The Mueller Report
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I've gone through it again, and the Vox piece. I still find McCarthy quite convincing, he seems to address your complaints. He answers the question on how Stone came to know what Wikileaks was doing quite convincingly IMO - most obviously, Wikileaks had very publicly announced it earlier, something which Thomas Massie pointed out to Michael Cohen at the recent hearing. And he addresses Ted Malloch's alleged role - for which there doesn't seem to be any actual evidence. The most damning piece of information in the Vox piece is that Corsi deleted all his emails, suggesting he was trying to hide something. But McCarthy shows that Corsi was completely wrong about the nature of the Wikileaks dump, which suggests he hadn't a clue what was coming. Of course there may be further damning information on this yet to be revealed, one way or another, but as things stand Mueller has decided not to indict either Stone or Corsi for collusion/conspiracy, and you seem to agree with him (and McCarthy) that there are in fact no charges along those lines worth bringing.
Just watching this from the beginning (before this starts). The onslaught by the Republicans against Schiff was embarrassing. Couldn’t be more obvious that their blatant attack was co-ordinated in an effort to remove Schiff from the chair of the committee and the only reason for that can be because he is such a threat to them. Watching it from the beginning and the Republicans disappear at some point so will carry on to see what causes them to leave.
let me break this down as easily as I can.
"He answers the question on how Stone came to know what Wikileaks was doing quite convincingly IMO - most obviously, Wikileaks had very publicly announced it earlier"
The only thing wiki leaks (Assange) announced was they had the HILLARY CLINTON emails This was in early June and this was pertaining to the emails about her as Secretary of State. Nothing to do with the podesta emails and the DNC hack. All this did was make Stone want to get in contact with assange and start to work together with him. There was nothing in public view that let us know that Stone knew about the october dump of emails.
You know what Corsi told People how he knew about the email dump coming? Not through public statements, not from some fox reportter. According to Corsi when by mueller prosecutors he said he’d figured it out through “divine intervention”
. Is that mentioned in Mccarthy's Article? From Corsi's own mouth
They didn’t believe it,” Corsi said, describing the reaction of Mueller’s team when he told them that he just somehow figured out what WikiLeaks was up to. “Jeannie Rhee, one of the prosecutors, said, ‘Dr. Corsi, you are asking us to believe that on an extended international flight with your wife for an anniversary you had divine intervention, and God inspired your mind and told you Assange has Podesta’s emails and they’re gonna be dumped in October and they’re going to be dumped in a serial fashion?’ Is that what you’re saying? I said, ‘Well I guess, Ms. Rhee, that’s about what I’m saying.’”
That was his explanation.
The only thing that the article tries to explain away is wikileaks earlier dumps it doesnt explain the how Corsi knew about the dump , how he knew what was in the dump and how he knew when and in what manner it was going to be dumped. And of course in spectacular fashion Roger Stone On Aug. 21, 2016, tweets "It will soon [be John] Podesta's time in the barrel," Then in September he says "Julian Assange and the WikiLeaks people [are ready] to drop a payload of new documents on a weekly basis fairly soon.
The article makes of course no mention of these "predictions" by Corsi and Stone. None of this was in the public domain. There are emails that show that after Assange had a press conference but doesn’t release any emails, Steve Bannon then emails Stone and asks what happened, and Stone replies that WikiLeaks will release “a load every week going forward”.
Mueller has charged Stone with lying about all of this. Per https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ctment-what-is-roger-stone-charged-with-doing
The special counsel's charges involve Stone's House testimony about WikiLeaks and its release of hacked material from the Democratic National Committee and, later, from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta during the 2016 campaign. The indictment does not say Stone communicated with Wikileaks head Julian Assange. Rather, it says Stone lied about his attempts to learn Assange's intentions through two intermediaries: journalist Jerome Corsi and radio host Randy Credico.
So Mueller is just a story teller now? You have to have proof to charge someone of making a false statement. Mueller is batting 1.000 in court and there is no reason he would bring such charges to Stone if he didnt have the ultimate underlying evidence to prove why he has made this assertion. No US attourney would do it without a high probabilty of success. Mueller only does it when its bullet proof.
EDIT:
Here is a reason why i say republicans are dasterdly. The article says
"Reportedly, Mueller’s prosecutors were as frustrated as they were incredulous over Corsi’s unlikely claim. But they don’t have a better explanation. In the negotiations over a plea offer (on a charge of lying to investigators), which Corsi has resisted, Mueller’s prosecutors drafted an agreed-upon “Statement of the Offense.” In it, Corsi was to admit that “his representations to [Stone], beginning in August 2016, that he had a way of obtaining confidential information from [WikiLeaks] were false.”
This is a straight out lie. Corsi wasnt asked to admit that . Document seen here
http://media1.s-nbcnews.com/i/today/z_creative/MUELLERDraftStatementofOffenseCorsi11142018.pdf
"
CORSI made numerous claims during these interviews, including 5 that his representations to Person 1, beginning in August 2016, that he had a way of obtaining confidential information from Organization 1, were false.
"
Corsi was the one who initially said they were false and then he was to sign the plee agreement agreeing that all of that was a total fabrication. The writer says that Corsi was to admit his "representations to [Stone], beginning in August 2016, that he had a way of obtaining confidential information from [WikiLeaks] were false.”
What garbage. An entire falsehood. Dont ever read from that man again.
This is why I DO NOT trust Barrs account in his silly 3.5 page memo. Everything is out of context and half quotes. Imagine Having an article where you have a quote that says
"his representations to [Stone], beginning in August 2016, that he had a way of obtaining confidential information from [WikiLeaks] were false.”
And not include the context that mueller knows for a fact that this is a false statement and Jerome Corsi was to agree to that statemet.
And then imagine that not only did the writer not put in that context he gave it as meaning the exact opposite by saying "Corsi was to admit that “his representations to [Stone], beginning in August 2016, that he had a way of obtaining confidential information from [WikiLeaks] were false.”"
The best part is he links the actual article from where it's quoted , but of course like a User agreement who the feck was gonna read that. This guys a lawyer. Why would he missrepresent something
EDIT:
in Muellers INDICTENT of Roger Stone he clearly lays out that
Count Three alleges that Stone lied when he said that Credico was his only "go-between" to Assange, when in fact, Stone was also in contact with Corsi for that purpose. "At no time did Stone identify [Corsi] to [the House] as another individual Stone contacted to serve as a 'go-between,'" the indictment says.
Robert Mueller is still adament that Credico AND Corsi are Rogers intermediaries. I know because i read the indictemnt . You dont make this allegation without proof. That alone makes the ENTIRE article cow dung
"his representations to [Stone], beginning in August 2016, that he had a way of obtaining confidential information from [WikiLeaks] were false.”
And not include the context that mueller knows for a fact that this is a false statement and Jerome Corsi was to agree to that statemet.
And then imagine that not only did the writer not put in that context he gave it as meaning the exact opposite by saying "Corsi was to admit that “his representations to [Stone], beginning in August 2016, that he had a way of obtaining confidential information from [WikiLeaks] were false.”"
The best part is he links the actual article from where it's quoted , but of course like a User agreement who the feck was gonna read that. This guys a lawyer. Why would he missrepresent something
EDIT:
in Muellers INDICTENT of Roger Stone he clearly lays out that
Count Three alleges that Stone lied when he said that Credico was his only "go-between" to Assange, when in fact, Stone was also in contact with Corsi for that purpose. "At no time did Stone identify [Corsi] to [the House] as another individual Stone contacted to serve as a 'go-between,'" the indictment says.
Robert Mueller is still adament that Credico AND Corsi are Rogers intermediaries. I know because i read the indictemnt . You dont make this allegation without proof. That alone makes the ENTIRE article cow dung
Last edited:
After watching the whole thing through (was long) it’s typical Republican fare of late.
Cohen a big threat....attack and discredit him in the hearing.
Muller a big threat....attack the investigation and then close the investigation.
Schiff a big threat....remove threat by attacking and trying to force his resignation.
It’ll be Nadler and Swalwell next.
Yep .This is revenge towards his critics. Expect him to try and go after:
- Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.
- Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez
- John Brennan, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency
@ChaddyP you make a convincing case yourself, if I have the time and inclination I’ll have another read through it all, but not for the moment.
I enjoy the debate take your time and read carefully what i have said. Please note i type fast and use gramatical errors and dont proof read sometimes.
I will have no problem answering any querry you have as i have read up on this extensively over the past 2 years, from the actual sources and credible leaked documents. There are alot of people that are getting things wrong and it's not their fault at times. It takes time to understand the breath of all of this and how far republicans go to confuse everyone because they are all apart of this. Trust nothing that comes from them.
@ChaddyP if you enjoy debating you oughta hop into the Who killed JFK??? thread (granted it abruptly ended when a 9/11 truther rolled in).
Never really took note of that ordeal and honestly dont have much background into it (I am not American so dont know all of American folklore). I just know that its disputeed. Obviously though when things are left to the imagination due to multiple redactions and story changing, and too much time between coming out with your version of events all manner of conspiracy theories can arise.
Thankfully the Special Counsels Office has left a trail of information and evidence for all to consume through his charging documents, and indictments. These have helped alleviate much of the guess work so we can debate with actual facts.
Good points raised. China's interest seems to be much more in terms of economic spy missions and trying to srupass the US economically. Still there have been us intelligence surces that claim china is trying to meddle in US politics as well but maybe even in a opposite fashion to Russia. Their interest might actually be to have someone in charge of the US who is not as hard to deal with as "The Donald", instead of trying to destablize the union of western alliences.
There needs to be a Barr Fantasy report thread so the Trump supporters can go there to do cartwheels of joy, while we await the Mueller Report.
This thread title obviously needs to be changed.
This thread title obviously needs to be changed.
The Republicans remind me of dogs barking.
They are annoying. But can do feck all.
You're confusing Far left with Trump supporters (don't think there are much of those on redcafe these days) . But if you look at /believe horseshoe theory , there's not much difference between far left and far right.
If you believe this thing I made up to help me win an argument on the internet, then it all fits in quite nicely.
You and chaddyp might be more at home in the qanon thread.
I’ve always found the Russia narrative bizarre – It’s like something out of a movie.
There was never going to be concrete evidence of collusion with the Russian government. Mainly because even if the Trump campaign would be incompetent enough to get caught, the Russian’s certainly would not. They have long established methods of disconnecting Putin and the government from crimes. As for Trump being a puppet there’s been no real evidence whatsoever beyond his demeanour in a press conference, which could just as easily have been put down to intimidation of Putin. As always with Trump for all the rhetoric his policies have basically been standard Republican hostility with regards to Russia - hardly consistent with the idea that he’s a Putin puppet.
He’s unquestionably got some shady business ties not only in Russia but across the world - I'd say most of his shady ties are in the states. He’s unquestionably working at the behest of other foreign governments policy wise but these special relationships have been openly corrupt and long precede Trump’s presidency. He’s definitely enriched himself and his organisation to pursue foreign interests but these aren’t going to receive scrutiny for obvious reasons because Trump would be in the dock with half of the politicians in Washington. Politics in the US is so blatantly corrupt systematically that to focus on Trump’s relationship with the comic book bad guys and portray it as the root of all evil in that sphere is genuinely insulting to people's intelligence. The faith put into a lifelong Republican with a history of peddling establishment lies to bring down a Republican administration was just laughable.
The media who have latched onto this deserve all the blow back they’re getting and more - From the news to the cringe worthy late night comedy shows. The Democratic party deserve the same and more. They would do anything to avoid the introspection required, anything to deny Hillary had major flaws, anything to deny their electoral process was flawed. Clinton’s own criticism of the process seemed to be that Sanders had the cheek to run at all. Jeopardising her “turn”. All of the polling data shows a general indifference to the Russia “scandal” among the electorate relative to other issues – If half the time had been spent on Trump’s outright lies on healthcare, social security, foreign policy, job creation. If there was this coverage dedicated to the caged immigrants, the support of genocide, John fecking Bolton as a person then maybe the Democrat’s would be in a position to steamroll this fecker out of office in 2020.
As it is they’ve given him and his gang of bastards more ammunition than they ever could have hoped for. They’ve legitimised his fake news claims, his witch hunt claims and gifted him a victory that he can peddle for the next 6 years. Which is what's coming. Good job. C*nts.
There was never going to be concrete evidence of collusion with the Russian government. Mainly because even if the Trump campaign would be incompetent enough to get caught, the Russian’s certainly would not. They have long established methods of disconnecting Putin and the government from crimes. As for Trump being a puppet there’s been no real evidence whatsoever beyond his demeanour in a press conference, which could just as easily have been put down to intimidation of Putin. As always with Trump for all the rhetoric his policies have basically been standard Republican hostility with regards to Russia - hardly consistent with the idea that he’s a Putin puppet.
He’s unquestionably got some shady business ties not only in Russia but across the world - I'd say most of his shady ties are in the states. He’s unquestionably working at the behest of other foreign governments policy wise but these special relationships have been openly corrupt and long precede Trump’s presidency. He’s definitely enriched himself and his organisation to pursue foreign interests but these aren’t going to receive scrutiny for obvious reasons because Trump would be in the dock with half of the politicians in Washington. Politics in the US is so blatantly corrupt systematically that to focus on Trump’s relationship with the comic book bad guys and portray it as the root of all evil in that sphere is genuinely insulting to people's intelligence. The faith put into a lifelong Republican with a history of peddling establishment lies to bring down a Republican administration was just laughable.
The media who have latched onto this deserve all the blow back they’re getting and more - From the news to the cringe worthy late night comedy shows. The Democratic party deserve the same and more. They would do anything to avoid the introspection required, anything to deny Hillary had major flaws, anything to deny their electoral process was flawed. Clinton’s own criticism of the process seemed to be that Sanders had the cheek to run at all. Jeopardising her “turn”. All of the polling data shows a general indifference to the Russia “scandal” among the electorate relative to other issues – If half the time had been spent on Trump’s outright lies on healthcare, social security, foreign policy, job creation. If there was this coverage dedicated to the caged immigrants, the support of genocide, John fecking Bolton as a person then maybe the Democrat’s would be in a position to steamroll this fecker out of office in 2020.
As it is they’ve given him and his gang of bastards more ammunition than they ever could have hoped for. They’ve legitimised his fake news claims, his witch hunt claims and gifted him a victory that he can peddle for the next 6 years. Which is what's coming. Good job. C*nts.
Now I Know you are confused.
er no
She is certainly saying all the right things.
I'd like to believe her.
But she needs to explain her past and differentiate to what she 'believes' now.
Personally think that is a total bullshit hypothesis based on a bad analogy (that political beliefs are akin to a point on a single one-dimensional line) that does far more harm than good.
He is boxing himself in.
what happens when you can only think in terms of left and right.
no depth.
You trap yourself when go all in for one politician too.
The key is to keep questioning decisions. Holding feet to fire when they waiver.
It was a throw away comment that clearly isnt being understood . I don't actually care for the theory it self as political belief is much more nuanced than that . But it always seems to get certain people up in tissy no matter what context its used in .
I actually have no idea what you're taking about
So you said something you dont believe or agree with in order to get other people to say "I dont believe or agree with that" and you now feel vindicated. Well done.
There’s little to explain since she isn’t going anywhere politically.
so you made a pointless comment that does not further any discussion.
Someone running for president needs to articulate any position that is taken regardless of likelihood of winning.
Goes to the core of the integrity of the process.
The core purpose of my entire post was that you may be confusing far left people with actual trump supporters as there are very few if any trump supporters on the Caf. If there are they been mighty quiet. The comment about horse shoe theory is was tongue in cheek.
If you want to argue over that insignificant part then that's fine I guess. Probably best for another thread. One in which I probably won't partake in anyway
It's extremely funny that most of the "way to buy into a flawed narrative that has no basis in reality!" criticisms include this flawed narrative that has no basis in reality.
which states that you have not understood any of the discussions on this matter.
just leave it for us grown ups to discuss this then.
its incredible that people come to ridiculous conclusions based on a single fraudulent act.
The Barr report. It has nothing to do with the actual Report.
not understanding what happened last year.
incredulous really.
Nothing is impossible. But it really is nigh on impossible for Trump to win in 2020.
Wait a minute. Aren't you the one that said we need a Barr fantasy thread so trump supporters can do cartwheels ? But yet you're part of the league of grown ups ?
yes. so those that actually give credulity to the farce of the Barr report can have wankfest without any interruption.
you folks are nutsactually its all in good fun though while discussion a serious issue. 
I haven't really seen anything on this but given the early polling on people's reaction to Barr's letter, I wonder if the media's reporting on the investigation did, in fact, create a certain level of understanding of the case, the scope, the activities in question etc that would not simply be washed away with Trump claiming he is fully exonerated now. CNN and MSNBC plus social media etc were heavily focused on it for two years so I'm sure there's a certain amount of nutcases in there who believe every last detail but there should also be a fair number that have some understanding of the nuances.
Some folks are in similar denial as on election night 2016. Mueller was their hope, and now that hope is lost. But the whole thing appears to have been doomed from the beginning, since it was not an independent prosecutor conducting the investigation.