Trump and Russiagate - Page 95 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14890412
Zagadka wrote:You guys don't seem to know how investigations work. Charge -> investigation -> evidence -> prosecution.

If you had evidence... you wouldn't be investigating.


Nope.

Rumours/Evidence -> Initial Investigation -> Charge -> More Thorough Investigation -> More Evidence -> Trial -> Sometimes Even More Evidence -> Prosecution/Verdict

Evidence is needed at every turn, never more important than at the beginning. The idea of an investigation is to increase the evidence by finding more of it. Not to find the initial evidence to begin with like you seem to believe.

You can't charge a person without evidence from an initial investigation.
#14890417
colliric wrote:Nope.

Rumours/Evidence -> Initial Investigation -> Charge -> More Thorough Investigation -> More Evidence -> Trial -> Sometimes Even More Evidence -> Prosecution/Verdict

Evidence is needed at every turn, never more important than at the beginning. The idea of an investigation is to increase the evidence by finding more of it. Not to find the initial evidence to begin with like you seem to believe.

You can't charge a person without evidence from an initial investigation.

Well when we speak of evidence, there are some interesting developments in the Mueller special counsel.

1.) How A Plea Reversal From Michael Flynn Could Uncover More Federal Corruption

If Mueller did not present exculpatory evidence before presenting a plea deal, the Flynn case may blow up on him. Apparently, the FBI did not believe that Flynn intended to mislead or lie in any way; and, Mueller may not have presented this to Flynn or his attorneys, or to the court. Failure to disclose exculpatory evidence may be considered criminal behavior.

To recap: On November 30, 2017, prosecutors working for Mueller charged former Trump national security advisor Flynn with lying to FBI agents. The following day, Flynn pled guilty before federal judge Rudolph Contreras. Less than a week later — and without explanation — Flynn’s case was reassigned to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.

One of Sullivan’s first orders of business was to enter a standing order, on December 12, 2017, directing “the government to produce to defendant in a timely manner – including during plea negotiations – any evidence in its possession that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.” Sullivan’s standing order further directed the government, if it “has identified any information which is favorable to the defendant but which the government believes not to be material,” to “submit such information to the Court for in camera review.”

It escapes me now, but someone here rebutted a point I made that Mueller had charged Flynn. The rebuttal was that Flynn had not been charged, but rather Flynn reached a plea agreement. This is apparently not the case. Mueller's office apparently did in fact charge Flynn. The issue now before the court is that Mueller's office may have known that the FBI didn't charge Flynn initially, because they did not believe he intended to mislead them. If Mueller did not disclose this evidence to Flynn's attorneys or to the court, the Flynn case may blow up.

There is cause to believe the FISA court was connected to the criminal charge filed against Flynn because Contreras, who recused less than a week after accepting Flynn’s guilty plea, “is one of just three FISA court judges who sits in the District of Columbia, where it is likely the Trump-Russia FISA warrants were sought.”

As Joe Biden might say, this is a big fucking deal. Contreras is probably feeling the heat for signing off on warrants based upon Hillary Clinton's opposition research.

It is significant because it indicates that, if the government did not provide Flynn material evidence during plea negotiations, Flynn has grounds to withdraw his plea.

That is actually pretty humiliating for a prosecutor.

2.) Flashback: CNN and MSNBC Helped Russia Sow Discord by Promoting Fake Anti-Trump Rally

It looks like Mueller had to give the "unwitting participants" cover, because CNN and MSNBC were fanning the flames of the fake Russian anti-Trump rallies.

A check of their November 12 coverage showed both CNN and MSNBC gave enthusiastic coverage to the Russian-organized anti-Trump rally that day, with live reports every hour. Correspondents celebrated the idea that it was “a love rally,” and repeated the marchers’ anti-Trump mantras, such as: “We reject the President-elect.”

While the two liberal anti-Trump networks offered heavy coverage of the anti-Trump rally throughout the day, a check of coverage between noon and 5:00 p.m. Eastern found that the Fox News Channel offered only a short re-cap (66 seconds) at the start of their 4:00 p.m. Eastern hour.

Of course, none of the networks were aware of who was allegedly behind the march, but CNN and MSNBC reveled in the inflammatory messages of the march. At one point, MSNBC anchor Alex Witt credulously responded to the ridiculously alarmist rhetoric: “That woman, when she’s saying she’s concerned that black people will be shot in the street....Is that a legitimate concern for her? Because, that’s scary.”

Correspondent Morgan Radford cheerfully played along: “Alex, it’s not only a legitimate concern for her, it’s a legitimate concern for a lot of people I’ve spoken to....They’re wondering if this [Trump’s election] is almost a license to carry in terms of hate.”

Looks like CNN and MSNBC were caught "unwittingly" carrying the water for Vladimir Putin--if we're to believe the Russian government was behind this.
User avatar
By Hindsite
#14890438
blackjack21 wrote:If Mueller did not present exculpatory evidence before presenting a plea deal, the Flynn case may blow up on him. Apparently, the FBI did not believe that Flynn intended to mislead or lie in any way; and, Mueller may not have presented this to Flynn or his attorneys, or to the court. Failure to disclose exculpatory evidence may be considered criminal behavior.

It escapes me now, but someone here rebutted a point I made that Mueller had charged Flynn. The rebuttal was that Flynn had not been charged, but rather Flynn reached a plea agreement. This is apparently not the case. Mueller's office apparently did in fact charge Flynn. The issue now before the court is that Mueller's office may have known that the FBI didn't charge Flynn initially, because they did not believe he intended to mislead them. If Mueller did not disclose this evidence to Flynn's attorneys or to the court, the Flynn case may blow up.

I don't think it matters much now for Flynn, since Mueller has already gotten Flynn to admit he lied about something. Flynn can't take it back, because then he would admit lying about lying and that does not look good for him either. However, it could be embarrassing for Mueller and his team. But do you think Mueller really cares at this point?
User avatar
By jimjam
#14890478
In 2012, Grover Norquist asserted that the GOP only needs a president who can hold a pen and sign his name. He said the Congress would do all the heavy lifting and the president would just go along for the ride. He got his wish.
#14890485
Hindsite wrote:I don't think it matters much now for Flynn, since Mueller has already gotten Flynn to admit he lied about something. Flynn can't take it back, because then he would admit lying about lying and that does not look good for him either.

My take on this is different. Generally, once you enter a plea, you cannot withdraw it. So pleading guilty is essentially synonymous with pleading nolo contendere or no contest. If there is a plea agreement, it was due to Mueller et. al. threatening worse. Yet, if Mueller et. al. did not provide exculpatory evidence, then they violated Flynn's rights. That is not okay. That puts Flynn in a plaintiff position.

As I've said for years, what these people do not get about Trump is that Trump is a fighter. Most of the milquetoast Republican cabal takes this sort of thing lying down. Trump doesn't. So his detractors look at this as "thou doth protest too much" and think Trump must be guilty of something. Very few of their predictions have seen the light of day. This Flynn case looks like it could blow up in Mueller's face.

Additionally, since the mainstream media was clearly on Hillary Clinton's side, they were in actual fact fanning the flames of these Russian protesters. So now Mueller has to make the argument that people who interacted with these Russian folks didn't know that they were Russian nationals.
#14890499
I guess this might be a good time to share an anecdote about the liberal mindset. I was at lunch at work on Sunday, in the volunteer's room because it's quiet in there and usually empty. A co-worker was in there and mentioned how there is now proof that Russia colluded in the hacking of the election because something-something about a bunch of Russians being indicted for the crime of....I don't know, she wasn't very clear (as is a common response when you ask for pertinent details). She was adamant Russia was involved in attacking "American democracy" and how awful that is and said "We don't do stuff like that" at which point I almost fell out of my chair, but casually mentioned the first 9/11 of Chile's Allende that was put into action by the CIA, that same agency that has done more than "interfere" or "collude" with elections elsewhere, which by the way is one of 3 agencies who made the RUSSIA COLLUSION claims (an agency never to be trusted, along with the other two: FBI & NSA), but that's by the by. Liberal co-worker was like "Well we don't do stuff like that ANYMORE" and I mentioned the war on that idea that the US is currently very much involved in in the Middle East where country after country is literally being destroyed....and she got upset because it seems she never considered that the US has done and continues to do much more than Russia could ever do to the US. Since she was getting upset and because I knew I was talking to a manipulated drone, I went back to work a little earlier than planned. The end.
User avatar
By jimjam
#14890517
blackjack21 wrote:jimjam wrote:My dislike of Donald is mostly for one reason, he is an asshole.

Well, I'm not sure how I'd argue with that. I think many of the people in politics are complete assholes. Generally, presidents are going to be assholes, since it is essentially a job requirement.


Ummm ...... Your selective editing left out most of my comment. Also I would venture that Donald is, by far, the biggest asshole of a president that I have witnessed in my lifetime (as, perhaps, supported by his last place finish in a recent ranking of US presidents).

My dislike of Donald is mostly for one reason, he is an asshole. I would also dislike him he were a bus driver. I simply do not like assholes. Never have and never will. Believe me I don't like Hillary. It was a lose lose situation. For the frenzy addled "right" to think my dislike of Donald has anything to do with Hillary or Hillary losing is simply presumptuous and self serving.
User avatar
By colliric
#14890566
Jill Stein is a Russian Agent....

MSNBC has proof:


Why does the Fake News hate both Genuine Left and Genuine Right so bad?

Corporate Democrats are idiots.
User avatar
By Hindsite
#14890578
"Robert Mueller has screwed up a lot in the past and is now trying to take out Kushner. They are also squeezing Rick Gates to get Paul Manafort. None of this has to do with collusion with Russia. The only collusion we know of is with the Hillary Clinton Campaign, the DNC and Fusion GPS. It's a joke."
- Mark Levin
#14890582
I'm personally starting to believe Mueller is actually doing his job properly.

I'm beginning to become more and more certain he will choose not to interview Trump.

It's becoming obvious to me he is investigating attempted Russian interference and not Russian collusion. There is no collusion(otherwise that collusion would had to have involved Jill Stein and The Green party at this point... which is why MSNBC is attacking them too now). There may have been an attempt to interfere just to cause chaos.

Corporate Democrats (sadly some on the board are of this type, especially Special Olympian) are idiots for continuing to push this.
User avatar
By Hindsite
#14890587
colliric wrote:I'm personally starting to believe Mueller is actually doing his job properly.

That depends on what you think his job was. If it was to investigate Collusion between the Trump, his campaign, and the Russians to affect the election, then his job is done. If it is to find something to indict as many people as possible and make as much money from the government as he drags it out as long as possible, then you may be correct.
User avatar
By colliric
#14890600
It's obvious to me that the Democrats have tried a stupid move of pushing him towards "Russia Collusion with Trump" when it appears to me his investigation is instead into "General Attempted Russian Intrusion".

The Fact he hasn't even requested an interview with Trump is because he's doing his job properly. I think it's hilarious to think Democrats are pushing the lie that Trump is refusing to be interview... He hasn't even been asked and that was not an oversight. Mueller has not asked deliberately, he probably never intends to interview Trump. There is nothing to request from Trump. He has nothing to do with this investigation. It's not about Trump. It was never about Trump.

It was only about Trump in the minds of Hillary diehards.
User avatar
By Zagadka
#14890602
I agree, it is dumb of them, and I've made clear my lack of support for the investigation as it is generally framed by both left and right.

The lawyer, Alex van der Zwaan, a 33-year-old Dutch citizen, acknowledged in federal court in Washington that he lied to prosecutors about a September 2016 conversation with Rick Gates, the former Trump aide, over work they did together for a Ukrainian political party aligned with Russia. He also admitted that he deleted records of email exchanges that prosecutors had sought.

... there is no big direct evidence, but they keep managing to pile up lots of small ones going back years.

And we all know how much Republicans care about deleted e-mail.
User avatar
By colliric
#14890603
The investigation is thankfully obviously coming to a swift(at least for these processes) conclusion. They are charging people, etc.

President Trump not being interviewed by Mueller at this point shows he is obviously in the clear. It wasn't even asked of him to attend.
User avatar
By Hindsite
#14890616
colliric wrote:The investigation is thankfully obviously coming to a swift(at least for these processes) conclusion. They are charging people, etc.

President Trump not being interviewed by Mueller at this point shows he is obviously in the clear. It wasn't even asked of him to attend.

I believe Mueller is still out to get Trump for whatever crime he can pin on him. He did not bring on an IRS investigator to ignore Trump's tax returns.
#14890627
skinster wrote:Memo to jimjam: They're all assholes. ;)

I concur.

jimjam wrote:Also I would venture that Donald is, by far, the biggest asshole of a president that I have witnessed in my lifetime (as, perhaps, supported by his last place finish in a recent ranking of US presidents).

What are your criteria? Obama's actions against his political detractors like Catherine Engelbrecht struck me as particularly dark, as well as his utterly flippant attitude toward the attack in Benghazi (what caused me to dislike him as a person). Bush pushed for an elective war that led to hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq. Clinton had the peculiar situation where people close to him kept dying (my personal favorite was the death of Ron Brown in an airplane accident whose official cause was "a series of problems." I remember laughing for almost a whole day about what a terrible job they did of covering that one up). Lyndon Johnson was known to whip out his cock. Trump looks pretty classy by comparison.

Trump is a socially awkward but amusing guy, but so far he hasn't done anything quite like his predecessors in terms of maliciously targeting someone in some sort of clandestine manner and completely fucking them over or killing them.

jimjam wrote:My dislike of Donald is mostly for one reason, he is an asshole. I would also dislike him he were a bus driver.

Like I said, I'm not going to argue with you on a point like that. However, that is a personality issue. I would probably not like Trump as a bus driver either. Whereas, I probably wouldn't have as much dislike for Obama or Clinton as bus drivers. However, I'm more interested in their official actions and policy preferences, since that is what directly affects me.

jimjam wrote:Believe me I don't like Hillary.

Well, I didn't either. However, my dislike of Hillary isn't in any way limited to her personally. I despise the people who put her up to running. I despise Madam Secretary and all the shameless propaganda that purports to be entertainment. I despise the people who ruined Mad Max and Star Wars--turning the setting for epic stories into a cheap soapbox for feminism. I despise that a once vaunted 80's band, U2, decided to withdraw the release of an album, because it wasn't interesting or heartfelt music. In the wake of Trump's victory, the withdrawn U2 album made no sense without a Hillary Clinton victory so they didn't release it. U2's album--like so much of so-called popular US media product--was rather nothing more than state-sponsored propaganda. It's like Pravda and Izvestia in the US these days.

On a side note, I have a friend my age who just loves the Beatles. I decided some time ago that the Beatles were state propaganda (along with the Rolling Stones, the Who, Led Zeppelin, etc.). It was Britain's attempt at a political resurgence with soft power, as they had not yet given up the idea that they were no longer a super power until the 1970s. Then, it became the "special relationship" with the US between Reagan and Thatcher and their successors. Following Obama's election, that "specialness" waned. Britain is trying a limited return with hardpower--two aircraft carriers, Brexit, but still under the US aegis as a result of their dependence on the F-35.

I'm opposed to the establishment, largely because I oppose turning the United States into Mexico; I despise the US government's assertion that the 14th Amendment guarantees homosexual marriages; I think the media is nothing more than fetid propaganda; and the lackeys that support the establishment are nothing but empty suits.

So I like Trump. However, it's not because I like Trump personally. It's because he pisses off the people that piss me off.

colliric wrote:Why does the Fake News hate both Genuine Left and Genuine Right so bad?

It's because we are challenging them and actively working to undermine them.

Hindsite wrote:"Robert Mueller has screwed up a lot in the past and is now trying to take out Kushner. They are also squeezing Rick Gates to get Paul Manafort. None of this has to do with collusion with Russia. The only collusion we know of is with the Hillary Clinton Campaign, the DNC and Fusion GPS. It's a joke."
- Mark Levin

With all the pre-Trump investigation into Manafort, the cessation of investigations into Manafort when he was Trump's campaign manager, and the resumption of investigations into Manafort after Trump fired him, I have to go with SonofNewo's conclusion. Manafort was a mole for the FBI, and he's under a criminal non-disclosure agreement (i.e., if he announces that he worked for the FBI, he will go to prison for sure, or worse).





colliric wrote:I'm personally starting to believe Mueller is actually doing his job properly.

I'm skeptical, because Hillary Clinton clearly violated the law with her email server, destruction of emails, lying to Congress and defying a Congressional subpoena. It could be that they were feeding the Russians bullshit info over an insecure server and had to use a fake-insecure-email-server ruse as a pretext. That's not beyond the deep state to do something like that. However, they have destroyed their own credibility in the eyes of the electorate, which is for all intents and purposes worse than their disinformation campaign via fake-insecure-email-server if that's what it was. Also, the story doesn't work when it is clear that Steele was anti-Trump and authored the dossier, as that is foreign interference in our election established in fact, paid for by the Clinton campaign, the FBI and part of official court records. If that isn't getting prosecuted, Mueller has to be a complete retard, or the establishment isn't telling us the truth. I'm going with the latter, and frankly don't want to be governed by people like that anymore.

colliric wrote:I'm beginning to become more and more certain he will choose not to interview Trump.

Well, I think their coup attempt is over at this point, but they are still trying to maintain a reason for the independent counsel to exist. We don't need that to investigate whether Russia tried to interfere. The only reason to maintain it was the pretext that Trump was working for the Russians, and that clearly isn't the case.

colliric wrote:It's becoming obvious to me he is investigating attempted Russian interference and not Russian collusion.

Perhaps he's thrown the last few indictments to that end. However, you don't need an independent counsel for any of the charges he's come up with so far. The DoJ could do that on its own.

Hindsite wrote:If it is to find something to indict as many people as possible and make as much money from the government as he drags it out as long as possible, then you may be correct.

Well, that seems to be what's going on right now. Hillary Clinton donors are recouping their donations in the most cynical way imaginable. There is simply no point in an independent counsel with no direct oversight in the absence of an allegation that the president and his chain of command are directly involved in something criminal. What it amounts to is giving anti-Trump forces prosecutorial power that isn't reviewable by Trump himself. That should be stopped.

colliric wrote:The Fact he hasn't even requested an interview with Trump is because he's doing his job properly.

Nunes, Grassley and Graham are making that story line very difficult to believe. What Steele did is criminal AND material. Yet, Mueller is prosecuting people for penny ante things. Like this son-in-law-attorney-of-a-Russian-oligarch-who-lied-to-the-FBI thing. Is that material compared to what Christopher Steele did? The more they try to put some lipstick on a pig, the more it blows up in their face.

I still think the best analogy for the last two years was from Victor Davis Hanson--"the neutron bomb election." The establishment are essentially the walking dead. The agent orange contaminated soon-to-be-dead-but-don't-know-it-yet zombies of yesteryear. From my perspective, Nancy Pelosi and Ruth Bader Ginsberg represent the living dead.

Zagadka wrote:... there is no big direct evidence, but they keep managing to pile up lots of small ones going back years.

And we all know how much Republicans care about deleted e-mail.

Yeah. Even that just seems like it's for show--almost if as if he's being paid by the FBI to appear to be falling on his sword. The guy is a Dutch citizen. Why does the US think it gets to prosecute citizens of other countries for acts not done on US soil? Why should we expect people other than US citizens to have some sort of legal or moral obligation to be honest with the US FBI? It's kind of a bizarro standard.
#14890628
[quote="colliric"]The investigation is thankfully obviously coming to a swift(at least for these processes) conclusion. They are charging people, etc. President Trump not being interviewed by Mueller at this point shows he is obviously in the clear. It wasn't even asked of him to attend.[/quote]



Mueller is picking the low hanging fruit, attempting to get them to "flip" or plead guilty in exchange for light sentences if they tell all of what they know on Trump et al. Some of Trump's more die-hard supporters are assuming since Mueller hasn't charged Trump there isn't anything to charge him, full stop. But part of this process was to go through all of their (Manafort, Gates, Papadopoulos, Flynn, Don jr., etc.) Emails. Muellers going to have to ensure everyone got everything that was sent to them, determine if the "deletes" were space saving vs hiding etc and the relevance if each and every one, (a daunting task, considering Don Jr's will be intermixed with the Trump empires regular business affairs), and do the same for phone recordings, notes etc, then interview the suspects. Repeatedly.

Some of Trump's die-hard supporters believe this is hooey. Apparently, they forgot Flynn was begging for a sweetheart deal nearly a year ago. And as you noted, 4 or 5 of them have already flipped. The others are just finding out now how much stuff is potentially raining down on them. This won't be over for a while yet, methinks.
User avatar
By jimjam
#14890693
In the Gossip Department:

Steve Bannon may have been prophetic when he told Michael Wolff that Robert Mueller’s “path to fucking Trump” would run right through Jared Kushner.
  • 1
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 266

@litwin is clearly an Alex Jones type conspir[…]

It is true that the Hindu's gave us nothing. But […]

I dont buy it, Why would anyone go for a vacation […]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@JohnRawls No. Your perception of it is not. I g[…]