Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
The well-known Guardian propagandist Luke Harding has written a book about the CT, with the promising title "Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win". Here's a review.

Paul Robinson said:
[...] I wish I could say that this book was a joke. If you were going to write a parody of the collusion story, this is perhaps what it would look like. Unfortunately, Harding is deadly serious and I suspect that a lot of uncritical readers will soak it all up, not stopping to reflect on the awful methodology. So, I end on a word of warning. By all means read this book. But don’t do so in order to find out the truth about Donald Trump and Russia; do so in order to understand the methods currently being used to enflame Russian-Western relations. In that respect, Collusion is really quite revealing.
Click to expand...


And, yes, Luke Harding is the genius who is responsible for that the WikiLeaks State Department Cables landed in full and unredacted on the internet, because the idiot printed the password to the archives in his book about Assange's outlet (and in particular that leak by Chelsea Manning).
 
With regard to the ABC reporters 'inaccurate' reporting on the Flyn indictment I have to ask in what way is the correct version better?

Chief investigative reporter Brian Ross reported that Mr Trump was a candidate when he directed Michael Flynn to make contact with Moscow.
He later corrected his report to say Mr Trump was president-elect when he gave the order to Mr Flynn. Mr Ross has been suspended by the network for four weeks.
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42215767

To me that seems considerably worse or am I missing something?
 
Garrison said:
With regard to the ABC reporters 'inaccurate' reporting on the Flyn indictment I have to ask in what way is the correct version better?



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42215767

To me that seems considerably worse or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Well, the general idea is that there is nothing immediately unethical about a president-elect seeking early contact with world leaders, which is true enough -- as long as you aren't concerned about what was discussed and you aren't curious about why all the lies were told, trying to cover it up.
 
Garrison said:
With regard to the ABC reporters 'inaccurate' reporting on the Flyn indictment I have to ask in what way is the correct version better?



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42215767

To me that seems considerably worse or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Inappropriate communications while he was a candidate would support the allegations that Trump coordinated with the Russians to influence the election. Communications after the election would presumably be about something else. If they can plausibly claim that they just talked about how to fight ISIS more effectively, then it won't seem like such a big deal even if it was technically illegal.
 
BobTheCoward said:
How do you determine what should be on there? Is it fair to put on the DOJ ending an investigation when you have no evidence of a quid pro quo?
Click to expand...

I am only putting a small fraction of what I see in some of the more comprehensive timescales.

This one, for example: http://billmoyers.com/story/trump-russia-timeline/

The DoJ unexpectedly stopping an investigation and settling with what seems like a pretty feeble outcome is interesting given the people involved. I would say that it isn't a smoking gun, but it is smoke that looks like gunsmoke, and should be investigated.

If you also hear a gunshot, the smoke is a place to look. (I don't think I am torturing the analogy too much)


plague311 said:
This has been bugging me. Technically, they didn't "drop" the money laundering case. They settled it:



I'm not sure if you guys meant "drop" as in "they didn't care so they took whatever", but the case was settled. It was just really pathetically settled.
Click to expand...
OK Amended:


Mar 19| Podesta email hacked
Apr 19| DCLeaks.com registered
May 3| Trump becomes presumptive nominee
June 3| Goldstone contacts Trump Jr. to setup meeting which promises to discuss Clinton June 7 17:16 | Don Jr. confirms meeting w/ Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya June7 21:13 | Trump promises press conf the next week with Clinton dirt
June 8| Trump posts link to DCLeaks
June 9| Trump Jr, Kushner, Manafort meet with Russian operative
June 12| Assange announces Clinton emails
June 27| Hacked emails posted to DCLeaks
July 11| Trump/Manafort nix pro-Ukranian plank in GOP platform (and lie about it)
Late July | Malware researchers spot unusual server activity between Trump server and Alfa Bank
Aug 21| Roger Stone writes "it will soon be Podesta's time in the barrel"
Oct -7 | Pussygate video released
Oct 7| Wikileaks releases Podesta emails (an hour later)
Dec- 29 | Flynn Consults With Transition Team, Then Calls Kislyak
Dec 30 | Putin Declines to Retaliate
2017 |
Jan 15 | Pence Says He Is Unaware of Flynn’s Discussions
Jan 26| Sally Yates meets White House Counsel and warns that Flynn is lying and the Russians can prove it - making him a blackmail risk
Feb 9| Flynn’s Conversation Is Revealed by WaPo
Feb 13 | Flynn fired
Feb 14 | White House Says Flynn Violated President’s Trust
Feb 14| Trump asks FBI Director Comey to drop investigation into Flynn
May 9| Comey is fired
May| DoJ settles money laundering case against client of Natalia Veselnitskaya
May 11| Trump tells NBC he considered "this Russia thing" before firing Comey
May 12| Democrats ask questions about the DoJ settling the money laundering case*

Summer 2017| Trump "repeatedly" urges top Senate Republicans to end Senate Intelligence committee Russia investigation**




*
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...bout-settlement-involving-trump-linked-lawyer
The U.S. agreed on May 12 to take $5.9 million to settle the lawsuit tied to a $230 million Russian tax fraud, avoiding a trial that was set to begin the following week.

In a separate statement Wednesday, the top Democrat on the Judiciary panel, John Conyers of Michigan, said, “The connections here are too substantial to ignore. Why was a Russian money-laundering case involving more than $230 million dismissed without explanation?"

The Justice Department attempt to seize a lower Manhattan condominium acquired by the Russians and other assets began four years ago with then-Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara filing the claim. Bharara was fired along with other U.S. attorneys in March by Trump and Acting Manhattan U.S. Attorney Joon Kim, Bharara’s successor, announced the settlement in May.

"Was the firing of Preet Bharara in any way related to his office’s prosecution of these crimes? Wittingly or unwittingly, was the Department of Justice involved?" the Democrats wrote. “Even if these facts are mere coincidence -- and there is reason to be doubtful that they are mere coincidence -- they merit immediate explanation by the Attorney General and immediate investigation by the House Judiciary Committee"
Click to expand...


---------------------------------------------

**
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/us/politics/trump-russia-senate-intel.html

WASHINGTON — President Trump over the summer repeatedly urged senior Senate Republicans, including the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, to end the panel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, according to a half dozen lawmakers and aides. Mr. Trump’s requests were a highly unusual intervention from a president into a legislative inquiry involving his family and close aides
Click to expand...

Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat who is a former chairwoman of the intelligence committee, said in an interview this week that Mr. Trump’s requests were “inappropriate” and represented a breach of the separation of powers.

“It is pressure that should never be brought to bear by an official when the legislative branch is in the process of an investigation,” Ms. Feinstein said
Click to expand...
 
BobTheCoward said:
Neither the legislature nor judicial can employ any executive resources to investigate.
Click to expand...

But Congress passed the laws that govern the structures (including compartmentalization of certain offices) of those Executive Departments. It also holds the purse strings.

ETA: I believe it is currently Rosenstein (Dep. AJ) who has the most direct ability to hamper Mueller via rejecting requests for resources and funding to operate the Office of the Special Counsel. Rosenstein has indicated he'd recuse himself if the investigation came his way (a nod in the direction of his not being stupid).
 
Last edited:
According to a great legal mind (and Twitter user), it's impossible for the President to obstruct justice since he's the chief law enforcer in the country.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
But Congress passed the laws that govern the structures (including compartmentalization of certain offices) of those Executive Departments. It also holds the purse strings.

ETA: I believe it is currently Rosenstein (Dep. AJ) who has the most direct ability to hamper Mueller via rejecting requests for resources and funding to operate the Office of the Special Counsel. Rosenstein has indicated he'd recuse himself if the investigation came his way (a nod in the direction of his not being stupid).
Click to expand...

The legislature cannot use executive power to retain the services of any executive officer. He can fire attorneys using prosecutorial discretion until his voice is hoarse.
 
Cain said:
According to a great legal mind (and Twitter user), it's impossible for the President to obstruct justice since he's the chief law enforcer in the country.
Click to expand...

Or as Nixon once said:

"When the President does it, then it is not illegal."
 
BobTheCoward said:
That is presidential discretion. If he orders no attorney will pursue it or be fired, no (federal) attorney has the power to pursue it and not get fired.
Click to expand...
Technically that doesn't mean that "When the President does it, then it is not illegal." If someone breaks the law then a crime has been committed, regardless of whether it is investigated and/or charges are laid.
 
Segnosaur said:
Technically that doesn't mean that "When the President does it, then it is not illegal." If someone breaks the law then a crime has been committed, regardless of whether it is investigated and/or charges are laid.
Click to expand...

But if the district attorney looks at your case and say, "you are wrong junior attorney, there is no crime here," then it gets really weird if that means a crime was committed or not.
 
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politics/manafort-bail-russian-intelligence/index.html

Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was ghostwriting an op-ed while out on bail last month with a Russian who has ties to the Russian intelligence service, Justice Department Special Counsel Robert Muller's team said Monday.

In a new filing Monday afternoon, Mueller's investigators said Manafort was working on an editorial in English as late as last Thursday and that it related to his political work for Ukraine, which factored into his money-laundering and foreign lobbying criminal charges.

The filing asks for the court to revisit a bail agreement Mueller's office and Manafort's lawyers made jointly last week. The court had not yet approved a change to his $10 million unsecured bail and house arrest.

stupid watergate.
 
quadraginta said:
And we all know how well that worked out for him.

Of course, today's GOP has vocally and demonstrably abandoned any pretext toward what morals and ethics they may have had claim to in the past, so the end result might be different in this case.
Click to expand...

A president can be impeached for not committing obstruction. Impeachment is a political process and is unconcerned with resolving questions of criminality.
 
Cain said:
According to a great legal mind (and Twitter user), it's impossible for the President to obstruct justice since he's the chief law enforcer in the country.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that the president is the person in the country in the best position to obstruct justice being the chief law enforcer.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Technically that doesn't mean that "When the President does it, then it is not illegal." If someone breaks the law then a crime has been committed, regardless of whether it is investigated and/or charges are laid.
Click to expand...
But if the district attorney looks at your case and say, "you are wrong junior attorney, there is no crime here," then it gets really weird if that means a crime was committed or not.
Click to expand...
Uhhh... no. Even if that district attorney says "no crime here", that doesn't mean that the crime wasn't committed.
 
Gawd, these guys get their talking point out and just repeat it over and over louder and louder.

Clinton lied to the FBI and nothing happened to her. [Fact is, no she did not.]
Clinton and the DNC paid the Russians for dirt on Trump. [Fact is, no they did not.]

Reality matters not.


BTW, all this focus on obstruction seems to be at the expense of the 'of what' in that sentence. There's still the issue of who in that crowd coordinated with Russia during the campaign and what was the quid pro quo?
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Gawd, these guys get their talking point out and just repeat it over and over louder and louder.

Clinton lied to the FBI and nothing happened to her. [Fact is, no she did not.]
Clinton and the DNC paid the Russians for dirt on Trump. [Fact is, no they did not.]

Reality matters not.
Click to expand...

They paid for Russian dirt.
 
Childlike Empress said:
The well-known Guardian propagandist Luke Harding has written a book about the CT, with the promising title "Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win". Here's a review.
Click to expand...
A transparent and inept hatchet job.

Example :
"The second thing to note is that Harding’s modes of argumentation and standards of evidence are not – how can I be polite about this? – what I’m used to as an academic. Let’s take the example of Trump’s former convention manager, Paul Manafort, to whom Harding devotes an entire chapter, obviously on the basis that the Trump-Manafort connection somehow proves a Trump-Kremlin connection."
Click to expand...
"Obviously because" hardly meets the standard of evidence an academic would expect, does it?

Obviously Trump has played a minor and late part in Manafort's career, which easily fills a chapter and fleshes out the character that Trump got himself involved with.

And, yes, Luke Harding is the genius who is responsible for that the WikiLeaks State Department Cables landed in full and unredacted on the internet, because the idiot printed the password to the archives in his book about Assange's outlet (and in particular that leak by Chelsea Manning).
Click to expand...
Your point being?
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
The last time I was on a jury, the judge gave us a definition of what "reasonable doubt" is.
Click to expand...

It is state specific with no federal standard

https://illinoiscaselaw.com/no-reasonable-doubt-definition-for-the-jury/

In 1994, the United States Supreme Court considered whether the jury instructions defining “reasonable doubt” in two state criminal cases violated due process. See Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1, 6 (1994). This decision established that:

“The beyond a reasonable doubt standard is a requirement of due process, but the Constitution neither prohibits trial courts from defining reasonable doubt nor requires them to do so as a matter of course. Indeed, so long as the court instructs the jury on the necessity that the defendant’s guilt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the Constitution does not require that any particular form of words be used in advising the jury of the government’s burden of proof. Rather, ‘taken as a whole, the instructions [must] correctly conve[y] the concept of reasonable doubt to the jury.’ ”
Click to expand...


Illinois courts strongly discourage providing a reasonable doubt definition to a jury. See People v. Speight, 153 Ill. 2d 365, 374 (1992).

“The law in Illinois is clear that neither the court nor counsel should attempt to define the reasonable doubt standard for the jury.” Reflecting this sentiment, there is no recommended jury instruction that would provide such a definition. See Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Criminal, No. 2.05, Committee Note 78 (“The Committee recommends that no instruction be given defining the term “ ‘reasonable doubt.’”).
Click to expand...
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Republican primary candidates paid to generate said Russian dirt.

This is where the tapatalk signature that annoys people used to be
Click to expand...

And then Democrats paid to receive it. I don't understand what additional modification your post is attempting to accomplish.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom