Russia and the US election

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by SEABEE, Dec 28, 2016.

  1. This is a reasonable conclusion, and from what we've seen publicly, probably the most generous. I tend to agree with Ice, that the public support of Russia was part of the quid pro quo. Trump's attempts at getting a deal for a building in Russia that were ongoing (and hidden) and his past deals, bail outs, loans from Russian linked orgs are just too much smoke for me to believe he just coincidentally supported Russia, and so Russia decided to make him their guy.

    Whether there is enough that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (and it MUST be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for a case with these stakes and political implications) is to be seen. The bar seems almost impossibly high. Anything short of Trump whispering to Putin into a federal mic "lets do a collusion" might not be enough to straight up indict him. While that sucks, the bar SHOULD be high. Mitch McConnell and the current gen of republican congress is machiavellian enough that had there been precedent, who knows what they would have tried to indict Obama on.

    Anyways did you guys see Schiffs response to the political move by the Republicans using their victory lap political capital? Honestly think its a pretty decent summary of the things we ALL saw that have yet to be explained sufficiently that at the VERY LEAST justified an investigation.

  2. there are a bunch of ongoing investigations and cases, and one mysterious one in some kind of grand jury case that were handed off because they were outside the scope of the Special Counsel(Russian interference in the election). We aren't done with this at all
  3. Reading through old pages of this thread

    Does anyone know why Lizardmech seemed to believe all the kind of things russian propaganda was putting out? Like some straight RT or sputnik stuff, leak not a hack, Russia would never, even if they did everyone else also does it? Its baffling.

    Is he actually russian
  4. For all its worth, I enjoyed reading the last few pages. I hope the full report gets released soon, for democracy's sake. Been a while since I've been here, but I hope all of you are doing great.
  5. Because there was no evidence back then? Given that most of the claims were being made because of the laughably fake dossier only an absolute fool would take anything russiagate media or politicians says seriously without proof. Despite a huge 3 year investigation that failed to have anyone arrested for collusion, russiagate conspiracy theorists still remain convinced of some grand russian conspiracy, literally chemtrails and 9/11 truther tier idiocy.
  6. What is Russiagate to you? That russia worked to influence the election? Or the fear that Americans worked with them to coordinate it?

    If you accept the summary of the Mueller report, how do you not accept the indictments and findings on the Russians?

    genuinely shocked that you don't think 9/11 was a conspiracy
  7. [​IMG]

    I think it's pretty impressive how cognizant Mueller was of the media climate, in that this talking point - repeated at nauseam in the media - he preempted second page of the executive summary.
    SEABEE likes this.
  8. Last night, the Washington Post suggested, from what we can only assume is a White House source, that the report will be "lightly redacted".


    I'm not sure I'd agree with that adjective.
  9. The Mueller report makes crystal clear: Wikileaks is (or has become, by early 2016) an intermediary for Russian intelligence.
    SEABEE likes this.
  10. SEABEE likes this.
  11. This whole scenario is far from over, at least for people in the Trump camp. Stone, manafort, flynn?

    The best people, extreme vetting
  12. This has been obvious for quite some time. Also, the one thing Russian trolls all have in common no matter who they are pretending to be: they love Assange and they love wikileaks. Really trying to keep public trust in their cut out alive. Was a nice asset, but they burned him already
  13. #1140 Vanilla Ice, Apr 18, 2019
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2019
    Cohen arranged with Evgeney Dvoskin a trip by Trump to Moscow to discuss Trump Tower Moscow. Putin would be present, but "[p]olitically, neither Putin's office nor Ministry of Foreign Affairs cannot issue invite, so they are inviting commercially/business". This was done by VTB Bank, who would finance Trump Tower Moscow. VTB Bank was under sanction following Crimea. Putin was arranging to meet with a candidate for President of the United States, to discuss funding a real-estate project that could only begin if sanctions against Russia were dropped. (Manafort put an end to this meeting, because Manafort isn't an idiot and realized Trump could go to fucking Moscow while he was a candidate)

    So we have a "personal business" transaction that requires one party to first be elected President, and then substantively alter American foreign policy in order to proceed.

    Approximately contemporaneously, Mueller says the FBI knew Joseph Mifsud to be connected to the GRU and IRA, and that the "London Centre of International Law Practice" was essentially a Russian intelligence front. Mifsud told Papadopoulos, a then-member of Trump's national security team, that Russia had or could get dirt on Clinton. Papadopoulos then leaks that information to the Australian High Commissioner to London (the de facto ambassador). Australian Intelligence forwards this to the FBI, which starts the investigation. Not Steele. Not Carter Page.

    Then, when Trump asks "Russia, if you're listening", Russia responds, in five hours, to produce exactly what was sought.

    Mueller goes through pains to make clear his decision making process. Normally, an investigation ends with a binary decision: press charges, or don't. But here, the Office of Legal Counsel says that a President cannot be indicted. This is easy if the investigation found nothing, or even better, positive evidence that nothing happened: you close the investigation and walk away. But if you have the other case, what do you do? Well,

    Ordinarily, a criminal charge would result in “a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case.” But if Mueller were to state plainly that, in his judgment, the president had broken the law and obstructed justice, it would afford “no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.” [The Atlantic]
    So you have to pass the buck to Congress. This report, in essence, reads effectively as a referral for impeachment - I haven't made it to obstruction sections yet. I believe this is the same report that was being called "total exoneration" a few days ago.
    SEABEE likes this.
  14. Guess what "salacious" claim turned out to be true?

    SEABEE likes this.
  15. Think about how many conservative commentators quoted the red-underlined portion, without bothering to note that it was a partial sentence (ie: the square braces around the capital [T] in "[T]he" in Barr's memo). Now you can see the full sentence, and the sentence before it.

    SEABEE likes this.
  16. haha have you seen what Trump called it recently?? hilarious

    This is basically how I see it. Because of the legal complications of indicting a sitting president, Mueller tried to kick it to congress to move on it. Barr tried to get his spin out there as soon as possible.

    I'm torn on impeachment, Obviously the republican senate is a huge roadblock, and they seem to be trying to hold the party line.

    At least we now have a clear picture of the President's character and a clearer look at his actions. He TRIED to obstruct. He was quite literally saved from this by White house Counsel McGahn and others REFUSING to do what he asked them to do. Frustratingly, it also seems like he was at least partly protected by using mafia style insinuation instead of outright orders (be a shame if this happened, we'd love if that happened). I don't know if that legally holds up, but many trump supporters are saying "how can it be obstruction if he only voiced his opinion that he would love if A or B happened"
  17. This standard for what constitutes obstruction seems to apply only media comments on the president. For every other American, obstruction does not have to be successful to he a crime. It is good that subordinates refused. Their refusal doesn't save anyone. If you asked someone to interfere with an investigation and they refused, you have still committed the crime of obstruction of justice - why do we have a *lower* bar for the President? Who is, officially, the country's chief law enforcement officer, among other roles.

    Obstruction is clear. It's worse than Clinton's both in volume, in quality of evidence, and in the seriousness of the abuses. But that was the case a year aago.The report didn't change that, though it confirmed it. The media focus on obstruction is because they havent bothers with their homework on the Russia side. The big thing here is that the President is probably - and very rightly, with cause - the subject of a FISA warrant. Is that something were okay with? We shouldn't be.
    SEABEE likes this.
  18. You make a good case, but he pisses off the libs


    I dunno I guess we just need 4 more years of Mafia president
  19. Everyone knows where the true obstruction was coming from.
  20. Good news! The Attorney General perjured himself regarding his description of Mueller's work to congress.

  21. wow cover up lackey does a cover up

  22. I wonder what goes into the minds of the guys that have a long and illustrious career and then decide to volunteer to lie, blatantly, to save someone as despicable as Trump.

    By all accounts, and besides political ideology, William Barr had a respectful career as a public officer. Then the guy drinks the kool aid and basically volunteers to put his ass on the line for Trump. To some extent, it's the same thing with Rudy Giuliani, Rex Tillerson or John Kelly.
  23. Seems pretty clear that Trump's campaign manager, (the one who lived in Trump tower and was running around plotting with Donald Trump) Manafort has been proven to be doing exactly the kind of thing the country feared Trump was doing. Maybe it didn't go all the way to the top, but JFC, good thing we investigated so this piece of shit didn't get away with it

    From reddit:

    According to the Mueller Report Paul Manafort attempted to use his position in the Trump campaign to settle previous debts he had incurred with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. The Mueller report confirmed that Trump campaign chairman and deputy chairman Manafort and Gates were sharing internal polling data with Konstantin Kilimnik. The report went on to mention that deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates thought Kilimnik was a Russian spy.

    Per Pages 130 - 137 of the report;

    The Office could not reliably determine Manafort's purpose in sharing internal polling data with Kilimnik during the campaign period. Manafort [redacted] did not see a downside to sharing campaign information, and told Gates that his role in the Campaign would be "good for bussiness" and potentially a way to be made whole for work he previously completed in Ukraine. As to Deripaska, Manafort claimed that by sharing campaign information with him, Deripaska might see value in their relationship and resolve a "disagreement" - a reference to one or more outstanding lawsuits. Because of questions about Manafort's credibility and our limited ability to gather evidence on what happened to the polling data after it was sent to Kilimnik, the Office could not assess what Kilimnik (or others he may have given it to) did with it. The Office did not identify evidence of a connection between Manafort's sharing polling data and Russia's intereference in the election, which had already been reported by U.S. media outlets at the time of the August 2 meeting. The investigation did not establish that Manafort otherwise coordinated with the Russian government on its election-interference efforts.

    ...Gates also reported that Manafort instructed him in April 2016 or early May 2016 to send Kilimnik Campaign internal polling and other updates so that Kilimnik, in turn, could share it with Ukrainian oligarchs. Gates understood that the information would also be shared with Deripaska, [redacted]. Gates reported to the Office that he did not know why Manafort wanted him to send polling information, but Gates thought it was a way to showcase Manafort's work, and Manafort wanted to open doors to jobs after the Trump Campaign ended. Gates said that Manafort's instruction included sending internal polling data prepared for the Trump Campaign by pollster Tony Fabrizio. Fabrizio had worked with Manafort for years and was brought into the Campaign by Manafort. Gates states that, in accordance with Manafort's instruction, he periodically sent Kilimnik polling data via WhatsApp; Gates then deleted the communications on a daily basis. Gates further told the Office that, after Manafort left the Campaign in mid-August, Gates sent Kilimnik polling data less frequently and that the data he sent was more publicly available information and less internal data.

    Gate's account about polling data is consistent [redacted] with multiple emails that Kilimnik sent to U.S. associates and press contacts between late July and mid-August of 2016. Those emails reference "internal polling," described the status of the Trump Campaign and Manafort's role in it, and assess Trump's prospects for victory. Manafort did not acknowledge instructing Gates to send Kilimnik internal data, [redacted].

    The Office also obtained contemporaneous emails that shed light on the purpose of the communications with Deripaska and that are consistent with Gates's account. For example in response to a July 7, 2016 email from a Ukrainian reporter about Manafort's failed Deripaska-backed investment, Manafort asked Kilimnik whether there had been any movement on "this issue with our friend." Gates states that "our friend" likely referred to Deripaska, and Manafort told the Office that the "issue" (and "our biggest interest," as stated below) was a solution to the Deripaska-Pericles issue. Kilimnik replied:

    I am carefully optimistic on the question of our biggest interesting.

    Our friend [Boyarkin] said there is lately significantly more attention to the campaign in his boss' [Deripaska's] mind, and he will be most likely looking for ways to reach out to you pretty soon, understanding all the time sensitivity. I am more than sure that it will be resolved and we will get back to the original relationship with V.'s boss [Deripaska]

    Eight minutes later, Manafort replied that Kilimnik should tell Boyarkin's "boss," a reference to Deripaska, "that if he needs private briefings we can accommodate." Manafort has alleged to the Office that he was willing to brief Deripaska only on public campaign matters and gave an example: Why Trump selected Mike Pence a the Vice-Presidential running mate. Manafort said he never gave Deripaska a briefing. Manafort noted that if Trump won, Deripaska would want to use Manafort to advance whatever interests Deripaska had in the United States and elsewhere.

    Furthermore, this is not the only instance of the former Trump Campaign Chairman pursuing his own interests by leveraging his relationship with Trump. Paul Manafort sent an email to Jared Kushner in November 2016 with 3 appointee suggestions including bank CEO Stephen Calk who has been charged by the Department of Justice for soliciting a Presidential position in exchange for a $16 million loan.[2] Jared Kushner immediately responded to the email with "on it!"[3]

    "The 3 indivituals (sic) are people who I believe advance DT agenda. They will be totally reliable and responsive to the Trump White House," Manafort wrote to Kushner.

    Kushner responded that same day, "On it!"

    Though there is no indication that Kushner was aware of Manafort and Calk's financial relationship, it does show that Manafort was still within Trump's circle post-election.

Share This Page