Official Special Investigation Into Trump Thread

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NEXT
 

Seanchaidh:

ObsidianJones:

Seanchaidh:

Why? Their nation was already co-opted by its own oligarchs. And it's been obvious for some time.

Tribalism.

A lot of people embrace it. It's ok if our system sucks because it's our system and what are you going to do?

But the second that someone outside messes with OUR system, there will be hell to pay.

Not sure why tribalism is something you'd hope for.

I was actually hoping for people being compelled from their apathy to do something about what's happening to their lives and country. I took your question and statement as saying "Why would they care now after all the stuff they allowed to happen."

My answer, tribalism, was the reason I thought they would care now instead of all the other times they did. I literally do not care WHY people wake up and take this process seriously, I just hope that they do. And that Trump will ring in this nation's history as a reminder that we have to really come out and vote our best in.

trunkage:
So collusion is not crime anyway? No need for pardons

Well, funny that.

While collusion isn't technically a crime, the conspiracy to commit collusion is

So if there's no such thing as collusion, then what are we really talking about? It seems the closest thing to what Giuliani means when he talks about 'collusion' is the actual federal crime of conspiracy. One federal statute, 18 U.S.C. ? 371, makes it a crime to conspire to commit any other federal crime, and many other statutes carry their own sub-parts that criminalize conspiracy, or attempt, as well as the actual completed crime itself.

As with the word 'collusion,' people sometimes think a criminal conspiracy needs to be more dramatic than it actually is. People hear 'conspiracy' and they think of JFK, Area 51, the moon landing: an evil, secretive plot, a hoax. But don't misunderstand just how routine, and mundane, a conspiracy can be. As judges instruct criminal juries, a conspiracy is simply any agreement to break the law. That?s it. A conspiracy doesn't need to be dramatic, or sinister, or clever, or even secretive. It doesn't even need to be successful. If you and I agree to rob a bank together, take some minimal step towards doing it, and then we fail to pull it off? That's still a conspiracy.

It's one of these wide stretching laws that makes sure that we get everyone guilty.

Think of it as Ocean's Eleven. Technically, Danny's crew would have done the actual robbery. Reuben Tishkoff, with aforethought since all he wanted to do was hurt Benedict, financed the robbery. If the law didn't punish conspiracy to commit crimes, people like Rueben could get off scotfree no matter what. They didn't go into any place, and they didn't steal anything. But since they are obviously guilty by extension, the conspiracy laws have to be on the books.

In essence, this is Trump strategy 101, and it keeps working: Make the situation into what people will dislike/like instead of what it's actually about. Just like Saelune reminds us that the Colin Kaepernick's protest of kneeling is about the systematic oppression that still continues to this day while Americans don't react or care about, with police oppression being a symptom of it rather than the whole problem... well, that sounds horrible. That sounds like something everyone should get mad about.

Colin Kaepernick, who comes to Soldier Field next Sunday to face the Bears, elected this season to express his concern about what he called "systematic oppression" by not standing for the national anthem before games. Is the San Francisco 49ers quarterback concerned that the incoming Administration may look to punish anthem-sitters?

"No, I'm not concerned about that at all," Kaepernick said via conference call on Wednesday. "To me, if things go down that path, those are human-rights issues. Patriotism is earned; it's not something you demand. For me, I don?t see those as issues. I'll continue on my path as I have planned."

Kaepernick began his sitting protest during San Francisco preseason games last August. It ignited a national firestorm because it was viewed as anti-police, a protest against police violence.

But for Kaepernick, it was never a police issue.

"I've been very clear from the beginning that I'm against systematic oppression," Kaepernick said. "Police violence is just one of the symptoms of that oppression. For me that is something that needs to be addressed but it?s not the whole issue."

You couldn't be clearer on intent.

Trump made it about the Flag. Trump made it about the NFL needs to respect America. And then everyone took the narrative and and ran with it like they were going for a touchdown.

Going back how this is truly Trump Strategy 101. Trump was programmed to keep saying collusion with the Russians because that's all he wants us to see. He wants us to think Collusion is the only thing on the market here, and even if it is, it isn't a crime. Because that's what most people think. We're arguing treason, we're arguing high crimes and given evidence of why it isn't a high crime so we can't do anything on Trump. It's actually a brilliant defense to structure your own criminal case into something so far off into the stratosphere that no one can touch it, keeping everyone's eyes upwards instead of looking at what's right in front of them.

And right in front of them is where we see that Trump is in a lot of actual legal trouble. Colin just confirmed that Trump broke Federal Law.

Meet 18 U.S. Code ? 641 - Public money, property or records

Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or

Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted?

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; but if the value of such property in the aggregate, combining amounts from all the counts for which the defendant is convicted in a single case, does not exceed the sum of $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

The word ?value? means face, par, or market value, or cost price, either wholesale or retail, whichever is greater.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 725; Pub. L. 103?322, title XXXIII, ? 330016(1)(H), (L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 104?294, title VI, ? 606(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3511; Pub. L. 108?275, ? 4, July 15, 2004, 118 Stat. 833.)

Bolded the important bits.

As we know, Hillary used her private email server for personal pursuits and correspondence in her professional capacity of Secretary of State, along with her Aide, Huma Abedin, and State Department Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills.

Shortly before she was sworn in as secretary of state in 2009, Hillary Clinton set up an email server at her home in Chappaqua, New York. She then relied on this server, home to the email address [email protected], for all her electronic correspondence - both work-related and personal - during her four years in office.

She also reportedly set up email addresses on the server for her long-time aide, Huma Abedin, and State Department Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills.

Now, from Don Jr's "I Love It" on June 3rd 2016 where he was told "This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr Trump.", to Trump saying hours after Don Jr's confirmation that he'll
hold a speech soon giving more dirt on Clinton.

Hours after Donald Trump Jr confirmed a meeting with a Russian lawyer to discuss information on Hillary Clinton, his father promised to make a speech with new information about his former rival for the US presidency.

"I think you're going to find it very informative and very very interesting," the US leader said, adding that it would likely take place next week.

"We are going to be discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons," he said.

Then topping on it Cohen saying that Trump knew the meeting and what it was for since he was there when it was brought up

Cohen alleges that he was present, along with several others, when Trump was informed of the Russians' offer by Trump Jr. By Cohen's account, Trump approved going ahead with the meeting with the Russians, according to sources.

And remember, that tell all Speech never took place. There was a Global promised event that Trump quietly let die down. It feels like he really was let down by that meeting somehow...

So, to sum up this thing that I spent way too much time on;

Conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime, even if you fail at it. There is a possibility of a crime here if we can make clear that this info was coming from Clinton's emails (to which that bit needs to be uncovered), given Hillary's position in the government and those emails were interspersed with Professional Government Correspondence (I doubt they would have just picked out the personal emails if they were going to hand them over). Trump's own actions indicate that he knew he was going to get a big info drop on Hillary before the actual Trump Tower Meeting took place ("I Love it" took place June 3rd 2016, Trump's declaring a Speech to give up new info on the Clintons happened on June 7th 2016 and Don Jr's meeting with Veselnitskaya took place on June 9th 2016).

This is why Trump keeps banging on about Collusion. Quite very possibly there wasn't any Real Collusion. And there maybe enough proof to show that there wasn't. So once they find that, he gets to wipe his hands away clean and if anything else is brought up, he gets to shout it down from the rooftops that it's another witch-hunt that found nothing the first time. Any other investigation won't get off the ground.

But the very real conspiracy is here. And with the closer Mueller gets, the more Trump tries to de-legitimatize him, the whole investigation, and throws the word COLLUSION into your face like it's the only thing here... when it's not.

Nixon and Clinton were punished for less. Trump literally, LITERALLY! Lies every single god damn day.

Donald Trump has once again compared his former campaign manager Paul Manafort to infamous gangster Al Capone.

I'm not sure why Trump thinks this is a good analogy. He's made it before, in a confused interview with Sean Hannity right after Helsinki that included an indecipherable comment on "nuclear warming", whatever that is. As a comparison, it was dumbfuck stupid then, and it's still dumbfuck stupid now.

Then again, Donald Trump seems to think you need to present your ID in order to buy milk. I'm not sure he's all there. Oh, what's this? I'll just leave this here to remind everyone that we're all doomed:

Saelune:
Nixon and Clinton were punished for less. Trump literally, LITERALLY! Lies every single god damn day.

Clinton, sure. Nixon, no. Nixon did what people are accusing Russia of. Trump is like... I don't know, Gerald Ford in that scenario.

Seanchaidh:

Saelune:
Nixon and Clinton were punished for less. Trump literally, LITERALLY! Lies every single god damn day.

Clinton, sure. Nixon, no. Nixon did what people are accusing Russia of. Trump is like... I don't know, Gerald Ford in that scenario.

Nixon lied about money and tried to cover it up.

Trump also lied about money, is still stealing tons of it, screwing over the poor and middle class, lies literally LITERALLY every day AND is getting more and more like Hitler at an alarming rate.

Atleast Nixon wasn't a bitch to foreign powers like Trump is.

Saelune:

Seanchaidh:

Saelune:
Nixon and Clinton were punished for less. Trump literally, LITERALLY! Lies every single god damn day.

Clinton, sure. Nixon, no. Nixon did what people are accusing Russia of. Trump is like... I don't know, Gerald Ford in that scenario.

Nixon lied about money and tried to cover it up.

Watergate was about a burglary of the Democratic National Committee, not "money".

Seanchaidh:

Saelune:

Seanchaidh:

Clinton, sure. Nixon, no. Nixon did what people are accusing Russia of. Trump is like... I don't know, Gerald Ford in that scenario.

Nixon lied about money and tried to cover it up.

Watergate was about a burglary of the Democratic National Committee, not "money".

Watergate was nowhere near as bad as what Trump has, is, and will continue to do.

Saelune:

Seanchaidh:

Saelune:
Nixon lied about money and tried to cover it up.

Watergate was about a burglary of the Democratic National Committee, not "money".

Watergate was nowhere near as bad as what Trump has, is, and will continue to do.

It was more illegal. You can thank a lot more than Trump for that.

Seanchaidh:

Saelune:
Watergate was nowhere near as bad as what Trump has, is, and will continue to do.

It was more illegal. You can thank a lot more than Trump for that.

Watergate and l'affaire Russe are essentially the exact same scandal: a candidate for a presidential election conspired with other actors to steal information from his opponent in the hopes of gaining an advantage in that election.

The only difference is that now, it's the Russian intelligence service doing the stealing, not a quintet of RNC goons. I find it difficult to see how that could possibly be interpreted as a mitigating factor. If anything, it makes the entire affair substantially worse.

bastardofmelbourne:

Seanchaidh:

Saelune:
Watergate was nowhere near as bad as what Trump has, is, and will continue to do.

It was more illegal. You can thank a lot more than Trump for that.

Watergate and l'affaire Russe are essentially the exact same scandal: a candidate for a presidential election conspired with other actors to steal information from his opponent in the hopes of gaining an advantage in that election.

The only difference is that now, it's the Russian intelligence service doing the stealing, not a quintet of RNC goons. I find it difficult to see how that could possibly be interpreted as a mitigating factor. If anything, it makes the entire affair substantially worse.

Minus the whole "conspired with other actors" bit, which is pretty necessary.

Seanchaidh:
Minus the whole "conspired with other actors" bit, which is pretty necessary.

A conspiracy is just an agreement to break the law. When Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort were invited to meet with a Russian lawyer in Trump Tower with the promise of receiving stolen documents from that lawyer, they were agreeing to break the law. Legally speaking, that is a criminal conspiracy.

If you're having trouble seeing it, just replace the promise of emails with the promise of something else that could only have been obtained illegally. Like cocaine, or nude photos of a celebrity, or someone's medical records, or a stolen Rembrandt. Trump 100% knew that these emails were not obtained through law-abiding means. He agreed to the meeting anyway. That makes him a conspirator to the theft of the emails.

Plus, there was that time where he asked them to hack Hillary Clinton's email account, and then a few hours later they tried to hack Hillary Clinton's email account. I've almost certainly mentioned this before.

bastardofmelbourne:

Seanchaidh:
Minus the whole "conspired with other actors" bit, which is pretty necessary.

A conspiracy is just an agreement to break the law. When Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort were invited to meet with a Russian lawyer in Trump Tower with the promise of receiving stolen documents from that lawyer, they were agreeing to break the law. Legally speaking, that is a criminal conspiracy.

If you're having trouble seeing it, just replace the promise of emails with the promise of something else that could only have been obtained illegally. Like cocaine, or nude photos of a celebrity, or someone's medical records, or a stolen Rembrandt. Trump 100% knew that these emails were not obtained through law-abiding means. He agreed to the meeting anyway. That makes him a conspirator to the theft of the emails.

I'd rather not destroy press freedom and whistleblowing, thanks.

bastardofmelbourne:
Plus, there was that time where he asked them to hack Hillary Clinton's email account, and then a few hours they tried to hack Hillary Clinton's email account. I've almost certainly mentioned this before.

And..?

Seanchaidh:
I'd rather not destroy press freedom and whistleblowing, thanks.

The federal law provides exceptions for media organisations and whistleblowers. Neither Donald Trump Jr. nor Natalia Veselnitskaya can be honestly described as members of a media organisation or a whistleblower.

Seanchaidh:

bastardofmelbourne:
Plus, there was that time where he asked them to hack Hillary Clinton's email account, and then a few hours they tried to hack Hillary Clinton's email account. I've almost certainly mentioned this before.

And..?

Placing that sequence of events in context very strongly implies the active participation in a criminal conspiracy that you were requesting evidence of.

Consider: in June, the Trump campaign were approached by self-declared representatives of the Russian government with the explicit offer of documents stolen from their political opponent. They accepted this meeting very enthusiastically. For whatever reason - according to the parties present at the meeting, whose account of events cannot really be trusted - the meeting was unproductive; Trump Jr. later claims the meeting was about "adoption," which is essentially Kremlin political code for sanctions. (I know that sounds very Tom Clancy, but I'm serious.)

Then, in July, Donald Trump very publicly and in all apparent sincerity asks that the Russian government steal documents from his political opponent. At the time he made the request, he knew for certain that Russia was responsible for the earlier information security breaches and that they were capable of carrying out further breaches. And just hours after he does so, the Russian intelligence service starts trying to steal documents from his political opponent. Do you see how a prosecutor could start to draw a connection there?

bastardofmelbourne:

Seanchaidh:
I'd rather not destroy press freedom and whistleblowing, thanks.

The federal law provides exceptions for media organisations and whistleblowers.

Not good enough.

bastardofmelbourne:
Neither Donald Trump Jr. nor Natalia Veselnitskaya can be honestly described as members of a media organisation or a whistleblower.

Doesn't matter. The freedom of the press is an individual right extended to everyone, not just professionals or gatekeeping organizations.

bastardofmelbourne:

Seanchaidh:

bastardofmelbourne:
Plus, there was that time where he asked them to hack Hillary Clinton's email account, and then a few hours they tried to hack Hillary Clinton's email account. I've almost certainly mentioned this before.

And..?

Placing that sequence of events in context very strongly implies the active participation in a criminal conspiracy that you were requesting evidence of.

It really doesn't.

bastardofmelbourne:
Then, in July, Donald Trump very publicly and in all apparent sincerity asks that the Russian government steal documents from his political opponent. At the time he made the request, he knew for certain that Russia was responsible for the earlier information security breaches

The fuck are you talking about?

bastardofmelbourne:
and that they were capable of carrying out further breaches. And just hours after he does so, the Russian intelligence service starts trying to steal documents from his political opponent. Do you see how a prosecutor could start to draw a connection there?

Do you see how much of a reach this shit is?

Seanchaidh:
Not good enough.

Not good enough...for what?

Seanchaidh:
Doesn't matter. The freedom of the press is an individual right extended to everyone, not just professionals or gatekeeping organizations.

Legal exemptions intended to protect journalists apply to journalists. There's nothing controversial about that.

Seanchaidh:

bastardofmelbourne:
Then, in July, Donald Trump very publicly and in all apparent sincerity asks that the Russian government steal documents from his political opponent. At the time he made the request, he knew for certain that Russia was responsible for the earlier information security breaches

The fuck are you talking about?

Look. You're smarter than this. I shouldn't have to spell it out.

1. In late April 2016, a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign named George Papadopoulos is approached by a London professor named Joseph Mifsud and told that high-level Russian officials had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. Papadopoulos then tells at least eight other members of the Trump campaign, including Sam Clovis, the campaign's co-chairman, who encouraged Papadopoulos to fly to Moscow to meet with agents of Russia's Foreign Ministry to discuss it. At the time, the cybersecurity breaches - which had been ongoing in some form since 2015, and which targeted the DNC specifically on April 18 - is not yet public knowledge. The DNC hacks specifically would not be discovered for ten days.
2. On 18 May 2016, James Clapper informs both campaigns of the hacking incidents and warns them to be on guard against further breaches. The last of the leaked emails is dated 25 May, indicating that the hackers still had access to the server until that date.
3. On June 9 2016, the Trump Tower meeting occurs; Trump Jr, Kushner, and Manafort meet with a Russian lawyer on the promise of obtaining emails related to the Trump campaign. At this time, the DNC has not yet publicly announced that they had been hacked. The announcement is eventually made on June 14.
4. On July 22 2016, Wikileaks begins publishing the emails stolen from the DNC.
5. On July 27 2016, Donald Trump publicly calls on Russia to "find" Hillary Clinton's emails. Hours later, Russian intelligence officers attempt to gain access to seventy-six email accounts used by Clinton's personal office.
6. On September 26 2016, Trump denied knowing that Russia was responsible for the DNC hacks during a presidential debate.

But Trump had known since April that the Russians had "thousands of emails" from Clinton. He had known since May that the election's information security had been compromised by foreign intelligence officers. In June, his campaign is directly approached by Russia and offered the stolen emails, which prompts them to take a meeting to discuss it - nearly a week before the hacks were public knowledge.

So on July 27 2016, when Donald Trump says "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," he knows for sure that those emails were stolen and the Russians were responsible. The alternative explanation - that he failed to connect the two basic dots of "someone stole this thing" and "the Russians are offering me this same thing" to reach "the Russians stole this thing" - requires him to be functionally retarded.

bastardofmelbourne:

Seanchaidh:
Doesn't matter. The freedom of the press is an individual right extended to everyone, not just professionals or gatekeeping organizations.

Legal exemptions intended to protect journalists apply to journalists. There's nothing controversial about that.

They are not merely meant to apply "to journalists", they are meant to apply concerning "the press"-- not a group of people or a profession but the sheer capacity to publish information relevant to the public. Everyone should have these protections because everyone could have something relevant to report.

bastardofmelbourne:
So on July 27 2016, when Donald Trump says "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," he knows for sure that those emails were stolen and the Russians were responsible.

No one knows that now! You're treating 'could be true' as 'is true'.

Seanchaidh:
They are not merely meant to apply "to journalists", they are meant to apply concerning "the press"-- not a group of people or a profession but the sheer capacity to publish information relevant to the public. Everyone should have these protections because everyone could have something relevant to report.

That's not how this stuff works. Journalists benefit from journalistic protections because they do journalism. It's not a protection that applies to everyone on the planet on the basis that they could hypothetically become a journalist at some point. You have to actually be a journalist engaged in journalism in order to qualify.

Think about it. How would you like it if a Wall Street investment firm claimed attorney-client privilege on all documents relating to their practice on the basis that everyone has the right to become an attorney if they so choose?

There's a reason we draw a distinction between a lawyer giving legal advice to a client and a random person discussing the law with another random person, just like we draw a distinction between a journalist receiving information from a whistleblower and a random person receiving stolen documents from another random person. Professional distinctions like that are why pharmacists are allowed to deal drugs, why surgeons are allowed to cut people open, and why cops are allowed to handcuff people and toss them in a cell - all things that would be very, very illegal if performed by Joe Bloggs the average citizen.

Seanchaidh:
No one knows that now! You're treating 'could be true' as 'is true'.

How long have we been arguing about this? Two years? I'm sick of going over it again and again.

Why is it so hard for you to accept that Russia was responsible for the DNC hacks? Every time a skeptic demands that the events need further scrutiny before we can say for sure that it's Russia, the scrutiny turns up more and more evidence implicating the Russian government. Every indictment and guilty plea paints a more comprehensive picture of what went down. And every time I go over this with you, you can't give me an alternative explanation that fits the evidence.

So why are you being so freaking stubborn about it?

Seanchaidh:

No one knows that now! You're treating 'could be true' as 'is true'.

The least due diligence you could do is to read the wiki.

D.N.C. Cyber attack forensic analysis
In June and July 2016, cybersecurity experts and firms, including CrowdStrike,[112] Fidelis, FireEye,[113] Mandiant, SecureWorks,[114] Symantec[113] and ThreatConnect, stated the DNC email leaks were part of a series of cyberattacks on the DNC committed by two Russian intelligence groups, called Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear,[115][7] also known respectively as APT28 and APT29 / The Dukes.[116][117][112][118] ThreatConnect also noted possible links between the DC Leaks project and Russian intelligence operations because of a similarity with Fancy Bear attack patterns.[119] SecureWorks added that the actor group was operating from Russia on behalf of the Russian government.[120][121]

de Volkskrant reported on January 25, 2018 that Dutch intelligence agency AIVD had penetrated the Russian hacking group Cozy Bear in 2014 and in 2015 observed them hack the DNC in real time, as well as capturing the images of the hackers via a security camera in their workspace.[122][123] The New York Times reported on July 18, 2018 that American, British and Dutch intelligence services had observed stolen DNC emails on Russian military intelligence networks.[124]

What do you dispute?

Kwak:
*

Crowdstrike saying something which happens to flatter the biases of their client (the DNC) and their co-founder and CTO (Dmitri Alperovitch) and then a bunch of other people repeating their conclusions without any access to the material evidence does not make what they said "knowledge".

Seanchaidh:

Kwak:
*

Crowdstrike saying something which happens to flatter the biases of their client (the DNC) and their co-founder and CTO (Dmitri Alperovitch) and then a bunch of other people repeating their conclusions without any access to the material evidence does not make what they said "knowledge".

And the Dutch intelligence service?

So... Trump just tweeted that the meeting was about getting dirt on Clinton from this Russian agent.

"Fake News reporting, a complete fabrication, that I am concerned about the meeting my wonderful son, Donald, had in Trump Tower. This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere. I did not know about it!"

From the Source

This is after he stated that the meeting was only about adoption.

Initially, the Trump team brushed the meeting aside, saying it had been about Russian adoptions in a statement reportedly crafted largely by the president himself. But as more information continued to dribble out, including a Times report that the purpose had been to get damaging information about Clinton, the initial story unraveled, and Trump Jr. himself preemptively tweeted out a statement and the email chain setting up the meeting. In the emails, Trump Jr. responds to the offer of dirt on Clinton with, "If it?s what you say I love it."

How much more mental gymnastics do we need to go through when the man outs himself? Seriously? How are we attacking and making stuff up about him when we just take the words that the man says and bring them to the light of day?

Kwak:

Seanchaidh:

Kwak:
*

Crowdstrike saying something which happens to flatter the biases of their client (the DNC) and their co-founder and CTO (Dmitri Alperovitch) and then a bunch of other people repeating their conclusions without any access to the material evidence does not make what they said "knowledge".

And the Dutch intelligence service?

Isn't relevant to the issue, as the alleged hacking occurred in a different year.

Seanchaidh:

Kwak:
And the Dutch intelligence service?

Isn't relevant to the issue, as the alleged hacking occurred in a different year.

The fact that the Russians were spying on the DNC in 2015 is not exactly irrelevant to the question of whether they were spying on the DNC in 2016.

Which, you know...they were. There's really just a tremendous quantity of forensic evidence that's been released over the past year pointing to Russia. They've got the phishing emails, they've got the IP addresses, they've got the code they used, they've got the identities of the spies and the buildings they were working in and the hours they were active and the communications they made between each other. Falsifying that amount of forensic evidence is simply inconceivable.

bastardofmelbourne:

Seanchaidh:

Kwak:
And the Dutch intelligence service?

Isn't relevant to the issue, as the alleged hacking occurred in a different year.

The fact that the Russians were spying on the DNC in 2015 is not exactly irrelevant to the question of whether they were spying on the DNC in 2016.

For a high profile target like that, it basically is.

bastardofmelbourne:
Falsifying that amount of forensic evidence is simply inconceivable.

An indictment is a list of assertions, not forensic evidence.

Seanchaidh:
For a high profile target like that, it basically is.

...what are you saying here? That the DNC was so high-profile that the Russians stopped spying on it in between 2015 and early 2016? It was such a high-profile target that it didn't merit continued surveillance from one year and into the next? That doesn't make sense.

Seanchaidh:
An indictment is a list of assertions, not forensic evidence.

This is inaccurate. An indictment is the product of a grand jury, which is presented with the relevant forensic evidence and testimony by a criminal prosecutor. Mueller doesn't just write a bunch of assertions down on a piece of paper and call it an indictment; every single piece of evidence cited in that indictment will have been presented to the grand jury, examined, and then approved.

bastardofmelbourne:

Seanchaidh:
For a high profile target like that, it basically is.

...what are you saying here? That the DNC was so high-profile that the Russians stopped spying on it in between 2015 and early 2016? It was such a high-profile target that it didn't merit continued surveillance from one year and into the next? That doesn't make sense.

Seanchaidh:
An indictment is a list of assertions, not forensic evidence.

This is inaccurate. An indictment is the product of a grand jury, which is presented with the relevant forensic evidence and testimony by a criminal prosecutor. Mueller doesn't just write a bunch of assertions down on a piece of paper and call it an indictment; every single piece of evidence cited in that indictment will have been presented to the grand jury, examined, and then approved.

I strongly suspect, that on some level, Seanchaidh doesn't want the accusations about Russian meddling to have any merit because he hates Hillary Clinton so much. Essentially, if he admits the Russians tampered with the election on some level, then it somehow undercuts the legitimacy of that hatred and lets Clinton off the hook, even if only by a small amount.

This is only a suspicion, of course, but given the limited amount of information I have to go on (the posts presented on this forum over the last 2 years only, since I have no real idea what's truly going on in his and life) it seems a fairly reasonable idea.

bastardofmelbourne:

Seanchaidh:
For a high profile target like that, it basically is.

...what are you saying here? That the DNC was so high-profile that the Russians stopped spying on it in between 2015 and early 2016? It was such a high-profile target that it didn't merit continued surveillance from one year and into the next? That doesn't make sense.

That it is entirely conceivable that multiple entities have hacked it or that there was a leak independent of any hacking.

bastardofmelbourne:

Seanchaidh:
An indictment is a list of assertions, not forensic evidence.

This is inaccurate. An indictment is the product of a grand jury, which is presented with the relevant forensic evidence and testimony by a criminal prosecutor. Mueller doesn't just write a bunch of assertions down on a piece of paper and call it an indictment; every single piece of evidence cited in that indictment will have been presented to the grand jury, examined, and then approved.

This is... optimistic.

davidmc1158:
This is only a suspicion, of course, but given the limited amount of information I have to go on (the posts presented on this forum over the last 2 years only, since I have no real idea what's truly going on in his and life) it seems a fairly reasonable idea.

Moreso I just want to avoid nuclear war and the end of humanity.

bastardofmelbourne:

Seanchaidh:
An indictment is a list of assertions, not forensic evidence.

This is inaccurate. An indictment is the product of a grand jury, which is presented with the relevant forensic evidence and testimony by a criminal prosecutor. Mueller doesn't just write a bunch of assertions down on a piece of paper and call it an indictment; every single piece of evidence cited in that indictment will have been presented to the grand jury, examined, and then approved.

I can't believe they managed to get 12 (?) peoples to actually agree on evidence that Trump is a liar, there's like 40ish% of the population that believe him over anything else, they must have spent weeks putting it together and rooting out the cultist.

Meiam:

bastardofmelbourne:

Seanchaidh:
An indictment is a list of assertions, not forensic evidence.

This is inaccurate. An indictment is the product of a grand jury, which is presented with the relevant forensic evidence and testimony by a criminal prosecutor. Mueller doesn't just write a bunch of assertions down on a piece of paper and call it an indictment; every single piece of evidence cited in that indictment will have been presented to the grand jury, examined, and then approved.

I can't believe they managed to get 12 (?) peoples to actually agree on evidence that Trump is a liar, there's like 40ish% of the population that believe him over anything else, they must have spent weeks putting it together and rooting out the cultist.

Indictments only need simple majority. Also, I'd imagine the grand jury was convened inside the beltway or somewhere similar where such concerns would not be as great. You're also overestimating the people who actually like Trump. 40% of the country didn't even vote for the guy-- he had ~25% of eligible voters.

Seanchaidh:

Moreso I just want to avoid nuclear war and the end of humanity.

Do you genuinely believe that would happen though? Do you really think that we would go to war over them hacking the DNC? I heavily doubt that would happen, and I don't see why we would even want to. And it's not like Russia wants war with us either. They boast and brag and threaten like they've got it all, but they really really don't. So much of their bragging regarding their high tech equipment and amazing military might in recent decades has been a whole lot of bluffing. Hell they can barely afford to keep their current equipment running, and they've been slashing their military budget on top of that. They're a shadow of what they once were, and they know that. Then there's the question if either of us even would launch a nuclear strike on one another, regardless of circumstance. The consequences for doing so are dire, and I don't mean the crackpot idea that once a nuke is launched that it's all over. It would take something extreme for a nuclear weapon to be launched by a large power on the world stage... and it's not some hackers stealing emails from the DNC.

I get the people screaming about Russia every five minutes can be annoying, but thinking that this will lead to some large scale nuclear conflict with Russia is ludicrous. I don't understand this parallel of "there's nothing there" and "it'll lead to total global annihilation of the human race".

Seanchaidh:
Moreso I just want to avoid nuclear war and the end of humanity.

No-one is proposing nuclear war. War with Russia would only make everything much, much worse. I mean, that should go without saying.

The reason why I consider this whole Trump-Russia affair to be so important is because it represents the actual manifestation of shit that would have been considered science fiction ten years ago. I said this way back in 2016, but I'll say it again: A hostile state actor deployed information warfare and social engineering techniques to affect the outcome of a US presidential election. And by all indications, they succeeded - and the candidate who benefited from their efforts seeks to reward and protect them as a result. We are witnessing the future take form, and it's not pretty.

This is some positively dystopian shit. If this becomes the new status quo, then democracy is fucking doomed. I'm not exaggerating; today, it's Russia intervening to benefit the Republicans. But the necessary resources aren't unique to state actors; in a few decades, we could see multinational corporations deploying similar techniques to control the outcome of elections in nations vulnerable to economic exploitation. Imagine it's 2030, and Amazon launches a similar campaign in a third-world country to prevent a labor-friendly leader from taking office and regulating their overseas business practices. Imagine the fossil fuel industry replicating these techniques to sabotage efforts at preventing climate change. Imagine the arms industry exploiting Facebook to convince America to get involved in another needless overseas war. How are we going to prevent them from doing that if the government has spend the last twelve years sticking its fingers in its ears and ignoring the problem because it's politically inconvenient?

On a fundamental level, the methods we use to consume information in the modern era have been shown to be critically flawed. They have failed at the very basic task of providing us with reliable and accurate information. We need to rethink everything - news media, education, day-to-day information security, privacy, everything up to and including the way we conduct elections. It's serious shit! People need to take it seriously.

Seanchaidh:

Meiam:
I can't believe they managed to get 12 (?) peoples to actually agree on evidence that Trump is a liar, there's like 40ish% of the population that believe him over anything else, they must have spent weeks putting it together and rooting out the cultist.

Indictments only need simple majority. Also, I'd imagine the grand jury was convened inside the beltway or somewhere similar where such concerns would not be as great. You're also overestimating the people who actually like Trump. 40% of the country didn't even vote for the guy-- he had ~25% of eligible voters.

I actually had a much longer explanation of the grand jury system in my post originally, but I cut it because I felt it was basically just too long and I figured Seanchaidh already knows how grand juries work. But for everyone's benefit, I can explain it here. It's important for understanding what these indictments mean in context. (I do think the indictments are legit important, but I don't want to accidentally mislead people by giving them the wrong impression of what a grand jury indictment actually means.)

A grand jury is essentially an archaic way of determining whether a case should go to trial. The prosecutor empanels a jury of twelve to twenty-four jurors, presents them with the evidence, and tries to convince them that it's sufficient to merit pressing charges on the defendant. If a majority of the jurors are convinced, they issue an indictment, which allows the actual trial to get underway. Unlike a trial jury, a grand jury is not assessing the defendant's guilt - they're just assessing whether the evidence merits taking the case to trial. That also means the evidentiary standard is lower; while the basic standard for a crime is to prove the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, to justify an indictment you only need to demonstrate what's called "probable cause" - essentially, show that there are reasonable grounds to believe the defendant committed a crime.

These days, grand juries are only performed in the US; everywhere else, the legal system relies on what's called a preliminary hearing. A preliminary hearing is fundamentally the same deal, except instead of a jury, the prosecutor tries to convince a judge. In some respects, a preliminary hearing can be tougher than a grand jury - judges can be prickly motherfuckers, your entire case rests on their approval, and if you piss them off you've got little to no room to smooth over mistakes. But in other ways, grand juries are more rigorous; the evidence is actually presented and explained, subpoenas are handed out, witnesses are called to give testimony, and the whole process generally takes a lot longer than a preliminary hearing.

Now in general, it is very rare for a grand jury to fail to indictment someone - that is, when a prosecutor in the US empanels a grand jury, the grand jury nearly always gives him what he wants. Part of that is because, as I said above, the grand jury is only assessing whether a case should proceed to trial - and that's relatively easy to show. But part of it is also that grand juries are very rare even in the US. They cost a lot of money and take a lot of time, which makes them impractical for day-to-day criminal justice. There's really only three reasons to empanel a grand jury:

1. You need the jury's subpoena power to perform evidence discovery as the investigation proceeds, which is often the case with long-form investigations such as a special prosecutor's probe.
2. You want to keep the proceedings secret - grand juries are conducted in closed court, which means that the prosecutor usually controls whether the details are made public. Indictments can be sought, obtained, then sealed and left until the prosecutor needs them, usually later on in a criminal investigation once they have other pieces in place.
3. You want to make a point - grand juries are ominous and kinda impressive, and they work very well as a way of showing off how seriously you take this particular investigation. That can be useful for pressuring a witness.

If a is case serious enough to merit a grand jury, then it's nearly always serious enough that the prosecutor already has all the evidence he needs to justify pressing charges. You don't empanel a grand jury and then show up with no evidence and mismatched socks; if the jury knocks back your indictment, you'd look like a fucking idiot for wasting everybody's time and money on a nothing case. It'd be like arranging and holding a lavish homecoming party for an overseas friend when you're not actually sure if he's coming back anytime soon. Essentially, when a prosecutor has a shallow, flimsy case and for some reason still wants to press charges, he doesn't bother with the grand jury - he takes it to preliminary hearing and hopes for the best.

So what do the Mueller indictments mean? Are they serious or are they bullshit? There's a few things to keep in mind. Firstly, Mueller has sought these indictments ex parte, which is a fancy lawyer-word for "the defendant wasn't present at the time." That means he undoubtedly had the advantage in being able to present the evidence and frame the narrative in the way he wanted without the opposing counsel pushing back against him. Secondly, like I said above, grand jury indictments are pretty easy to get, statistically speaking. The evidentiary standard is not as high as a real trial, and Mueller only needs to persuade a simple majority of the jurors rather than get unanimous agreement.

But. A grand jury indictment does indicate that the evidence has been rolled out and examined by the jurors and deemed sufficient. That is a necessary procedural step. If the evidence simply didn't exist, this would become extremely obvious during the preliminary examination when Mueller showed up with nothing but the lint in his pockets. If Mueller didn't present sufficient evidence to satisfy probable cause - if he didn't show that a crime occurred, that this guy probably did it, here's how he did it, here's the motive, here's the timeline, blah blah blah - then a grand jury would be massively negligent if they went and issued the indictment anyway. If we were to assume this was the case, then it would represent a colossal scandal in its own right - we would be seeing a federal prosecutor basically running a kangaroo jury to justify frivolous charges that have no business going to trial, all at great taxpayer expense. It'd be McCarthy all over again. Now, forgive me for trusting a guy who looks like he was literally stamped out at a G-Man factory, but I don't think that's in-character for Mueller. Mueller does not strike me as a guy who would skip proper procedure when eating his breakfast, much less when conducting a grand jury investigation.

But for me, the real test that shows that these indictments aren't hollow is to look at the political environment that they're being produced in. The leadup to the Iraq War showed that when the full power of the executive branch is pressuring its spies and massaging its reports to produce a desired outcome, they usually succeed. But Mueller is not conducting his investigation with the support of the executive branch. He doesn't even have the support of the entire Department of Justice, and he sure as fuck doesn't have the support of Congress or his own political party. He's sailing against the wind, so to speak; there's tremendous political pressure weighing down upon him every day to shut down the investigation, to wrap it up quietly and slink off anticlimactically. It increases by the day.

The fact is that if Mueller's indictments were based on flim-flam and puff pastry, they would have collapsed immediately. The committees in Congress that are supposed to be doing oversight are watching like a hawk for any mistake. The White House takes every chance it can get to imply that Mueller is biased - Trump is trying to argue that Mueller has a conflict of interest because he quit one of Trump's golf clubs in 2011, for Christ's sake. Peter Strzok pillow-texted his mistress about their mutual disdain for the then-future President, and Mueller immediately fucking fired them just because of apprehended bias. And even that move - which when you think about it, should be reinforcing the integrity of the investigation rather than undermining about it - was not enough to satisfy his own party's Congress, which hauled Strzok before a committee to give him an entertainingly childish "interrogation" whose transparent purpose was to make it appear as if Strzok had personally masterminded the entire Russia scandal to frame the President.

The thing is, we can apply scrutiny to each side's claims and see which ones hold up and which ones implode. With the Iraq war, as soon as any pressure was applied to the administration's case, the whole thing collapsed. There was no evidence. And when we look at the competing claims surrounding the Mueller investigation, what we've seen is that time and again, when Mueller's case is question, it holds up. Often, the scrutiny produces new evidence that makes the justification for his probe even stronger. And when the administration's counter-claims are scrutinised, they practically melt. Remember #ReleaseTheMemo? It turned out that the memo contradict itself in its own text. We've seen the president repeat this cycle over and over again over the past few years.

If they're clutching at straws as thin as that, it's not because they're holding back. It's because they can't find anything else. If there was a flaw in Mueller's indictments, if there was even a single procedural misstep or technicality, I can guarantee you that the Trump administration would have found it, highlighted it, drawn great big red arrows pointing at it, put it on Fox News and blamed Hillary Clinton for it already.

tl;dr - Occam's Razor tells me that the indictments have merit.

bastardofmelbourne:
A hostile state actor deployed information warfare and social engineering techniques to affect the outcome of a US presidential election

Yes, heaven forbid a 'hostile state actor' do the things that our oligarchs have been doing for years.

bastardofmelbourne:
If we were to assume this was the case, then it would represent a colossal scandal in its own right - we would be seeing a federal prosecutor basically running a kangaroo jury to justify frivolous charges that have no business going to trial, all at great taxpayer expense. It'd be McCarthy all over again.

A lot of those charges are never going to go to trial because they apply to people who will never fall into United States custody.

Seanchaidh:

bastardofmelbourne:
A hostile state actor deployed information warfare and social engineering techniques to affect the outcome of a US presidential election

Yes, heaven forbid a 'hostile state actor' do the things that our oligarchs have been doing for years.

bastardofmelbourne:
If we were to assume this was the case, then it would represent a colossal scandal in its own right - we would be seeing a federal prosecutor basically running a kangaroo jury to justify frivolous charges that have no business going to trial, all at great taxpayer expense. It'd be McCarthy all over again.

A lot of those charges are never going to go to trial because they apply to people who will never fall into United States custody.

I think the purpose of filing against those people even though they will not be able to extradite them, they are laying the groundwork to show whose responsible so they will be able to draw a direct line to those people and members of Trump's campaign. They are basically saying " these are the people who stole the information" and"these are the people who funded attacks on US elections" so they when they show that " these people they can prosecute here in the US" had contacts/association with them when they introduce evidence later.

When you have the same hackers who interfered with the elections ALSO attacking the Department of Defense, Hospitals and Electrical grid, this is far more serious than a situation of " leaked" information, it is an act of war.

OT:
Rick Gates testimony revealed:

Gates testified that he engaged in an extensive criminal conspiracy with Manafort that lasted seven years and included lying to the Internal Revenue Service to avoid paying taxes and providing false documents to banks to obtains millions of dollars in loans.

Gates said he helped Manafort hide secret bank accounts in the United Kingdom, Cyprus and the Grenadines. He said he followed Manafort's directions in failing to disclose the overseas accounts to federal tax authorities as required by law.

"Mr. Manafort requested ... that we did not disclose foreign bank accounts," Gates testified. He said there were 15 secret accounts.

Gates, under questioning by prosecutor Greg Andres, admitted that he padded his expense accounts with phony charges without Manafort's knowledge, siphoning "several hundred thousand" dollars from the secret accounts. Gates said the money he took was sent to his account in the United Kingdom and was never disclosed to his accountants or the U.S. government. He also admitted to embezzling money from other employers in the past.

Gates said he falsely labeled hundreds of thousands of dollars in income as loans to reduce Manafort's tax liability. He also testified that he pressed the firm's accountants to reclassify loans as income so the company could qualify for more bank loans or get favorable lending rates.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/08/07/rick-gates-five-bombshells-his-paul-manafort-trial-testimony/921899002/

Looks like they are focusing on establishing the money trail as the first step, which is he best place to start. Once they establish what money was involved, and where it came from they will be able to use that information as evidence down the line.

Seanchaidh:

Yes, heaven forbid a 'hostile state actor' do the things that our oligarchs have been doing for years.

Why have you been arguing against the evidence when your position is that you DO believe Russia interfered, but you just don't care?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here