Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ex-FBI Director Mueller appointed DOJ Special Counsel

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • One could ask - now that he can no longer call it a "hoax" whether the new sanctions by the Congress Law that refused to implement - may now be introduced? I am not holding my breath. Also what steps is the Government taking to ensure that future elections are without interference? Nothing on that... The guy has guilt all over him and must go.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by snapper View Post
      Welcome jjk308 from Florida. I advise you introduce yourself and read zraver's excellent WAB Survival Guide. Perhaps after that you would care to comment on how the Moscow interference investigation started in July 2016 when the Steele dossier - which was still ongoing - was first notified to the FBI (by Steele himself) in September 2016?
      Russian internet disinformation started as early as 2014 with the Russian invasion of the Crimea. Pro-Russian trolls posing as Americans and Ukrainians were posting on a number of internet websites and were fairly easy to pick out because of the subject matter. They probably ramped up their activity when the election season started in late 2015 and I suppose it was obvious to US intelligence by early 2016.

      I didn't notice it because compared to the volume of traffic it was small, and I don't follow Twitter, Facebook or any website likely to post anything unverifiable, but apparently it triggered the interference investigation in July 2016. Another trigger was the drunken bragging of Papadopolous claiming he'd been told the Russians had "dirt" on Hillary, reported to US authorities in late July by the Australian government.

      Steele finished hiis first report of 17 to Fusion GPS/the Clinton Campaign on June 20, 2016. he had a meeting with an FBI agent in London on July 5, and with other agents in Rome on October 3, and there are reports that it was common knowledge in the Washington Press Corps. It appears that he showed at least the earlier of the reports to news outlets, where it was rejected as unverified sensationalism. It's possible that Steele salted the final dossier of with verifiable material cribbed from political columns and magazines in order to give the FBI something more realistic. The last 3 of the body of his reports were filed with Fusion GPS October 19 and the radical magazine Mother Jones reported on Steele on October 31. Sen. McCain obtained a copy from a UK source and gave it to Director Comey on December 9. Steele didn't send in a final report until Dec 13 and the gossip magazine Buzzfeed published it on January 10, 2017.

      In any case the Russians seem to have had an ongoing disinformation project well before the Trump nomination and it was likely intended to delegitimize the expected winner, Hillary Clinton. Feeding Steele disinformation was only a small part of it but it certainly had the greatest effect. The FBI using the Steele Dossier, paid for by the Clinton Campaign, for the Carter Page FISA warrant was a mind boggling error for a law enforcement agency, making any information resulting from it legally inadmissible evidence as "fruit of the poisoned tree.

      The only reason I can think of for the FBI believing the Dossier is the "salting" which would have made most of it verifiable, if commonplace, intelligence and perhaps Trump's long history of scandalous appearances on the front pages of tabloids. If the FBI had been well versed in the long history of Russian dezinformatsiya they would have immediately recognized its origin in an FSB department.

      Comment


      • So how then do you assert that the investigation was about the dossier when it very clearly was based on other intelligence - including the Dutch and British from the start? I would also remind you of Carter Page's previous contacts with the SVR which lead to one Muscovite being convicted.
        Last edited by snapper; 17 Feb 18,, 20:14.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by astralis View Post
          what truly galls me is that after the DOJ issues indictments against Russian interference, the very first thing this Prez does is say "NO COLLUSION WITH TRUMP CAMPAIGN", and has his media people go out to the news shows to say those words, and add that Dems/media are worse than the Russians.

          shows you exactly what his focus is, and it sure as shit isn't the United States of America.
          What Trump doesn't say is becoming as contentious as what he does say. You're galled because he didn't say what you think he should have said. And who knows? Maybe if he had said more, you would have found something wrong with that too. I agree he should have started out with something about progress uncovering and going after foreigners who tamper with our elections. But I don't think that omission means he doesn't "give a shit" about the USA.
          To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
            But I don't think that omission means he doesn't "give a shit" about the USA.
            Let's be honest here: Donald Trump doesn't give a single shit about anybody or anything but himself, period.
            That includes the United States, but it's nothing personal. The United States simply isn't Donald Trump.
            “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by snapper View Post
              So how then do you assert that the investigation was about the dossier when it very clearly was based on other intelligence - including the Dutch and British from the start? I would also remind you of Carter Page's previous contacts with the SVR which lead to one Muscovite being convicted.
              It very clearly was based on the steele dossier. What we have is the HRC/DNC using cutouts paying Russians to meddle in our election.

              Comment


              • http://www.slate.com/news-and-politi...americans.html

                The American Trap
                A theory for why Mueller didn’t directly go after Russians for violating election law.

                The special counsel’s indictment on Friday of Russian individuals and organizations brought campaign finance law for the first time into formal charges in the case of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. But this development came with a mystery. The indictment alleges facts that support charges of federal campaign finance law violations—such as the prohibition on foreign national contributions—but does not charge any such offenses. This is clearly not for want of evidence, since the indictment sets out in considerable detail the millions in foreign national spending to influence the 2016 election. Yet Bob Mueller omitted any direct charge for violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act.

                Instead, the indictment builds the campaign finance issues into a conspiracy to defraud the United States—it alleges that the Russians conspired to obstruct the capacity of the Federal Election Commission to enforce the law. The act of obstruction was a failure to report their illegal expenditures. If the FEC did not know about the expenditures, it could not enforce the law.

                Now, of course, those engaged in illegal campaign finance activity, such as spending from foreign national sources, won’t ever make an exception and comply with self-incriminating reporting requirements. And the irony of the premise—that the FEC would get the job done if given the needed facts—will not be lost on those who have observed the agency’s decline. But there is a theory, of course, behind the structure of the charges, and it might hold a clue to what comes next in the campaign finance portion of the case.

                Mueller and his team may have concluded that straight statutory campaign finance allegations rest on too much untested ground and would complicate what may well be the next phase of their investigation. This consideration would not affect the foreign national side of the case: Foreign nationals are plainly prohibited from spending in the manner detailed in the indictment. But how the law reaches American co-conspirators is less certain, and the special counsel’s theory of the case, pleading the campaign finance aspect of the case through conspiracy-to-defraud, may allow more securely for the prosecution of American actors.

                In other words, if Mueller’s case for campaign finance violations affected only Russians, there would be no obvious reason to exclude Federal Election Campaign Act violations from the indictment. Russians spent substantial sums to influence an election, as expressly laid out in the charging document, and this is an unambiguous violation of federal law. If, however, Mueller possesses evidence of Americans’ complicity in these violations, he may have decided on a different theory of the campaign finance case that more reliably sweeps in U.S. citizen misconduct.

                On the face of it, the law prohibits a U.S. campaign or person from “soliciting” something “of value” from a foreign national, and it bars rendering “substantial assistance” to illegal foreign national spending. It seems clear that the facts known to date implicate these rules. It is also true that there is little precedent and arguably an increased risk of a defense grounded in the “vagueness” of these prohibitions.

                Some commentators have expressed unease about the constitutional limiting principle that would govern the enforcement of these provisions. I do not share this view, but it is held strongly in some quarters and, therefore, appropriately and respectfully noted.

                The Mueller indictment is conceivably one way to solve this problem. It alleges a conspiracy to prevent the FEC from taking up and addressing the regulatory issues, and American co-conspirators may be brought in on any overt act in furtherance of this illegal scheme. Any U.S. citizen who intentionally supported the Russian electoral intervention could be liable. Examples would include U.S. citizens engaged in conversations like those in Trump Tower in the summer of 2016, or Donald Trump Jr.’s communications with WikiLeaks. The conspiracy to defraud the United States could also envelop any Americans who helped cover the Russians’ illegal electoral program by lying to federal authorities about the campaign’s Russian contacts.

                The special counsel may well have concluded that he could deal with any instances of U.S. citizen complicity without getting bogged down in unresolved questions of what constitutes “soliciting” support or providing the foreign national with “substantial assistance.” In sum, Mueller and his team may have adopted this theory of the case to facilitate the charging of Americans who helped their Russian allies interfere in the 2016 election. This is perhaps the most plausible solution to the Mueller indictment mystery.
                Last edited by Ironduke; 19 Feb 18,, 04:16.
                "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                Comment


                • Ironduke, your article is bad news for HRC given her campaigns links to both Russia and the Ukraine and the campaigns deliberate effort to use cut outs to avoid disclosing campaign related spending and activities with foreign nationals.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                    Ironduke, your article is bad news for HRC given her campaigns links to both Russia and the Ukraine and the campaigns deliberate effort to use cut outs to avoid disclosing campaign related spending and activities with foreign nationals.
                    I'll relay your concerns using my Ironduke-Bob Mueller hotline.
                    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                      I'll relay your concerns using my Ironduke-Bob Mueller hotline.
                      Just pointing out the case laid out in the article would be far more worrying to HRC, or should be.

                      Comment


                      • http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...218-story.html

                        Former Trump aide Richard Gates to plead guilty; agrees to testify against Manafort, sources say

                        A former top aide to Donald Trump's presidential campaign will plead guilty to fraud-related charges within days — and has made clear to prosecutors that he would testify against Paul Manafort, the lawyer-lobbyist who once managed the campaign.

                        The change of heart by Trump's former deputy campaign manager Richard Gates, who had pleaded not guilty after being indicted in October on charges similar to Manafort's, was described in interviews by people familiar with the case.

                        "Rick Gates is going to change his plea to guilty,'' said a person with direct knowledge of the new developments, adding that the revised plea will be presented in federal court in Washington "within the next few days.''

                        That individual and others who discussed the matter spoke on condition of anonymity, citing a judge's gag order restricting comments about the case to the news media or public.
                        "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                          Let's be honest here: Donald Trump doesn't give a single shit about anybody or anything but himself, period.
                          That includes the United States, but it's nothing personal. The United States simply isn't Donald Trump.
                          Well someone else understands Trump. Are you a native New Yorker by chance?

                          Comment


                          • Knows no bounds

                            On Saturday, Trump tweeted, "Very sad that the FBI missed all of the many signals sent out by the Florida school shooter. This is not acceptable. They are spending too much time trying to prove Russian collusion with the Trump campaign - there is no collusion. Get back to the basics and make us all proud!"

                            Comment


                            • Anybody seen this ad?

                              "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                                What Trump doesn't say is becoming as contentious as what he does say. You're galled because he didn't say what you think he should have said. And who knows? Maybe if he had said more, you would have found something wrong with that too. I agree he should have started out with something about progress uncovering and going after foreigners who tamper with our elections. But I don't think that omission means he doesn't "give a shit" about the USA.
                                Oh I don't know about that after catching up on the tweet manic. It seems to me he has blamed everyone in the U.S. from the FBI, CIA, DOJ, HRC, Pelosi, Schiff, McCain, Schumer, his staff, Batman, Superman, Paul Bunyan, Johnny Appleseed and the Jolly Green Giant for his problems. Notice he has left Russia out so yeah it is all about him.

                                I love this tweet...
                                "The fact is — you people won't say this, but I'll say it: I was a much better candidate than her," he said. "You always say she was a bad candidate. You never say I was a good candidate. I was one of the greatest candidates. Nobody else would have beaten the Clinton machine, as crooked as it was. But I was a great candidate. Someday you're going to say that."
                                Last edited by tbm3fan; 19 Feb 18,, 08:10.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X