"Instead, it describes in granular detail Mr. Manafort’s lobbying work in Ukraine and what prosecutors said was a scheme to hide that money from tax collectors and the public. The authorities said Mr. Manafort laundered more than $18 million. 'Manafort used his hidden overseas wealth to enjoy a lavish lifestyle in the United States without paying taxes on that income,' the indictment reads.... 'As part of the scheme, Manafort and Gates repeatedly provided false information to financial bookkeepers, tax accountants and legal counsel, among others,' the indictment read.... Mr. Manafort has expected charges since this summer, when F.B.I. agents raided his home and prosecutors warned him that they planned to indict him."
Says the NYT, in
"Paul Manafort, Once of Trump Campaign, Indicted as an Adviser Admits to Lying About Ties to Russia."
Trump's reaction:
And that's followed by:
....Also, there is NO COLLUSION!
Posts
383 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 383 of 383Whatever we do, don't look at the Obama administration, right?
Maybe it's SMOD! Podesta lawyered up? Now if we could only figure out why his brother had 75K shares of Gazprom.
Yeah, ya know, when the whole super spy mi5 Steele was named as author of dossier, he went into hiding, "in fear for his life". Seemed kind of silly at the time. The revelation that the Clinton's were involved with him kind of puts that in entirely different light, doesn't it.
SMOD?
One problem with the 'they are both guilty' argument is that only one is president. Clearly it is of greater public interest to understand what the president's team is guilty of than it is to understand what happened on the losers campaign. Justice should be blind but also a bit practical with respect to setting priorities. No one made Trump campaign in Wisconsin.
Flip it around again, ARM. Only one was a sitting member of government at the time of the said "collusion" and can be credibly thought to have engaged in quid pro quo. If the Russians got something out of their efforts with the Trump campaign, it was at least transparent because it had to do with changes to the platform and voters could have seen fit to withhold their support if that mattered to them.
I also don't agree that looking at what losers did doesn't matter. If Trump narrowly loses reelection and someone alleges there was GOP orchestrated vote tampering which almost put him over the top, you're going to say "What difference, at this point, does it make?"
Not to mention that in this case, the losing side appears to have chosen to instigate the investigation into the winner for activities not substantially different from what they engaged in.
Matthew Sablan said...
-- Why does Mother Jones not include the fact that this Russian lawyer had been frequently used by Obama to brief Congress, and that Obama's administration approved her to work in the United States? Surely, if we want to understand whether Trump's people were engaging with known Russian agents, it is important to note that the U.S. government had vetted the individual and found her acceptable.
10/30/17, 12:17 PM
To ask is to answer. Like most journalists, those at Mother Jones not only don't care what the truth is, they will work hard to not uncover the truth. It simply gets in the way of the narrative and their wishes. The story is written as it is, as it is calculated to do the most damage possible to Trump while shielding Mother Jones from liability.
SMOD: Sweet Meteor of Death
Thanks, Todd -- that's a fine acronym!
past sexual abuse/harassment/misconduct is just too "old testament" for me
There was a statute of limitations. I don't recall the period.
There was also a higher standard of evidence than most modern legal systems, and it was not, in principle, Pro-Choice or selective.
Dems don't want this investigation to wrap up before the 2018 election. 2020 if possible. There's a lot more to come.
RICH LOWRY said ...
on firing Mueller, I still think as a cold matter of self-interest (putting aside truth and justice), it only makes sense if Trump knows he colluded or had dirty business dealings with Russia that compromised him, in which case he might as well take the risk of dismissing Mueller and trying to out-run the law. If he’s not guilty, firing Mueller out of pique or political calculation would simply be a catastrophic misjudgment, one that would put his presidency at risk.
"Manafort was investigated [previously] and not prosecuted because he was one of them."
The documentation in the current indictment seems that it would have been easily obtained by the earlier investigation. Why is it now evidence of a crime when it was not before? Perhaps our AG can wake up and look into it.
"If info was collected pursuant to search warrants based on FusionGPS unverified claims"
“Yes. I say it's 50 50 that Manafort walks. This is lawfare by a bunch of leftist radicals.”
Wishful thinking, I suspect. The argument seemed to be that the Obama/Lynch/Comey FBI appears to have gotten a FISA warrant to intercept Manafort’s communications based on the, now discredited, Trump Dossier. Since the FBI, Crooked Hillary, and the DNC were all involved in getting the fake Dossier, and they pretty well knew that it was a political hit piece (esp with the Clinton and DNC involvement), the basis for the application for the warrant was fraudulent, and known to be such, and, thus, the FISA warrant itself is compromised. And, anything incriminating that the FBI manages to get as a result, directly, or indirectly (as fruit of the poisoned tree) should be suppressed. Which may or may not make legal sense. The problem here, though, is that most of what they appear to have against Manafort is not new. To get around the poisoned fruit exclusion, they merely have to show that they had the information independently, or discovering it was inevitable. Since the charges don’t really have anything to do with Trump, and the FBI had some of the evidence earlier, I think that it is likely that most of the charges will survive a suppression motion.
I note that the only reasons given for firing Mueller are "pique or political calculation" or that Trump is really guilty. Not the fact that Mueller is hopelessly compromised by his connections to the Uranium One investigation or his ties to Comey. Frankly, Trump should thank him for his service, state that given the investigation is now going into areas where Mueller clearly cannot investigate without the appearance of impropriety, he would welcome Mueller's resignation to clear the way for an investigator without any compromising relationships.
National Review, and hence its editor Lowry, is also tied to its funders.
The sticking point in re Trump vs the usual Republican financial interests is, as usual, immigration.
There is something about immigration that seems absurdly fundamental to political desiderata. Is it THAT important to financial interests, so much above anything else?
Are H1b's that important?
I may be missing something here. I see a benefit but not on such as scale as to justify this level of attack.
I agree Matthew Sablan!!
"pique or political calculation" are not the whole spectrum of reasons. He may just have been the wrong man for the final part of the campaign. Wrong skill set, being as he was effectively a parliamentary insider and not an expert propagandist.
Matthew Sablan said...
Again: I'm fine if Manafort did something illegal for him to go to jail. But, I'd like more people to accept like Roesch did that this is a purely political prosecution. He's being held to standards that, unless we get some more indictments soon, Clinton's lieutenants were not. If that's the sort of law you want, fine. But it isn't law at all.
10/30/17, 12:33 PM
THIS is what I agree with...didn't realize there were three pages of comments....I thought it was the last one!! haha!!
"Clearly it is of greater public interest to understand what the president's team is guilty of than it is to understand what happened on the losers campaign."
Actually, it's of greater interest to me and to a lot of other people. Having Hillary et al get away with real and serious crimes because "what difference at this point does it make" doesn't cut it with me.
Michael K said...
The next show drops.
Democratic power lobbyist Tony Podesta, founder of the Podesta Group, is stepping down from the firm that bears his name after coming under investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller.
Podesta announced his decision during a firm-wide meeting Monday morning and is alerting clients of his impending departure.
Podesta is handing over full operational and financial control to longtime firm CEO Kimberley Fritts, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the meeting. Fritts and a senior group of the Podesta team will be launching a new firm in the next one or two days. Sources said the transition has been in the works for the past several months.
Spending more time with family before he goes to prison.
Hahahahaha. Poor Inga was looking forward to the big news today. Send somebody over to check on her.
"Clearly it is of greater public interest to understand what the president's team is guilty of than it is to understand what happened on the losers campaign."
This is of a piece with the idea that the funding of the dossier didn't really matter because Clinton "didn't use the information anyway."
Think about that for a sec.
If the original purpose was oppo research, the fact that it wasn't used was certainly not for lack of trying. Fusion GPS tried to sell this all summer and early fall to every media outlet and no one would go near it until David Corn finally published a skeptical piece about it.
And that argument also ignores that the dossier was used for a different purpose- as a rationale for conducting espionage against a political opponent.
I think they are hoping this will be Trump's Watergate. That is, that the principal target is not guilty of a crime, but rather through political association. They probably hoped that Trump would follow the Nixon progression, but instead he stood his ground, and watched the investigation unfold, which may, ironically, capture the investigators, mainstream press, and colluding interests (hopefully foreign and domestic), in a web of their own weaving.
"This is of a piece with the idea that the funding of the dossier didn't really matter because Clinton "didn't use the information anyway."
-- If that's true, then since Trump didn't get any dirt on Clinton... what does that collusion attempt matter?
"Clearly it is of greater public interest to understand what the president's team is guilty of than it is to understand what happened on the losers campaign."
What is of interest is not what happened on the loser's campaign, but what happened when the loser held high office in the previous administration. In any case, losing an election is not an excuse for wrongdoing.
Yes, Matthew Sablan, I thought of mentioning that hypocrisy too.
To be fair though, a lot of pro Trump people were saying that about Donald Jr and I suspect many of them would say that Hillary and DNC (and perhaps OFA) promoting Russian disinformation was wrong,
She didn't "use the information" but it leaked to the press and the press used it. LOL, is that like the difference between "gross negligence" and "extreme carelessness"? And why did they list the payments for opposition research as "legal expenses"? Seems like a crime right there, by these standards.
...than it is to understand what happened on the losers campaign.
Don't forget also the most qualified person ever to run for President. We should all learn exactly what that means.
There are 3 cases brought up so far: Manafort, Gates, Papadopolous.
The problem I'm seeing is that none of the cases can be leveraged to get these people to turn on Trump or any of the rest of his campaign. Manafort and Gates are entangled in things done before they joined the campaign. You'd have to get them to admit to additional crimes if they provide testimony about anything done for Trump.
Papadopolous is caught up in the "misleading statements" mess. Basically, his crime is talking to someone who may have had access to copies of the emails that Hillary illegally deleted from her personal mail server and then understating about how potentially reliable that person was. This may be interesting, but only if the Trump campaign asked him to get the emails through illegal or unethical means. If he was talking to this professor on his own in the hopes of landing something big for the Trump campaign, this indictment will go nowhere. Since he has already plead guilty to a charge, one that completely undercuts his credibility as a witness in a criminal case, I don't think that thread is going anywhere.
Professional lady nails ARM. His talking point of "What difference does it make at this point" came right out of Hillary's lying mouth.
Plus there is the issue of one standard being applied to Republicans, and another to Democrats. What difference does it make? Ha ha ha!
he went into hiding, "in fear for his life".
Lois Lerner used the same dodge and it worked. We are all murderous, we deplorables, doncha know?
I don't understand how an experienced hand like Manafort thought he could get away with the easily traceable money transfers and tax avoidance - unless he thought he had an arguable claim that those actions were not illegal as structured.
That may be his defense on that portion of the indictment. The failure to register charges are a different matter.
It could be simply that greed got the better of him. But it appears he could have legally taken his share and given Uncle Sam his 39.6% and still have taken home millions.
" Basically, his crime is talking to someone who may have had access to copies of the emails that Hillary..."
No. His crime was lying to an FBI agent who had access to his (Papadoulos) emails and social media. An incredibly stupid blunder by an ambitious 29 year old four years out of college and full of himself.
"Lois Lerner used the same dodge and it worked."
-- How? How does this argument work? If I were the FBI, I'd say: "Sure, you're scared? Guess who can protect you? Witness Protection. Now, talk."
Here is Andrew McCarthy's take on the Manafort indictment.
"The Paul Manafort indictment is much ado about nothing . . . except as a vehicle to squeeze Manafort, which is special counsel Robert Mueller’s objective — as we have been arguing for three months (see here, here, and here)."
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453244/manafort-indictment-no-signs-trump-russia-collusion
"From President Trump’s perspective, the indictment is a boon from which he can claim that the special counsel has no actionable collusion case. It appears to reaffirm former FBI director James Comey’s multiple assurances that Trump is not a suspect. And, to the extent it looks like an attempt to play prosecutorial hardball with Manafort, the president can continue to portray himself as the victim of a witch hunt."
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453244/manafort-indictment-no-signs-trump-russia-collusion
How does this argument work? If I were the FBI, I'd say: "Sure, you're scared? Guess who can protect you? Witness Protection. Now, talk."
Comey.
John Podesta's stones just crawled up into his belly. Hillary, on the other hand, has brass ones, and they are still hanging low.
People are still paying $600 for front row seats at her book signings. P.T. Barnum can only look up from his grave in wondrous envy.
@Michael k 12:33 I will say once again that neither party in DC has learned the lesson of the dangers of an independent counsel. Stupid, but true. I am reasonably certain at least one Podesta is gong to be caught in the Manafort trap. The other one has a reasonable chance of being caught actually colluding - maybe second hand - with the Russians. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.
No ethics, no morals and an overwhelming desire for money and power. We are supposed to look up to no less trust, these people?
@Rabel "No. His crime was lying to an FBI agent who had access to his (Papadoulos) emails and social media. An incredibly stupid blunder by an ambitious 29 year old four years out of college and full of himself." You forgot to mention that he also had his head up his ass!
To all here: As has been mentioned above, an indictment is not a conviction. See Ray Donovan.
Can Mueller squeeze blood from a turnip? I guess that's his plan.
Meanwhile, and maybe why the trolls are off sucking their thumbs:
Tony Podesta, founder of the Podesta Group and brother of former Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, is resigning from his lobbying company. Podesta and his lobbying firm were subjects of a federal investigation led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The Podesta Group was one of several firms that worked on a campaign called the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine. The campaign was led by Manafort and promoted Ukraine’s image in the West. According to Politico, which first reported the story, Podesta will be handing over full operational and financial control to the company’s CEO Kimberly Fritts.
Ha ha ha, No, I am not tired of the winning.
The problem I'm seeing is that none of the cases can be leveraged to get these people to turn on Trump or any of the rest of his campaign.
Why do you think that? In the papers released today, we saw that G.P. has an electronic information trail with others on the campaign about Russia dealings.
I do not think Mueller would have made that deal with G.P. unless G.P. had something to give him.
Thinking of Hillary, Podesta and GPSFusion, made me curious about what a conspiracy is. FindLaw tells me this: "A criminal conspiracy exists when two or more people agree to commit almost any unlawful act, then take some action toward its completion. The action taken need not itself be a crime, but it must indicate that those involved in the conspiracy knew of the plan and intended to break the law. One person may be charged with and convicted of both conspiracy and the underlying crime based on the same circumstances."
This sounds a bit like a conspiracy to me" Clinton's campaign reportedly routed 37 payments to Fusion GPS through the law firm Perkins Coie, totaling over $5.5 million, and reported each as "legal services." The DNC reported 345 payments to Perkins Coie during the election cycle and marked the payments as "legal and compliance consulting, administrative fees, and data services subscription" among others, according to the complaint." (Washinton Examiner FEC complaint alleges Clinton campaign, DNC violated campaign law by funding 'Trump dossier')
-- If that's true, then since Trump didn't get any dirt on Clinton... what does that collusion attempt matter?
Mueller knows a lot we don't yet know. This isn't the end of his case. This is the beginning.
Magic Eight Ball says!:
Mueller knows a lot we don't yet know. This isn't the end of his case. This is the beginning
I would say that Podesta believes that though!
From people who know what they’re talking about. A very bad day for Trump.
http://www.lawfareblog.com/robert-muellers-show-strength-quick-and-dirty-analysis
“The first big takeaway from this morning’s flurry of charging and plea documents with respect to Paul Manafort Jr., Richard Gates III, and George Papadopoulos is this: The President of the United States had as his campaign chairman a man who had allegedly served for years as an unregistered foreign agent for a puppet government of Vladimir Putin, a man who was allegedly laundering remarkable sums of money even while running the now-president’s campaign, a man who allegedly lied about all of this to the FBI and the Justice Department.
The second big takeaway is even starker: A member of President Trump’s campaign team now admits that he was working with people he knew to be tied to the Russian government to “arrange a meeting between the Campaign and the Russian government officials” and to obtain “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of hacked emails—and that he lied about these activities to the FBI. He briefed President Trump on at least some them.“
Magic Eight Ball says!:
I do not think Mueller would have made that deal with G.P. unless G.P. had something to give him.
Mueller knows a lot we don't yet know. This isn't the end of his case. This is the beginning
I would say that Podesta believes that though!
A lotta people are worried right now. And they should be.
6/ these are serious people running a serious investigation and you're either a cooperating witness or a target. -Rick Wilson
The President of the United States had as his campaign chairman a man who had allegedly served for years as an unregistered foreign agent for a puppet government of Vladimir Putin, a man who was allegedly laundering remarkable sums of money even while running the now-president’s campaign, a man who allegedly lied about all of this to the FBI and the Justice Department."
-- Why is this a big take away? We pretty much knew Manafort was potentially dirty. For years. He was fired once Trump was briefed about it.
Same with the second takeaway: If it is illegal collusion to try and set up a meeting with Russians... what is it when you pay them for dirt and then try to shop around the information to the media?
If anyone truly, honestly, believes what Trump did is collusion -- let's follow the logic all the way.
Manafort has pled not guilty to all charges. If the case goes to court this will mean a multi-year process of trials and appeals. Mueller's name is at the bottom of the indictment.
So, how does this affect Mueller's tenure and the possibility that he will remain as special counsel for a long, long time? I don't know the answer.
Reading Unknown's link, I get to We can assume that Mueller had the goods on Papadopoulos beyond lying to the Bureau in some manner.
OK, so she assumes what she is trying to prove.
“....the Papadopoulos stipulation offers a stunningly frank, if probably incomplete, account of what was occurring in the spring of 2016 in the Trump campaign. To wit, during that period, members of the Trump campaign team were actively working to set up a meeting with Russian officials or representatives. And from a very early point in the campaign, those meetings were explicitly about obtaining hacked, incriminating emails.
The stipulation also contains some rather damaging information about President Trump himself. Papadopoulos says he attended a “national security” meeting on March 31, 2016 with Trump personally in attendance, along with his other foreign policy advisors. In that meeting, Papadopoulos told the group that he had connections to arrange a meeting between Trump and President Putin. This means that Trump either knew or should have known about his campaign’s effort to interface with Russia, even as news of various criminal hacking and attempts to interfere with the US election were becoming public.”
Lawfare
-- Why is this a big take away? We pretty much knew Manafort was potentially dirty. For years. He was fired once Trump was briefed about it.
He's either a cooperating witness or a target. I bet Mueller is trying to turn him into a cooperating witness. At this point Papandopolous is more interesting then Manafort.
He pled not guilty.
The 30 year old could set up a meeting between Putin and Trump? What good was Manafort then? When did Putin give Trump the emails from Hillary's server?
This all sounds very silly.
To add to the “pfffft:”
This link leads to a short TPM blurb of mainly the obvious – except for this:
Remember, days after being appointed, Papadopolous[sic] went to work trying to set up meetings between the Trump campaign and “Russian Leadership – Including Putin.
The operative word is “trying.” In fact, Papadopoulos NEVER managed to arrange those meetings, no matter how hard he tried. Was Trump just lucky?
What Papadopoulos is pleading guilty to is telling the investigators that the Russians approached him before he was retained by the Trump campaign. However, Mueller seems to have evidence that the Russians approached Papadopoulos only AFTER Papadopoulos was retained by the Trump campaign. I wonder, irony of ironies, if perhaps Papadopoulos was unmasked.
Thus, we can confidently infer that the Trump campaign did not retain Papadopoulos for the purpose of arranging meetings with Russians. That and the fact that Papadopoulos, no matter how hard he tried, never managed to arrange any meetings is all we need to know.
I’ll also do a bit of speculation. If at the beginning Papadopoulos wanted to hedge his bets and have the option in the future to trade false testimony to the investigators for less jail-time he might lie to make it seem he was hired by Trump to arrange the meetings. Otherwise he has nothing to trade. But evidently Papadopoulos did not need to lie since there are no other charges.
As the Ukranian government Manafort was repping was the old one with the ties to Putin, the fact that this went on for years up to Manafort becoming Donald Trump's campaign manager is going to be Donald's political problem.
Political problem for Trump? Why? How? Nothing I’ve read so far justifies such a statement.
The lying, after all, is merely the charge he pled to in the context of a plea deal in which prosecutors have cut him a break.
That said, the Papadopoulos stipulation offers a stunningly frank, if probably incomplete, account of what was occurring in the spring of 2016 in the Trump campaign.
Not afraid of assumptions, this girl!
Papadopoulos says he attended a “national security” meeting on March 31, 2016 with Trump personally in attendance, along with his other foreign policy advisors. In that meeting, Papadopoulos told the group that he had connections to arrange a meeting between Trump and President Putin. This means that Trump either knew or should have known about his campaign’s effort to interface with Russia, even as news of various criminal hacking and attempts to interfere with the US election were becoming public.
The mind reels! At the stupidity of this! Talk about spinning up cotton candy out of a few grains of sugar!
The Lawfare contributors are quite a silly bunch. They specialize in not knowing how things work.
Even after Hillary's campaign was whipping up a Russian hysteria! He SHOULD HAVE KNOWN!
"Yes. I say it's 50 50 that Manafort walks. This is lawfare by a bunch of leftist radicals."
That's my read too.
A show trial.
If there is no evidence, evidence will be manufactured as needed.
2014?
really?
I my teenage daughter had written that lawfare article, I might be proud of the grammar and effort, but that is secondary to critical thinking. It doesn't add anything but wishful speculation.
It doesn't matter that Trump isn't involved as long as they got the words "Trump" and "indictment" in the same sentence.
Mueller better have more than this, or a lot of people are going to have egg on their faces. At best, he has put himself in a position to squeeze some people who potentially have information about "collusion" that probably didn't happen, from what I can tell, at least not on the Trump side, but he may get retargeted at the USS Herself, like a torpedo locked on an unintended ship.
"This means that Trump either knew or should have known about his campaign’s effort to interface with Russia, even as news of various criminal hacking and attempts to interfere with the US election were becoming public.”
-- That doesn't work. An aide said something during a meeting doesn't count. Remember: Clinton literally handed her lawyer money to buy Russian spies, but her campaign said they didn't, and none of them are being charged with a crime. The barrier to "should have known" is HUGE given the standing precedents.
"-- That's the same thing people said about Manafort. And, yet, here we are."
Difference is, Papadopoulous has taken a plea deal, while Manafort is busy scraping together $10 mil for bail.
Unknown at 2:15 PM
The President of the United States had as his campaign chairman a man who had allegedly served for years as an unregistered foreign agent for a puppet government of Vladimir Putin
What is this "puppet government"?
Is it the fairly elected President of Ukraine?
Is it the fairly elected President whom the Obama Administration tried to overthrow?
Is that what the expression "puppet government" means?
SHS comments today were pretty powerful.
Did George Papadopoulos wear a wire for Mueller?
I have no idea if this could be true, but wow, if it is.
Anyone Talking about Tony Podesta?
Bueller?
Mueller?
Lavrentiy Beria smiles...
Unknown at 2:15 PM
The President of the United States had as his campaign chairman a man who had allegedly served for years as an unregistered foreign agent for a puppet government of Vladimir Putin
According to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Victor Yanukovych (aka "a puppet government of Vladimir Putin") was elected fairly in the Ukrainian presidential election of 2010.
The Wikipedia article about the election summarizes the election of this "puppet government" as follows:
[quote]
... On January 18, 2010, the OSCE announced it would send same number of observers to monitor Ukraine's second round of the election as in the first round. At the same time it called for bringing Ukraine's election laws in line with international norms but nevertheless it endorsed the first round of the Ukrainian presidential poll, saying it was of "high quality" and demonstrated "significant progress".
After the second round of the election international observers and the OSCE called the election transparent and honest.
[end quote; emphasis added]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_presidential_election,_2010#International_observers
If he wore a wire and didn't argue for immunity, he's an idiot.
This whole case, so far, is like a Potemkin village.
oops Tim In Vermont did @ 2:09
Is it the fairly elected President whom the Obama Administration tried to overthrow?
The whole Ukraine thing is too complicated for me to figure out who the bad guys are.
In 1993, Bill Clinton got the Ukrainians to hand their Uranium over the the Russians in return for a promise to defend them
The Ukraine election returned a pro-Russian president.
Obama helped overthrow him.
Bill Browder, the supposed good guy, is the grandson of the former head of the US Communist Party.
My head spins before I get the characters sorted out.
At best, he has put himself in a position to squeeze some people who potentially have information about "collusion" that probably didn't happen, from what I can tell, at least not on the Trump side, but he may get retargeted at the USS Herself, like a torpedo locked on an unintended ship.
I've seen that movie!
As in, "Show me the man and I will find you the crime."
So, we've gone from: Manafort is flipping on Trump! to This new guy none of us were really talking about wore a wire!
Well, hey, maybe, I guess. Stopped clocks and all.
The Ukraine has been so badly treated by history that one has to have sympathy. After what Stalin did to them with his imposed famine, then dumping large numbers of ethnic Russians into the place, still making noise today, and treating them so badly that they viewed the fucking Nazis as liberators. I mean, can't we just leave them the fuck alone? Nope!
Yeah, he was named as a proactive witness, so he could have worn a wire. I would be surprised if he didn't. He was arrested back in July.
Mueller didn't come to play. He knows things we don't. Today is a message from Mueller to others. He's warning others against perjury. He's showing his leverage.
This new guy none of us were really talking about wore a wire!
They'd be likely to suspect Manafort of wearing a wire if he called up people in the campaign. 30 year old guy nobody is talking about is more useful to Mueller.
Note to self: Collusion is not a crime.
There's a reason nobody was talking about random 30 year old. Mueller didn't want people talking about him. And there are 4 more sealed cases with case numbers in between Manafort's and G. P.'s case.
"Mueller didn't come to play."
-- If Mueller didn't come to play, there would have been indictments for Podesta and Weisserman-Schultz the day after he learned they'd perjured themselves when talking about the dossier.
There weren't.
Mueller's motivations still seem firmly in "Get Trump" not "Investigate collusion."
https://hotair.com/archives/2017/10/30/george-papadopoulos-wear-wire-mueller/
Here is a link to the story about Papadopoulos possibly wearing a wire for Mueller. I see the hotlink isn’t working. Very interesting!
"He's warning others against perjury."
-- No, he's not. Plenty of people committed perjury -- to Congress and the FBI -- about this and other recent investigations. He's warning Republican staffers against perjury.
I have no idea if this could be true, but wow, if it is.
Unknown warned me the other day that "I had better get my medication level checked, since I was looking manic...."
I wonder what brought that thought into his head? Maybe he was speaking from his own personal experience? Maybe something like that had been said to him? Just saying.
Very interesting! But Stupid!
Remember: This investigation into Manafort revealed the Podesta group ALSO failed to file and had some sweetheart Russia deals. And yet, no indictments there. If Mueller didn't come to play, there'd be more people indicted.
Maybe the young Greek called up Putin and Mueller has him on tape. Or maybe Trump talked to him. Or maybe another low level advisor "obstructed justice" by telling da Greek to keep his mouth shut. 75 year old prosecutor who doesn't retire because he hates his wife and can't goldfish got nothing better to do. Too bad his boy Jim lost his job
-- No, he's not. Plenty of people committed perjury -- to Congress and the FBI -- about this and other recent investigations. He's warning Republican staffers against perjury.
Let me clarify. His warning is directed at the people that he is interviewing. He wants them to know that he has leverage and they best not lie.
Happy Fitzmas! This is pretty weaksauce after all of the leaks from Mueller's office. This is the best they got?
Mueller has to do something now that he doesn't represent the NFL anymore.
Remember: This investigation into Manafort revealed the Podesta group ALSO failed to file and had some sweetheart Russia deals. And yet, no indictments there. If Mueller didn't come to play, there'd be more people indicted.
I don't understand why people think this is the end. This is not the end. This is the beginning. There will be more people indicted. Podesta guy stepped down because Mueller wants him as either a target or a cooperating witness. He needs to deal with the situation. As do others.
I'm frankly confused why others don't see Mueller as serious. His biography from Vietnam to today doesn't suggest flighty behaviour. He's the type of guy who will do the job he's been given. He's a prosecutor & investigator and he's gonna prosecute & investigate.
The wore a wire is not impossible, lots of stuff is not impossible, but that is a pretty long stretch by hot air. All of these speculative stories assume that there is a pony there. A pony, of which I have seen no signs.
“I wonder what brought that thought into his head? Maybe he was speaking from his own personal experience? Maybe something like that had been said to him? Just saying.”
It’s from a Hotair article. Hotair is a conservative site. Go ask them where they got this idea from.
He's an old man with nothing better to do. Good reason not to take him seriously.
leaks from Mueller's office.
Mueller runs a tight ship. I think those leaks were from Manafort's people. There's a reason we didn't learn about G. P. until this morning.
"I think those leaks were from Manafort's people."
-- The leaks about the indictment couldn't have come from Manafort's people. Until this morning, they didn't know they were being indicted.
Go ask them where they got this idea from.
Thin air, apparently, based on the article. Are they never Trumpers? I don't know, I don't read them.
Mueller would never leak just like Comey would never leak. They are the good guys because I read it somewhere that they are the good guys.
"Mueller runs a tight ship."
-- Given the amount of leaks that this has had, this is an odd statement to make.
[Unless you assume Mueller WANTS to illegally leak things.]
www at 3:22 PM
I'm frankly confused why others don't see Mueller as serious.
Robert "The FBI White-Washer" is serious about his three top goals:
1. White-wash the FBI's actions in its "investigation" of RussiaGate
2. White-wash his BFF "Crazy Comey the Leaker"
3. Convict a scapegoat (someone like Scooter Libby) in order to persuade the public that the FBI's "investigation" has been valid and worthwhile.
If you think Papadopoulos is important, please state in one clear sentence what he did and why you care.
If Papadopoulos wore a wire for Mueller, he's important, and I retract my nothingburger assertion.
"Imagine Papadopoulos phoning a former top Team Trump official in early August to say, 'They’ve arrested me! I don’t know what to do! I think I should tell them everything and make a deal!' He might have been told no, no, no, stay calm, deny X, Y, and Z, we’ll make sure Mueller never finds our emails from the campaign. And meanwhile, unbeknownst to the target, Mueller’s recording the entire conversation on Papadopoulos’s end."
“Thin air, apparently, based on the article. Are they never Trumpers? I don't know, I don't read them.”
“Hot Air is a conservative American political blog.[1] It is written by the pseudonymous Allahpundit, Ed Morrissey, John Sexton, and Jazz Shaw.”
Wiki
Hot Air is strongly NeverTrump.
It is political justice. DC can't help itself. Mueller may be okay, and Manafort maybe be a bad guy, but read this for an informed and honest assessment.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453244/manafort-indictment-no-signs-trump-russia-collusion?platform=hootsuite
It's nice to give people who were hoping for Donald Jr., Kushner and others to get frog marched away the sop that maybe this guy wore a wire.
"His biography from Vietnam to today doesn't suggest flighty behaviour."
His biography suggests early recruitment into the "swamp", as his first civvie job was with Pillsbury, Madison and Sutro in San Francisco, a white shoe law firm and a core member of San Francisco's "downtown interests", which have always been devoted to manipulating the law for the benefit of members of the club.
Since the DNC emails were clearly not hacked, if you look at the CloudFront time-line, they had detected Russian hacking attempts, and kicked them out before the most damaging emails were even written. Not to mention that a lot of Bernie partisans inside the DNC had very good reason to be angry, and it has been shown to have been impractical to have downloaded those emails in the time that it took, had it been done remotely, impossible without setting up special paths that would have left a trail of service orders with carriers records of which would be there to this day, since, you know, they would have to be billed, and cost a lot of money.
Anybody could have phished an idiot like John Podesta,
I guess it comes down to Trump's joke about Hillary's destruction of evidence under subpoena.
Thanks Fabi, Chuck is "strongly conservative" for that matter. I actually believe he is a life long Republican. Doesn't mean they don't hate Trump.
Does anybody really believe that the Russians set up a "fat pipe" connection, the kind used to carry thousands of international calls per minute, at a price that you can imagine would be commensurate with that kind of capability, actually multiples, for a hack, when they could have just snuck the stuff out over time, since Cloudfront says they weren't there at the time, and they could have continued undetected? First off, the NSA would be right there with the carrier, asking for a peak at whatever this was, and since this fat pipe crossed international borders, the intelligence services along the way would also be interested in whatever the hell this was. Maybe it will come out that they know the Russians did it because they saw it, but I am pretty sure a damaging leak like that, given all of the leaks of NSA unmasking stuff we saw in January and February, would have been leaked. But that part is just speculation.
This is the old story of reading a news story about something you know about, I know a lot about international data com.
So much of the today's chowder i've read here and at other blogs reminds me how wee wee'ed up the left got when trying to take down Karl Rove over "outing" that super secret agent/desk jockey Valery Plamme. Lots and lots of wishcasting followed by speculation about taking down Cheney only to find some measly staffer who had to act as a sacrificial lamb because his testimony wavered. "Keep hope alive" as our favorite althouse troll would say.
If this is all they've got - after nearly an entire year - then they got nothing.
Princess Sky Screamer hardest hit.
I can see them wanting to get it out quickly, since they didn't want to be detected and then stopped, but most Data Loss Prevention (DLP) software would block the attempted connection until it was approved, and scan the packets for certain patterns. CloudFront was sure proud of their software. They would have had a record of this if it went over the IP cards.
They, of course, should have had agents running on the server blocking the USB ports, but who knows? Anyway, details that give any indication that it was remotely possible that the emails were hacked remotely, is not in evidence.
Of course it could have easily been those Pakistani con artists that DWS trusted with the keys to the kingdom, and they could have been mixed up with Pakistani Intelligence, an notorious bunch! If their data center was secure, they know who was in there at the time the leak occurred, based on badge reading and cameras. Why don't we know that? A lot of this stinks like a coverup, and not from Trump.
Lots and lots of wishcasting followed by speculation about taking down Cheney
I remember it well. In fact, there were announcements that Cheney was going to be frogmarched off to jail any minute. I mean, any, effing minute.
Instead. Libby got caught for mis-remembering something, the guy who actually 'outed' Desk Jockey Plame, Richard Armitage, went on about his life as if no crime had actually been committed.
So, we'll see how this turns out. Apparently Mueller and his team couldn't find a ham sandwich to indict, and went this route instead.
“According to the plea agreement, Papadopoulos was arrested on July 27th and signed his deal with the Feds October 5th. The public was unaware of this since the records were sealed.
Papadopoulos may have been wearing a wire and working for the Feds for the last few months.”
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/10/papadopoulos-wear-wire-dirty-cop-mueller/
That's the same article you linked earlier, with the same highly speculative premise, reblogged from Hot Air.
I have no idea if this could be true, but wow, if it is.
Inga sums up every one of her posts at Althouse...
Can't you just wait, Unknown, it's going to be raining shoes pretty soon, I am thinking. Podesta just had one drop on him today.
Is your faith so weak that you can't wait for Mueller to bring down his might hammer on Trump's certain guilt?
"Papadopoulos may have been wearing a wire and working for the Feds for the last few months.”
Keep hope alive! ;-) Or he may have been a secret alien who had shapeshifted into an informant but diverted his mission to provide damning evidence of Trump's skin bleaching. Surely Mueller's opening round is the beginning of the end for Trump!
“That's the same article you linked earlier, with the same highly speculative premise, reblogged from Hot Air.”
Oh but you claimed Hotair wasn’t reliable because it was Never Trump. I don’t think that the Gateway Pundit is NeverTrump now is it? Ha.
Hotair is a conservative site.
Hotair USED to be a conservative-leaning site. They're chock full of nevertrumpers now. Proud members of the Salon Hot 25 'conservatives' to follow on Twitter.
Allahpundit could - and maybe does - write for any leftwing site and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Jazz Shaw isn't much better.
Good gawd. At least know what in the hell you're linking to.
In that meeting, Papadopoulos told the group that he had connections to arrange a meeting between Trump and President Putin.
Wow, Inga has found the smoking gun!
1. Does anyone think Billionaire Presidential Candidate Trump couldn't talk with Putin if he wanted to do so?
2. Does anyone think Hillary Clinton also could not talk to Putin if she desired?
3. Does this implicate Hillary as much as Inga would like it to implicate Trump?
4. If it's damning on its face, why shouldn't it?
I think Mueller is going to be under pressure to show his famous"impartiality' by pushing hard on the Podesta brothers even though that case, too, has nothing to do with Russian meddling. Given the Uranium One situation and Muellers alleged part in stalling the investigation he is legitimately exposed to removal for a conflict of interest. I will be very surprised if Mueller has much of substance on others vaguely attached to the Trump campaign - there's Corey whats-his-name and who else?
Trey Gowdy is going to be investigating Uranium One and both Susan Collins - a moderate republican- and Angus King - a rabid lefty- from Maine, and the Senate Intelligence Committee, agree the Senate should look into it as well. Having watched Gowdy expose Comey for the snake that he is, I will be watching that investigation with interest.
Meanwhile deregulation continues apace the-trump-deregulatory-juggernaut-is-rolling (WSJ) as does the process of District Court confirmations. We are not at war with NK, Facebook and Google are being raked over the political coals, we continue to progress in the ME, business spending on new equipment was up 8.6% in the third quarter, and Hillary Clinton both is not Presiedent and continues to dog the Democratic party.
The news is not all bad!
“Good gawd. At least know what in the hell you're linking to.”
Is Gateway Pundit oky doky with you? I linked the same assertion about P wearing a wire from them too. Dummy.
I recalled this article as soon as I read that people are wondering if Papadopolous wore a wire for Mueller. Chuckling.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/351132-wh-officials-fear-colleagues-are-wearing-a-wire-for-mueller-report
“Officials working in the White House are reportedly worried that colleagues may be wearing a wire for special counsel Robert Mueller.
The special counsel's probe into possible connections between President Trump and Russia has caused rising tensions between White House Counsel Don McGahn and Ty Cobb, a lawyer who joined the administration to handle the Mueller probe, The New York Times reported Sunday.
Cobb has urged the administration to hand over as many documents as it can for the special counsel’s probe, while McGahn is worried about precedents that could weaken the White House for future administrations, the report said.
This tension has reportedly led to officials privately saying they thought colleagues could be wearing a wire to record conversations for Mueller, according to the Times.“
"Proactive witness" could mean a wire, or gathering/providing/preserving documents perhaps. Either way it is interesting that it was revealed today as it kind of blows the possibility of further information gathering in this way by other potentially flippable people, should they exist. Not sure what that suggests. Perhaps they have what they need, or what they got was ultimately relatively limited, or the relevance was largely limited to the indictments today. It's worth wondering as well if anybody else was arrested in the manner that GP was, either before or after his early October agreement. Late July to early October isn't a particularly long period of time to be a "proactive witness", particularly when your access is presumably pretty peripheral.
"I recalled this article as soon as I read that people are wondering if Papadopolous wore a wire for Mueller. Chuckling"
Keep hope alive. the 18 page indictment makes no mention of Trump. There is a pony in there somewhere! Keep digging into that shit pile!!!
“Officials working in the White House are reportedly worried that colleagues may be wearing a wire for special counsel Robert Mueller."
Perhaps the goal in revealing GP today is in part to sow paranoia and set people against each other in hopes of encouraging some "proactive co-operation".
LOL. “Dial a Crook”.
“If I were the prosecutor, and I guarantee you Robert Mueller has done this, he’s had him out there wearing a body wire, playing dial-a-crook on the phone, trying to get recorded conversations to use as evidence against other people,” he asserted. “If I were the other people, and they know who they are in that information, I’d be extremely nervous right now.”
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/10/ex-watergate-prosecutor-guarantees-papadopoulos-has-been-wearing-a-wire-for-months-and-playing-dial-a-crook/
"Helping the poor?"
Fuck the poor. So sick of the god-damned poor. Always needing stuff. Boo-fucking-hoo. How much money is wasted annually on the poor? Everywhere I go there's another charity, not to mention a shit-ton taxes going to constantly help the poor. I think the poor need to get their shit together.
"Keep hope alive. the 18 page indictment makes no mention of Trump. There is a pony in there somewhere! Keep digging into that shit pile!!!"
This is a silly stance at this point. Russian operatives, known to be experienced and effective recruiters, clearly tried hard to infiltrate the campaign. Both Don Jr. and GP have now been outed as lying about the nature and purpose of their contacts. There is clearly a discomfort there with something, and one might presume a shared agreement to attempt to cover it up. It's always been the campaign over which the question marks hung, and not just Trump the man. It's a very good possibility that he was insulated from any wrong doing anyway. This is about how Russia tried to interfere, and about learning about where they might have succeeded. Everybody should want to know that.
I don’t think that the Gateway Pundit is NeverTrump now is it? Ha.
Nor is the site any oracle of all seeing knowledge. They just re-blogged the exact same speculative shit, if it came from the Wall Street Journal, it would be speculative shit.
Russian operatives, known to be experienced and effective recruiters
That's correct! Just look at Uranium One for an example of their prowess.
This is about how Russia tried to interfere, and about learning about where they might have succeeded. Everybody should want to know that.
And I do! I just want the investigation to go wherever it leads, which with the new focus on Podesta, maybe it is. but if this rules out earlier attempts by the Russians to subvert our political process through massive bribery to the Clintons. I have to wonder if it is just not a partisan tool to be used solely against Republicans.
Snark, if there was an actual effort to find out russian interference most people on this blog would be all for that, but that's not whats going on. We have an extremely compromised investigator Cough..cough...Mueller...on a pretty partisan crusade so far. From Comey's pathetic investigation of hillary's compromised server to leaking information in order to get this investigation kicked off, you would be hard pressed to say this investigation into russian meddling was launched with the best of intentions. Its pretty clear, even to a small child, it was not.
Not to mention, I have yet to have heard a convincing explanation as to why Hillary paying money to a Russian spy for dirt on Trump is not a crime, and her fingerprints are right there!
Remember how Comey took notes whenever he talked with Trump, using them against him, and the FBI took no notes when they interviewed Herself on the emails thing?
This is why we don't trust them.
The "wore a wire" meme seems to be about the hope that Mueller could create a coverup.
"This is about how Russia tried to interfere, and about learning about where they might have succeeded. Everybody should want to know that."
They spread hysteria by posting inflammatory messages on facebook, that stirred up BLM, for example.
Interested in that ? Of course not.
Any serious concern about Russian recruitment best look at the Clinton Foundation. Not a junior staff member who was overruled and another who was fired.
"This is about how Russia tried to interfere, and about learning about where they might have succeeded. Everybody should want to know that."
The FBI may have helped pay for the dossier and used it to get a FISA warrant to spy on a presidential candidate.
Interested in that one? No, not that one either?
"And I do! I just want the investigation to go wherever it leads, which with the new focus on Podesta, maybe it is. but if this rules out earlier attempts by the Russians to subvert our political process through massive bribery to the Clintons. I have to wonder if it is just not a partisan tool to be used solely against Republicans."
I have no doubt at all that significant efforts have been made to influence Clinton and others, and I don't have any particular reason to think Clinton would not be corruptible. But Uranium One is not a proven series of events at this point. There are reasons to be cautious on any conclusions right now, like the fact that it's not clear how much influence Clinton even had on the process that required the approval of a nine agency panel, and the suggestion that the person who made the donations to the Clinton Foundation had divested interest in the company that benefited from the deal three years before. There's motivation for digging in further now, and that's good. But people need to at least keep open the possibility that things didn't happen like they think they did. People behave as if it's a certainty right now, and it's not.
Uh... You do know someone went to jail in Uranium One and Russian spies expelled, right? The only open question is if Clinton is held to the same standards as others or again gets a pass and why the FBI and DoJ conspired to hide this from Congress.
White Collar Criminal Prosecution 101 is flipping lower-level participants to set up higher-level participants. It's a career prosecutor's wet dream; when normal boys were fantasizing about girls, Mueller was fantasizing about schemes like this. No underlying crime is required for perjury and obstruction of justice charges.
Snark, do you have any insight on the recent revelation that the russian dossier was paid for by the DNC and Clinton? Or is this another one of those "is not a proven series of events at this point." Idle speculation about someone wearing a wire is cause for discussion but established facts like this are of no interest to you?
"Uh... You do know someone went to jail in Uranium One and Russian spies expelled, right? The only open question is if Clinton is held to the same standards as others or again gets a pass and why the FBI and DoJ conspired to hide this from Congress."
What does that have to do with a specific case against Clinton?
At the time that the spies were "expelled" under the direction of Hillary's State Department, they were caught trying to buy influence to further the Uranium One deal. Mueller kept this quiet and the deal went through. Congress had to approve the deal, and was not told. But this is for another day, the whistleblower gagged by the Obama Admin has been un-gagged. It just stinks on ice, like most of what a Clinton does.
That we know she received millions of dollars from Russia to decide in Russia's favor and did so. There's a quid a pro and a quo. This was then hidden from Congressional oversight. Illegally.
Now. Is it possible there's an innocent explanation? Possibly. But to pretend it is some unproven conspiracy theory is just to be ignorant of what we know.
"Snark, do you have any insight on the recent revelation that the russian dossier was paid for by the DNC and Clinton? Or is this another one of those "is not a proven series of events at this point." Idle speculation about someone wearing a wire is cause for discussion but established facts like this are of no interest to you?"
Of course they're of interest. But again, there are spectacular leaps and assumptions. The fact that paid oppo research was conducted on Trump's ties to Russia doesn't really concern me. A key question is if the relevant conclusions are generally factual. If they are, and they were corroborated by the intelligence community, then it's appropriate to use that information as other similar information would be used, including for warrants. The information in the dossier didn't even come out until after the election, which may suggest that whoever reviewed it on the Clinton team didn't have enough faith in the information or it's sources to leak it. It was effectively double sub-contracted, so people have to be a bit realistic about how much it can be hung on Clinton and her campaign. We don't know what they were after specifically, but we do know they didn't use what they got before the election.
"That we know she received millions of dollars from Russia to decide in Russia's favor and did so. There's a quid a pro and a quo. This was then hidden from Congressional oversight. Illegally.'
You don't know that. That's my point. You've got a Canadian and three years between the donation and the nine panel decision. There is reason for caution in conclusions that seems to have bypassed right wing media sources.
The information in the dossier was shopped around in October and to the Obama administration. The dossier has incorrect factual statements and is the product of Russian intelligence agents in Clinton's employ.
What rational reason do you have for thinking it has any value?
Clinton didn't leak it so people thought it was legitimate.
If you want to just ignore the facts in Uranium One and insist we don't know. Go ahead. But barring some new information, the current interpretation is the most logically sound one.
It would be nice if the usual suspects were as concerned about the rule of law when Obama was king.
Also. If Clinton wasn't bribed. Think how lucky those Russian spies were. The bribe money reaches Clinton and the foundation fa to declare it or notice it for years. Then Obama and Clinton despite knowing Russia was willing to send spies to compromise the deal decide to give Russia exactly what the spies wanted. Then the FBI never tells Congress for years. That's The Man Who Knew Too Little territory of lucky spies right there.
"The information in the dossier was shopped around in October and to the Obama administration. The dossier has incorrect factual statements and is the product of Russian intelligence agents in Clinton's employ.
What rational reason do you have for thinking it has any value?"
Well, we didn't hear about it until after the election, so that should have some bearing on your reasoning regarding the intent and ultimate judgement of those that financed it. It also has information that was corroborated by the intelligence community, so what rational reason do you have for thinking it has no value? And is that really how you look at this? Russian intelligence agents in Clinton's employ? As I noted, it was sub-contracted, twice. As far as who Steele used as sources, if you want to find out about a person's dealings in Russia, you don't go to France and you don't ask Mikhail Baryshnikov. It's possible Clinton's team had the same concerns you do with regard to sources and intent. They didn't use it - that's more important that people will allow. They passed it on to the government for further investigation. Seems fairly reasonable to me.
Think of the incompetence involved. Obama's team arrests these spies... Then gives them exactly what they want while hiding it from Congress. Russian spy luck knows no bounds.
Snark. Your first sentence is flawed. We didn't hear about it because it was so obviously fake Clinton couldn't get anyone to run it. She wanted to release it in October before the election.
Russian agents paid for by Clinton is a true statement. So. Yes. That's how I see it.
"If you want to just ignore the facts in Uranium One and insist we don't know. Go ahead. But barring some new information, the current interpretation is the most logically sound one."
Well, surely you can see that it's not the most logically sound one for everybody. Nine agency panel. Whole other guy. Three years divested. You won't allow a reason for caution, and that does not seem reasonable.
Your last sentence is ad flawed as the first. They shopped the dossier around and failed to find media friendly enough to run it. They didn't hold it back for any noble reason. How up to date are you on this topic? Because your assumptions are months old.
"Nine agency panel. Whole other guy. Three years divested."
-- For these sound bites to make sense, you must assume that bribes are time-locked, that Clinton, despite being part of the panel and receiving money to make the decision, didn't receive money to make the decision, despite the spies that were expelled saying that's exactly what happened, and that it only counts as bribing if the entire panel is bribed. You wouldn't say this if someone bribed one Supreme Court Justice.
"It also has information that was corroborated by the intelligence community, so what rational reason do you have for thinking it has no value?"
-- That interpretation is... skewed from reality. The dossier was presented to Trump as an example of disinformation. In other words, a few stand alone facts are true, but the majority is meant to misinform the recipient or public. If someone writes slander about you, and includes, "so-and-so posted on Althouse," you wouldn't say, "Well, hey. That's true. So, this has been corroborated and is true." You'd say "the document is untrustworthy." Because it is filled with lies. If you found out your worst enemy hired people who hated you to write it, you'd probably wonder why anyone would think the document should be trusted.
At this point you're not being logical; you're just being stubborn or ignorant of what we know about the dossier.
"Snark. Your first sentence is flawed. We didn't hear about it because it was so obviously fake Clinton couldn't get anyone to run it. She wanted to release it in October before the election."
So obviously fake, yet in part corroborated by intelligence services? I'm not aware of the evidence that says she wanted to use it but had literally no means to do that. Perhaps that's the case, and if so it's worth noting.
I think the dossier discussion is done for now Snark. You're literally weeks behind the current events if you didn't know that. Maybe we'll pick up the discussion in another thread when you've had a chance to get current.
"-- For these sound bites to make sense, you must assume that bribes are time-locked, that Clinton, despite being part of the panel and receiving money to make the decision, didn't receive money to make the decision, despite the spies that were expelled saying that's exactly what happened, and that it only counts as bribing if the entire panel is bribed. You wouldn't say this if someone bribed one Supreme Court Justice."
That last sentence is true, you're right. But when did you develop this deep faith in Russian operatives? Same class of people that according to you faked a bunch of information in the dossier. You're convinced because you want to be convinced. Same reason that a double sub-contracted information gathering effort means Russian agents in Hillary's employ to you. If you choose the worst possible assumptions in every direction, you're going to end up by definition with an extreme position. My only argument is that there is reason to believe that we don't know enough to make a conclusion. I'm open to changing my mind with good information, and you have clearly already decided there is no better information than the information you already have.
The Uranium One story is a big nothingburger. That's why Snark has spent the last hour trying so hard to deflect from it.
"I think the dossier discussion is done for now Snark. You're literally weeks behind the current events if you didn't know that. Maybe we'll pick up the discussion in another thread when you've had a chance to get current."
Fair enough. But it won't change much of the discussion we've already had, as Hillary's intent to use it is unrelated to whether some of the key relevant information in it is true.
@Snark -- which parts of the dossier have been corroborated by our intelligence sources? Do you have a list of those items?
"The Uranium One story is a big nothingburger. That's why Snark has spent the last hour trying so hard to deflect from it.'
Thanks for the discussion Matthew. The above reminds me how stupid and discussion-proof some people are here.
Did I hit you in a sore spot, Snarky?
I'm frankly confused why others don't see Mueller as serious … the type of guy who will do the job he's been given.
So true, especially when as the head of the FBI when he quashed the Uranium One bribery/kickback scheme investigation. Just doing his job – protecting Hillary, Obama, Podesta and the rest of that corrupt crew. Mueller has a lot of explaining to do – preferably by Mueller’s lawyer in front of a jury.
The Uranium One story is a big nothingburger.
We will soon find out, because the witness who wants to sing has been un-gagged! The witness says the 145 million dollars worth of nothing burgers was to buy influence from Hillary. That's what the Russians were saying at the time was their purpose, and she really came through for them.
Look for the witness to be dragged through the mud the same way Juanita Broaddrick and Paula Jones were. That's how the Clintons operate, and people like Snark eat it up.
Same reason that a double sub-contracted information gathering effort means Russian agents in Hillary's employ to you.
Snark's a big believer that if you have enough shell corporations, you can't be guilty!
Maybe she can explain why the opposition research was listed as "Legal expenses"? This'll be good.
What's new in the Uranium One story is that there was an FBI probe into it that had uncovered a ring of Russian spies who had been caught, and proven to have been working to corrupt the North American uranium industry with bribes and kickbacks, and who were trying to influence Clinton with over a hundred million dollars.
Not only that, but after they were caught, Hillary, as Secretary of State made sure that they were rapidly re-patriated, before, you know, we could find out about the Russian efforts to subvert American democracy.
Not only that, but Congress, who also had to approve the deal, was not told about the spy ring.
And there is a whistleblower ready to sing.
So Snark, the day will come when this stuff will come to light, but Hillary may rue the day she made up this whole Russia thing as an attack on Trump.
Blogger Fabi said..."@Snark -- which parts of the dossier have been corroborated by our intelligence sources? Do you have a list of those items?"
I'd like to know, too. I hear this general claim being made, but have yet to see anyone back it up with specifics.
Post a Comment