Jump to content
IGNORED

The Russian Connection 3: Mueller is Coming


Destiny

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, GrumpyGran said:

The one specific thing that is bugging me now is the "I'm smart" tweet. The use of the word "like". I don't think he wrote or tweeted that. He mangles the English language like a verbal tornado but he is loyal to a group of words and this isn't in his word box, not in the form it was used.

You make a good point here. I'm wondering though if he didn't write it, why aren't they spinning that? Is it better to have this tweet out there like a big honking zit on his nose (well not nose)? Remember when they blamed one of the tweets on his lawyer? Who would be the sacrificial lamb for this one?

I know bringing up kids is taboo, but it does sound as if a 12 year old wrote it, so maybe it was Hope, I press your pants, Hicks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 667
  • Created
  • Last Reply
12 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

You make a good point here. I'm wondering though if he didn't write it, why aren't they spinning that? Is it better to have this tweet out there like a big honking zit on his nose (well not nose)? Remember when they blamed one of the tweets on his lawyer? Who would be the sacrificial lamb for this one?

I know bringing up kids is taboo, but it does sound as if a 12 year old wrote it, so maybe it was Hope, I press your pants, Hicks.

I don't think loyalty to him is necessarily the priority anymore. Sure, you want to appear to be loyal but anyone who is capable of finding their way to the White House every day knows that things are tenuous at best. It's not hard to believe at this point that the place is full of opportunists who are just there for the rather large salary that they don't deserve. Add a few who are pissed at his treatment and figure manipulation of his image is fitting revenge. And then there are the politically aspirational ones who believe that their appearance of loyalty will garner them a pardon and then they'll move on with their political careers with some "experience" on their resumes.

If you don't believe people can be that blind to the dangers of this type of administration remember that the people involved in Watergate were fully aware that what they were doing was illegal and a large number of them still went along because they were convinced they were invincible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the thing that jumped out at me from the testimony the most... 

This could mean that they're trying to cover things up so desperately because it could literally be a matter of life or death. It would explain the weird flip-flopping of Lindsey Graham and Bob Corker. It would explain the extremes the GOP and others in the WH are willing to go to, to protect the presidunce. 

But it could also mean nothing of the sort, so fraurosena is taking off her tin foil hat now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

This is the thing that jumped out at me from the testimony the most... 

This could mean that they're trying to cover things up so desperately because it could literally be a matter of life or death. It would explain the weird flip-flopping of Lindsey Graham and Bob Corker. It would explain the extremes the GOP and others in the WH are willing to go to, to protect the presidunce. 

But it could also mean nothing of the sort, so fraurosena is taking off her tin foil hat now.

At this point I don't put anything past them. I think this is alluding to Putin having snuffed someone but you will never catch me in the same room with Dumpy or anyone in his family. Or his administration for that matter. People have killed for a lot less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, duh!

Trump refuses to commit to Mueller interview

Quote

President Trump said Wednesday it is “unlikely” he will have to sit down with special counsel Robert Mueller for an interview, arguing that there was "no collusion" between his campaign and Russia.

Trump repeatedly dodged whether he would submit to an interview with Mueller by citing his claim there was no collusion during the 2016 presidential election. “We’ll see what happens,” the president said when pressed by a reporter on Wednesday. “When they have no collusion … it seems unlikely that you’d even have an interview.”

Trump was speaking during a joint press conference alongside Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg following a meeting at the White House.

Multiple reports this week said that Mueller is likely to interview Trump in the coming weeks as part of the special counsel investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 presidential race. NBC News reported that Trump's lawyers have discussed whether to ask for stipulations to the interview, such as answering questions in writing or signing an affidavit asserting the president's innocence.

Trump's comments are a shift from this past weekend, when he indicated he was open to speaking with Mueller. 

"It's sort of like, when you've done nothing wrong, let's be open and get it over with," he told reporters at Camp David in Maryland. 

Asked last June if he would be "100 percent willing" to speak to the special counsel under oath about his interactions with ousted FBI Director James Comey, Trump told a reporter, "I would be glad to tell him exactly what I just told you."

Trump on Wednesday pivoted from the prospect of an interview to criticizing the FBI for its handling of the investigation into 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while at the State Department. 

"When you talk about interviews, Hillary Clinton had an interview where she wasn't sworn in, she wasn't given the oath, they didn't take notes, they didn't record and it was done on the Fourth of July weekend. That's, perhaps, ridiculous, a lot of people looked at that as a very serious breach," he said. 

Comey told Congress in July of 2016 that the bureau's interview with Clinton was not recorded and that she did not swear an oath to tell the truth. But he added that it's still a crime to lie to the FBI regardless of whether an oath was taken and that FBI policy is not to record interviews. 

The FBI released notes from that interview with Clinton in September of 2016. 

Trump went on to blast allegations that his campaign colluded with Russia, arguing that such claims have hurt his presidency. "There was absolutely no collusion, everybody knows it. I've been in office for 11 months, for 11 months they've had this phony cloud over this administration, over our government, and it has hurt our government," he said. "It is a Democrat hoax that was brought up as an excuse for losing an election that frankly the Democrats should have won because they have such a tremendous advantage in the Electoral College," he continued. 

 

 

Mueller is ramping up!

Mueller adds veteran cyber prosecutor to special-counsel team

Quote

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III has added a veteran cyber prosecutor to his team, filling what has long been a gap in expertise and potentially signaling a recent focus on computer crimes.

Ryan K. Dickey was assigned to Mueller’s team in early November from the Justice Department’s computer crime and intellectual-property section, said a spokesman for the special counsel’s office. He joined 16 other lawyers who are highly respected by their peers but who have come under fire from Republicans wary of some of their political contributions to Democrats.

Dickey’s addition is particularly notable because he is the first publicly known member of the team specializing solely in cyber issues. The others’ expertise is mainly in a variety of white-collar crimes, including fraud, money laundering and public corruption, though Mueller also has appellate specialists and one of the government’s foremost experts in criminal law.

Zainab Ahmad and Brandon Van Grack have handled some cybercrime issues in the past, though they are recognized more for their work on terrorism and national security.

Mueller was appointed in May to investigate any possible links or coordination between the Russian government and the Trump campaign to influence the 2016 election, and any matters that might arise out of that work.

He has charged or negotiated plea deals with four former Trump campaign or administration officials, including former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former campaign manager Paul Manafort, though Manafort’s charges have nothing to do with his work for Trump.

Flynn and another former campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, are now cooperating with the Mueller team. Mueller recently indicated to Trump’s legal team that his office is likely to seek an interview with the president, though Trump offered ambiguous comments Wednesday as to whether he would be willing to do that, saying, “It seems unlikely you’d even have an interview.”

Mueller’s work has long had an important cybersecurity component — central to the probe is Russia’s hacking of Democrats’ emails in an effort to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system and help Trump win. The original FBI counterintelligence probe was launched in part because a Trump campaign adviser was said to have told an Australian diplomat that Russia had emails that could embarrass Democrats, and in July 2016, private Democratic messages thought to have been hacked by Russia began appearing online.

Mueller also is in possession of information from Facebook about politically themed advertisements bought through Russian accounts.

Legal analysts have said that one charge Mueller might pursue would be a conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, if he can demonstrate that members of Trump’s team conspired in Russia’s hacking effort to influence the election.

Some in the legal world had wondered why Mueller had not previously tapped a cyber prosecutor to join his team.

Trump has long denied any wrongdoing and has decried the probe as a “witch hunt.” He tweeted Wednesday: “The single greatest Witch Hunt in American history continues. There was no collusion, everybody including the Dems knows there was no collusion, & yet on and on it goes. Russia & the world is laughing at the stupidity they are witnessing. Republicans should finally take control!”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. Very, very interesting.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, JMarie said:

Oh crud, his show is already half over.  I'll have to record a rerun and skim through it tomorrow, and brush up on the whole Fusion thing.

{in the voice of that bathing-suit shopping cartoon gal Cathy}  ACK!

My DVR didn't record last night's rerun!  But I will be watching tonight!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something good happened in DC yesterday;

Quote

The Washington, D.C., City Council voted Tuesday to rename part of the street in front of the Russian Embassy after one of Russian President Vladimir Putin's slain political opponents.

The D.C. Council said in a statement it voted unanimously to rename the block of Wisconsin Avenue in front of the embassy in northwest Washington as "Boris Nemtsov Plaza."

The move was negatively received among Russia's political class, with one politician calling it a "dirty trick," according to BBC News.

Council member Mary M. Cheh (D) introduced legislation in the D.C. Council to rename the stretch of road last year.

I would also highly recommend in addition to that they rename the stretch of Pennsylvania Ave in front of the White House as Putinfluffer Lane. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/9/2018 at 8:36 PM, Cartmann99 said:

Okay, so I don't really understand the whole Fusion thing, so I'm just gonna throw out quotes that sound important and/or stupid.

First he claims I don't want to miss one second of tonight's Hannity.  He has massive breaking news (as opposed to the regular breaking news he has every other night).

Clinton's fake dossier was used to buy FISA warrants and to surveil members of the Trump campaign and Trump transistion.  When this is all done, Watergate will be an insignificant blimp on your radar.  This information was supplied by three trusted sources (two congressional members, and someone from the DOJ).

Trump is right to call the investigation a witch hunt and a democratic hoax, all because Hillary lost.

Information about systemic FISA abuse will be coming in the next couple of days.

We are on the precipice of one of the largest abuses of power in U. S. history.  It's a violation of the 4th Amendment (the search and seizure part).

It's been over a year and the liberal media have zero, zip, nada, nothing, no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.

(footage of him with the Norwegian prime minister and he's "answering" questions about Hillary)

The collusion is a conspiracy theory manufactured by the industrial media fake news complex that has been spread night after night, hour after hour, by the likes of CNN and conspiracy TV MSNBC.

The president was in full control of the immigration debate yesterday, and had all of his faculties, so discussing his mental health is uncalled for.

The Democrats know there is no collusion, but they keep pursuing it, and the world is laughing at us.

Mueller's investigation is nothing but a cesspool, an absolute cesspool of corruption.  His team won't give any money to Republicans, but they've donated over 50K to Democrats.  None of them contributed to Trump's campaign.

Dianne Feinstein is trying to hide the truth by creating a massive distraction, even though Hannity showed a clip of her stating there was no evidence of collusion.

Mark Meadows (NC congressman) and Jim Jordan (Ohio congressman) start talking about stuff.  I have no idea what they're talking about.  I'm a smart person (not "smart" like Trump, but actually smart), but I have no idea what they're talking about.  I have a feeling a lot of Hannity's viewers also don't understand it, but hey, if Hannity says it's bad, it must be bad.

Much rambling about immigration reform, and Dan Bongino (former Secret Service agent) stops by.  He's mad that he had to spend 10K for his immigrant wife to become legal, but the Democrats don't want people to have to pay.  He's been stopping by a lot in the recent weeks, so I'm wondering if he has a book coming out soon, or he's considering running for office (he ran for Senate in Maryland and Congress in Florida, but he lost both times).  I Googled him and here he is yelling at Don Lemon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnFZed1DVb8  At 3:20 he claims Lemon is "just" a TV guy.

He also has a woman from Catalina magazine, and began asking her questions about immigration.  Then he started asking her about the $150 billion Iranian payout, which has nothing to do with border control.  She was a good sport, but Hannity was getting too excited, and I don't think she would want to do another episode.

(showed the same footage of Trump standing next to the Norwegian prime minister)

He's not done talking about Hillary, so he has new guests to chat with.  Larry Elder (conservative radio guy) agrees with Hannity 100%, and thinks Trump won't be impeached, and he'll be around for seven more years (God help us all!).  Daryl Parks (civil rights lawyer) thinks America is ready for closure.  I'm disappointed in Parks, because he usually speaks out against Hannity, but Elder was given more time to speak.

Hannity shows a clip of Robert DeNiro at the National Board of Review event, honoring Meryl Streep.   https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/01/national-board-of-review-gala-tom-hanks-robert-de-niro-trump

"There is a level of vitriol and hate that even you should be uncomfortable with, and as a liberal you might even be a little embarrassed about," he says to Jessica Tarlov, trying to provoke her.  Guess what?  She's not embarrassed by what DeNiro said, pointi(g out stuff Trump said about Obama (Obama founded ISIS, the birther movement, Hillary has Parkinson's, Hillary should be in jail).  The Watters World guy agreed with everything Hannity said (surprise!).

He then shows some footage of a Project Veritas gal talking to a senior engineer from Twitter, because Hannity claims Twitter is actively working against Trump.  Hannity makes it seem like some huge conspiracy between Project Veritas and Twitter, but maybe this will replace the uranium conversations he loves to have.

Oh, I feel sick after scrutinizing tonight's episode.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@JMarie thank you again for watching and wading through this craptastic show. Hannity and his guests just seem unhinged to me. It is like a Mad magazine parody except it isn’t funny and the real world consequences are so dire. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To mix some metaphors, Hannity is deep in the weeds in the fever swamp.

Unrelated to Hannity (love that it rhymes with inanity), I came across this link to a Business Insider report from back in early February 2017:  The timeline of Trump's ties with Russia lines up with allegations of conspiracy and misconduct 

It's an excellent refresher (with a flow chart!) on the interactions Trump associates had with Russians and Ukrainians relative to the Steele Dossier contents. 

It's useful to remember that almost a year ago, there was potent and damning information about collusion.  Business Insider helpfully listed these bullet points at the top of the article. 

  • President Donald Trump and several associates continue to draw intense scrutiny for their ties to the Russian government.
  • A dossier of unverified claims alleges serious conspiracy and misconduct in the final months of the 2016 presidential campaign.  The White House has dismissed the dossier as fiction, and most of the claims remain unverified. The timeline of major events, however, lines up.
  • The document includes one particularly explosive allegation — that the Trump campaign agreed to minimize US opposition to Russia's incursions into Ukraine in exchange for the Kremlin releasing negative information about Trump's opponent, Hillary Clinton. The timing of events supporting this allegation also lines up.

My sense is that intercepted phone conversations are key to Mueller's confirmation of elements of the Steele dossier and other skullduggery.  For example

Quote

But US investigators, who have opened investigations into several members of Trump's inner circle and their ties to Russia over the past year, say they have been able to corroborate some of the details in the dossier by intercepting some of the conversations between some senior Russian officials and other Russians, CNN reported on Friday.

That has given the investigators "greater confidence" in the credibility of the some aspects of the memos, CNN's sources said.

Also a good reminder that Trump has been calling the dossier fake from Day 1, even as elements had already been corroborated and why Trump is whining and whinging about FISA warrants. 

Has Carter Page actually slept in the last year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Howl said:

My sense is that intercepted phone conversations are key to Mueller's confirmation of elements of the Steele dossier and other skullduggery. 

Great article, @Howl!

Those phone intercepts are probably the reason why Rand Paul was harping on about his proposed FISA-related bill on Morning Joe today. He also had the temerity to accuse the FBI of collusion with Russia and the Dems in order prevent the toddler from being elected. Asked by Joe where he got that information, without batting an eye, he said: "Those intercepted texts between two agents." 

Sigh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, GrumpyGran said:

Deal-making?

I'll be so conflicted if Bannon turns out to be the star witness who brings Trump and Jr. down lol

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoo boy... the Dems have truly come out of their corner and are finally fighting back! :dance:

The twitter tantrum is sure to follow shortly.

:angry-screaming: 

(I just love that this emoji kinda looks like the tangerine toddler shaking so hard with fury that he lost the furry off his head)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Whoo boy... the Dems have truly come out of their corner and are finally fighting back! :dance:

The twitter tantrum is sure to follow shortly.

:angry-screaming: 

(I just love that this emoji kinda looks like the tangerine toddler shaking so hard with fury that he lost the furry off his head)

I got this, Dumpy.

'My tremendously beautiful and very, very, successful daughter Ivanka Trump is not in any way involved in collusion. Witch Hunt! The SAD Mane streem media is now hounding this incredible and truly beautiful woman, Mika at BAD CNN should be very, very, ashamed. No where neer the beauty of Ivanka Trump. FAKE NEWS! All democrats know, and they have said many many times they have said and that there is no collusion. SO SAD, Ivanka Trump would be a better choice than SAD OPRAH, it will all be reveeled soon. NO COLLUSION Sad, wich hunt.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GrumpyGran said:

Deal-making?

Come on Stevie 
Let's do the flip
Come on Stevie 
Let's do the flip
Take me by my little hand
And go like this

E-yah flip
Baby, baby flip
Oh yeah, just like this
Come on little Stevie Poo and do the flip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's important to remember that...  There's No Such Thing as 'Collusion'

Quote

"Collusion" is on America's lips. Cable news personalities say it. The president can't stop tweeting about it. But every time someone uses the word "collusion" to describe the Trump campaign's interactions with Russians, the entire country gets collectively dumber. The word has no useful meaning and should be abandoned. Instead, we need to start using the words that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is probably using: "conspiracy" and "coordination."

The term "collusion" is not entirely meaningless – it's in the dictionary, and in an unrelated context (antitrust), it is reasonably well-defined. In the Trump-Russia context, however, it has no legal or other agreed meaning. Worse, centering the word "collusion" leads to irrelevant arguments. Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz asserts on television that "it is not a crime to collude with a foreign country." President Trump empties the word of any remaining meaning as he tweets:

... >presiduncial tweets<

The word has long outlived any purpose it may have once had.

Humpty Dumpty told Alice, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less." That through-the-looking-glass mentality applies to how Trump and his surrogates use "collusion" on cable news and Twitter. Because it has no legal meaning in this context, they can always dismiss newly emerging evidence as not "collusion." Trump's campaign chairman, son and son-in-law meet in Trump Tower with Russian nationals, whom they are told are working on behalf of the Russian government, in the hope of gaining information that would benefit the Trump campaign? Not "collusion," apparently. And who can prove them wrong, when the word has no clear definition?

In the words of George Orwell, "the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." Any sentence that uses the word "collusion" in this context is already halfway to folly.

Imagine that we had cable news and Twitter in 1933 when the FBI was investigating John Dillinger for bank robbery. Bank robbery is a federal crime. But imagine that the media, elected officials and Dillinger himself decided to use the nonsense word "percrustulate" to describe what Dillinger may or may not have done. Dillinger would announce, "I did not percrustulate." Dillinger's surrogates would enter TV studios armed with talking points that "percrustulation is not a crime." It's hard to have an intelligent discussion centering on a nonsense word.

So what words should we use to describe suspicious Trump-Russia connections in the context of the 2016 presidential campaign? It depends on the context.

One important context is counterintelligence – studying and preventing intelligence activities by foreign powers, whether or not any crimes were committed. According to former FBI special agent Asha Rangappa, counterintelligence professionals analyze Trump-Russia connections under the rubric of "recruitment."

Another important context will be congressional impeachment proceedings. The framers of the Constitution worried about the "corruption" of our government through "foreign intrigue." As Alexander Hamilton wrote, "the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils" could not be "better gratif[ied] ... than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union." James Madison argued that the Constitution must include an impeachment provision as a safeguard against a president who might "betray his trust to foreign powers." But the Constitution's standard for an impeachable offense – "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" – does not require violation of a specific criminal offense, so precise terminology is less critical.

When we're discussing potential criminal activity, two of the most important words are "conspiracy" and "coordination." Here, these terms are ultimately grounded in the Federal Election Campaign Act. That statute bans foreign nationals (not just foreign governments, but also individual foreign citizens) from spending money to influence U.S. elections. They can't spend their own money, can't contribute to campaigns and can't give campaigns things which would otherwise cost money ("in-kind contributions"); campaigns, for their part, cannot accept or solicit anything with money value from foreign nationals.

This is where "conspiracy" and "coordination" enter. Federal law defines conspiracy as an agreement to commit an offense, and an overt act in support of that conspiracy. The nesting dolls of Trump's Russia connections may seem exotic, but conspiracy law is bread-and-butter for federal prosecutors.

"Coordination" is more technical, but equally important. If someone outside a political campaign spends money in support of the campaign but "coordinates" that spending with the campaign, it may qualify as an illegal (and criminally punishable) "coordinated communication." A coordinated communication is illegal both for the foreign national and the campaign and its key personnel. Even before Trump's inauguration, there was enough information to raise suspicions of coordination; that evidence has only grown. (Separate from the Mueller inquiry, the Federal Election Commission is considering a long-pending administrative complaint about Trump-Russia campaign coordination based on information already public.)

There is much that we do not yet know about possible criminal activity stemming from the Trump campaign's interactions with Russian nationals. But we can have a grown-up discussion by using real words. It's time to retire the worn-out and vacuous word "collusion" from our national dialogue.

8

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, this could be good. This just might be what Mueller is holding over Flynn. 

(Don't worry, it's a tiny thread, only 9 tweets)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At first I thought he was being questioned by Muller, but I don't expect the House investigation to amount to anything. Softball questions, with an anti Clinton slant. This also comes at just as he is promoting a book.

It would be amusing if Trump tosses Lewandoski under the bus though. 

Lewandowski says he will testify this week in House Russia probe

Quote

Corey Lewandowski, President Trump’s former campaign manager, said in an interview broadcast Sunday that he will give testimony this week to a House committee probing Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Lewandowski said on WABC-AM radio in New York that he expects to appear before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on Wednesday or Thursday to discuss the campaign. He told host Rita Crosby that he has not been contacted by Justice Department investigators — led by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III — who are conducting a parallel investigation.

“I will be fully prepared to answer any question about my tenure at the Trump campaign,” he said, according to a transcript published by WABC. “I didn’t collude or cooperate or coordinate with any Russian, Russian agency, Russian government or anybody else, to try and impact this election. I’ll be happy to come out and set the record straight about my lack of involvement with any type of foreign entity.”

Aides to the leaders of the House committee did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The Republican majority has conducted a flurry of interviews over the past two months in a bid to wrap up the probe. But Democrats on the panel say their Republican colleagues are moving too quickly and have been unwilling to interview numerous relevant witnesses and pursue key leads.

The two sides appear headed in opposite directions — with Republicans focused on allegations of FBI malfeasance that could have harmed Trump and Democrats focused on exposing the GOP’s failure to fully investigate the Trump campaign.

Lewandowski — who is promoting a book he co-wrote about the Trump campaign, “Let Trump Be Trump” — would not say whether Trump ought to sit down with Mueller or other investigators.

“I would say, listen to your attorneys,” Lewandowski said. “There’s no question to me, that if he were to sit down and tell that team exactly what took place, and I was there for it, they will come to the same conclusion that everybody else has already come to, which is: There is no collusion.”

Read it again and did a double take. What does he mean 'if I was there'. Why would he be there if Trump were questioned? And why would his being there make a difference in the out come?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

What does he mean 'if I was there'.

I think he means that he was there for the whole campaign and knows that nothing wrong was done. He says. But these people are hilariously unaware of what is right and wrong, legal and illegal and most important, what might take Dump down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • choralcrusader8613 locked this topic

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.