf is a coward when it comes to direct confrontation. We see it in his sending his bodyguard to fire Comey among many other instances where he'll talk a big game, but when directly confronted with something back down.

So rather than have a direct conversation with Sessions, he tweets passive aggressive comments to try to get Sessions to resign, get stories in the press to pressure Sessions, and get his congress/media goons to puff up the story.

Also Trump's documented morning routine (e.g., "executive time") is basically to live-tweet Fox News. So Fox says something about Sessions, and he then tweets about it. Not sure that he has the higher executive functioning required to then say, "Oh, this is something that I should talk to Jeff Sessions about later when we both have the time to meet and discuss."

Posted: **Thu Mar 01, 2018 12:12 pm**

Guide to replacing Jeff Sessions.

This is from last July, but I just saw it linked to, in light of Trump's latest hazing of Sessions. The middle part is interesting - it notes that while Trump could clearly use the Vacancies Act to appoint someone who has already been confirmed by a Senate to another position (say, Pruitt) to be acting AG, without Senate confirmation, for 210 days. That would give said person the ability to (potentially) fire Mueller or kneecap him, etc. However, it is at least ambiguous whether he could do that if Sessions were fired (the act only empowers the president to do that if the previous officeholder “dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office”). Which may be why Trump has been hazing Sessions rather than firing him - he's better off if Sessions quits rather than is fired.

Posted: **Thu Mar 01, 2018 2:21 pm**

Senate Intelligence Leaders Say House G.O.P. Leaked a Senator’s Texts.

Basically the House intelligence committee leaked Senator Warner's texts related to trying to set up an interview with Steele. The Senate Intelligence Committee is not happy with this. They talked to Paul Ryan, who basically said, "Oh, I don't run the House committee, that's Nunes", even though obviously Ryan has the power to curtail or remove Nunes were he so inclined. Kind of annoying how the article largely lets Ryan get away with his "above the fray" attitude, and describes the House committee as "consumed by partisan recriminations", when the real story is that Nunes and Ryan have obviously decided to use their 'investigation' to run a counter-investigation of Trump investigators in order to impede their work.

I will say that it is to Burr's credit (and indirectly McConnell's, I think), that the Senate intelligence committee appears to be running an actual investigation here.

Posted: **Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:28 pm**

Hepcat - now's your chance!

Free her and the pee tape could be yours!

Posted: **Fri Mar 02, 2018 3:42 pm**

Jeff V wrote: ↑Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:28 pm Hepcat - now's your chance!

Free her and the pee tape could be yours!

That is so crazy, I'm almost tempted to believe her. Time for a Kickstarter? Free the Pee Tape!

Posted: **Fri Mar 02, 2018 3:50 pm**

If she's telling the truth, she'll probably have tripped over some Polonium and fallen out of a window by Monday.

Posted: **Fri Mar 02, 2018 5:58 pm**

Holy shit.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... -firm.html

Jared Kushner’s father met with Qatar’s minister of finance last April, to solicit an investment in the family’s distressed asset at 666 Fifth Avenue, according to a new report from the Intercept.

The Qataris shot him down.

Weeks later, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates organized a blockade of Qatar. The Gulf monarchies claimed that this act of aggression was a response to Donald Trump’s call for the Arab world to crack down on terrorists — after taking in the president’s majestic sermon in Riyadh, the Saudis simply couldn’t live with themselves if they didn’t take action to thwart Qatar’s covert financing of Islamist extremism.
...
Qatari government officials visiting the U.S. in late January and early February considered turning over to Mueller what they believe is evidence of efforts by their country’s Persian Gulf neighbors in coordination with Kushner to hurt their country, four people familiar with the matter said. The Qatari officials decided against cooperating with Mueller for now out of fear it would further strain the country’s relations with the White House, these people said.

It always seemed odd for us to green light the blockade given our interests in Qatar, and if there is evidence the Trump Administration okayed it in retaliation for not investing in Kushner's properties, that's pretty serious.

Posted: **Fri Mar 02, 2018 6:01 pm**

Sepiche wrote: ↑Fri Mar 02, 2018 5:58 pm It always seemed odd for us to green light the blockade given our interests in Qatar, and if there is evidence the Trump Administration okayed it in retaliation for not investing in Kushner's properties, that's pretty serious.

Not sure how you would prove that though, unless there's a paper/email trail on it. Which, I suppose, is entirely possible with this gaggle of dolts.

Posted: **Fri Mar 02, 2018 7:08 pm**

Yea, I'm sure it is all over not giving money to the Kush.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/opin ... eform.html

Posted: **Fri Mar 02, 2018 9:08 pm**

Rip wrote: ↑Fri Mar 02, 2018 7:08 pm Yea, I'm sure it is all over not giving money to the Kush.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/opin ... eform.html

Everyone knows why the Saudi's wanted it, the question is why the White House gave them the okay given our national security interest in keeping Qatar stable.

Posted: **Fri Mar 02, 2018 9:32 pm**

Yeah, it's not like a president would start a war just because of some embarrassment to a family member. A father, perhaps.

I think this particular story is bunk mostly because Drumpf couldn't deal his way out of a wet paper bag. Anything Drumpf does is because he has been manipulated into it, not the other way around.

Posted: **Fri Mar 02, 2018 9:50 pm**

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Fri Mar 02, 2018 9:32 pm Anything Drumpf does is because he has been manipulated into it, not the other way around.

Be fair. Sometimes it's because Obama did the opposite.

Posted: **Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:13 pm**

Sepiche wrote: ↑Fri Mar 02, 2018 9:08 pm
Rip wrote: ↑Fri Mar 02, 2018 7:08 pm Yea, I'm sure it is all over not giving money to the Kush.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/opin ... eform.html
Everyone knows why the Saudi's wanted it, the question is why the White House gave them the okay given our national security interest in keeping Qatar stable.

Hmmmmmm.

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates considered military action in the early stages of their ongoing dispute with Qatar before Donald Trump called leaders of both countries and warned them to back off, according to two people familiar with the U.S. president’s discussions.

The Saudis and Emiratis were looking at ways to remove the Qatari regime, which they accused of sponsoring terrorism and cozying up to Iran, according to the people, who asked not to be identified because the discussions were confidential. Trump told Saudi and U.A.E. leaders that any military action would trigger a crisis across the Middle East that would only benefit Iran, one of the people said.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... e-on-qatar

Octopus Overlords

The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Re: The Trump Investigation Thread

Re: The Trump Investigation Thread

Re: The Trump Investigation Thread

Re: The Trump Investigation Thread

Re: The Trump Investigation Thread

Re: The Trump Investigation Thread

Re: The Trump Investigation Thread

Re: The Trump Investigation Thread

Re: The Trump Investigation Thread

Re: The Trump Investigation Thread

Re: The Trump Investigation Thread

Re: The Trump Investigation Thread

Re: The Trump Investigation Thread

Re: The Trump Investigation Thread

Re: The Trump Investigation Thread

Re: The Trump Investigation Thread

Re: The Trump Investigation Thread

Re: The Trump Investigation Thread

Re: The Trump Investigation Thread

Re: The Trump Investigation Thread

Re: The Trump Investigation Thread

Re: The Trump Investigation Thread

Re: The Trump Investigation Thread

Re: The Trump Investigation Thread

Re: The Trump Investigation Thread

Re: The Trump Investigation Thread

Re: The Trump Investigation Thread

Re: The Trump Investigation Thread

Re: The Trump Investigation Thread

Re: The Trump Investigation Thread

Re: The Trump Investigation Thread

Re: The Trump Investigation Thread

Re: The Trump Investigation Thread

Re: The Trump Investigation Thread

Re: The Trump Investigation Thread

Re: The Trump Investigation Thread

Re: The Trump Investigation Thread

Re: The Trump Investigation Thread

Re: The Trump Investigation Thread

Re: The Trump Investigation Thread