Collusion with Russia

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

It’s not beyond the realm of possibility. 

If he does I'll be calling him Teflon Don.

[iNow]

Here's a pretty handy link. Interactive timeline of every single publicly-known interaction between Russians and Trumps:

http://billmoyers.com/story/trump-russia-timeline/

Edited February 2, 2018 by iNow

[Ten oz]

"Coats says that Russia utilized social media as a relatively "cheap and low risk" opportunity to sow dissension in the U.S.  He said in the eyes of Russia, it "offers plausible deniability and is proven to be effective at sowing division."

He said that Russia will "continue using propaganda, social media, false flag personas and sympathetic spokesmen to build on its wide range of operations and exacerbate social and political issues in the U.S."

Coats noted that Russia perceived its past influence as "successful" and aims to use the 2018 midterm elections as a potential target. 

Director Pompeo added that intelligence officials have yet to sees a "significant decrease" in Russian activity as it pertains their influence in U.S. elections and social and political issues. "

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/christopher-wray-mike-pompeo-dan-coats-testify-on-worldwide-threats-live-stream/

 

Both Dan Coats the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and Mike Pompeo the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) were appointed by Trump. They are not Democrat deep state plant. Both acknowledge under oath both the Senate today to Russia perceives their influence in the 2016 election successful and have continue to seed division. Meanwhile Trump himself continues to challenge whether Russia did anything a lot with regards to the 2016 election. Even if a person choose to ignore the fairly obvious fact that at a minimum Trump's campaign willfully and knowingly accepted help from Russia propaganda they should still be upset that Trump continues run defense for Russia to this day.  

[Phi for All]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43984180

Trump lost Ty Cobb today, his top lawyer for the Russian collusion enquiry. Is it telling that Cobb decides to retire a week after Mueller's questions for Trump come out? My imagination tells me if he thought he had a chance to successfully defend the POTUS from these charges, he'd jump at the chance to make this his last great case. 

[Ten oz]

11 hours ago, Phi for All said:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43984180

Trump lost Ty Cobb today, his top lawyer for the Russian collusion enquiry. Is it telling that Cobb decides to retire a week after Mueller's questions for Trump come out? My imagination tells me if he thought he had a chance to successfully defend the POTUS from these charges, he'd jump at the chance to make this his last great case. 

Considering Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen has found himself the subject of investigation is it easy for me to image Cobb may have either been asked to do something or became aware of things that led him to fear the same fate. Giuliani who recently joined Trump's legal team has taken a different approach attempting to clarify previous lies. Giuliani concedes that Trump paid Cohen back the $130,000 which went to Porn Star Stormy Daniels. While the pay off isn't related to collusion the admission shows Giuliani appears to understand that lying publicly about matters which are under investigation is problematic. Meanwhile the questions Mueller would ask Trump pointedly address what Trump new about the hacks, his team meeting with Assange, outreach to Putin by his team, what potential assurances Trump made Russia about sanctions and shift U.S. policy in Ukraine. All of which definitely appear to happened. Manafort, Flynn, Coats, Stone, and Gates have already been indicted. The questions are about what Trump knew and when he knew it. Whether or not it happened appears to have been decided. 

 

[Ten oz]

FFS, now Trump's lawyer is arguing that collusion with Russia isn't even a crime. 

Quote

 

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, said Monday that he's not sure collusion with Russia would be considered a crime.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/30/politics/rudy-giuliani-collusion-crime-cnntv/index.html

 

 

[swansont]

11 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

FFS, now Trump's lawyer is arguing that collusion with Russia isn't even a crime. 

 

Technically it's not (there is no crime called "collusion"), but the acts that fall under the collusion, in this case, are indeed crimes.

[iNow]

Correct, which is why obstruction of justice is the path with higher probability of success

[Ten oz]

50 minutes ago, swansont said:

Technically it's not (there is no crime called "collusion"), but the acts that fall under the collusion, in this case, are indeed crimes.

Treason is a crime and it seems that working with a hostile country to attack our constitutional election process amd infastructure fits the bill. Also when one knowingly colludes with those committing crimes it makes them an accessory to those crimes. The Russian cyber attacks we're criminal which is why there have been indictments. If Trump colluded with Russia he is an accessory to their crimes. So while "collusion" itself isn't a specific crime treason and accessory are and collusion is the proof.

Quote

 

18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

 

Quote

 

18 U.S. Code § 3 - Accessory after the fact.

Whoever, knowing that an offenseagainst the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

 

 

[swansont]

20 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Treason is a crime and it seems that working with a hostile country to attack our constitutional election process amd infastructure fits the bill. Also when one knowingly colludes with those committing crimes it makes them an accessory to those crimes. The Russian cyber attacks we're criminal which is why there have been indictments. If Trump colluded with Russia he is an accessory to their crimes. So while "collusion" itself isn't a specific crime treason and accessory are and collusion is the proof.

 

Treason may be hard to show, since we are not formally at war with anyone. But there are election laws that have been violated, and then there's the coverup and all the lying, which constitute obstruction of justice.

Remember, Nixon was not part of the planning for the Watergate break-in, but got in trouble for being part of the coverup. And the Russian hacking is a lot like the Watergate break-in — illegally getting information about your opponents. With Trump, though, it's the prior knowledge and involvement of a foreign government that makes this much worse.

[Ten oz]

39 minutes ago, swansont said:

Treason may be hard to show, since we are not formally at war with anyone. But there are election laws that have been violated, and then there's the coverup and all the lying, which constitute obstruction of justice.

Remember, Nixon was not part of the planning for the Watergate break-in, but got in trouble for being part of the coverup. And the Russian hacking is a lot like the Watergate break-in — illegally getting information about your opponents. With Trump, though, it's the prior knowledge and involvement of a foreign government that makes this much worse.

The intelligence and military communities have repeatedly labelled what Russia did an attack against the country. A president who aided and abetted in a hostile foriegn attack against their own nation is definitely worse than Watergate. Nurmerous crimes have been committed. It is lack of political will and not of sufficient laws on books or lack of procedures that prevent Trump's impeachment. 

[Scott of the Antares]

So in a similar vein, would foreign people trying to sway U.K. politicians and electorate during and after Brexit be held to the same account?

There have been plenty of European funded reports (super impartial I’m sure lol) that have been banded around the U.K. media warning of the dangers of Brexit. I remember Obama being wheeled out to warn the electorate against a leave vote; is that a similar meddling? And all of the Canadian Mark Carney’s apocalyptic warnings failed to materialise when he predicted they would.

I suppose at least these partisan ‘project fear’ prongs were out in the open, but then they would have to be if they wanted to effect the outcome.

[StringJunky]

5 minutes ago, Scott of the Antares said:

So in a similar vein, would foreign people trying to sway U.K. politicians and electorate during and after Brexit be held to the same account?

There have been plenty of European funded reports (super impartial I’m sure lol) that have been banded around the U.K. media warning of the dangers of Brexit. I remember Obama being wheeled out to warn the electorate against a leave vote; is that a similar meddling? And all of the Canadian Mark Carney’s apocalyptic warnings failed to materialise when he predicted they would.

I suppose at least these partisan ‘project fear’ prongs were out in the open, but then they would have to be if they wanted to effect the outcome.

Mark Carney, as Governor of the Bank of England, is independent of the government. He can only say what he thinks. He hasn't got a crystal ball. The difference between the America and British banking governors would be that if the British government had been pro-leave, he most likely, would have said exactly the same as he did then.

[Scott of the Antares]

What you say is true String, but when one world leading expert after another have their predictions shown to be laughably incorrrect, you have to start wondering what is going on behind the scenes.

I wouldn’t go as far as to it suggest collusion in this instance, but Carney’s words have a strong influence in the electorate and probably some in the government. And practically everything he has predicted failed to pass. I know we are all capable of making mistakes and nobody has a crystal ball , but this guy ... geeesh.

And whilst not trying to derail the thread, I wondered how posters itt viewed powers outside the U.K. interfering, or worse, making threats about our referendum result? Is that not the thrust of the Trump/Russia topic?

[StringJunky]

26 minutes ago, Scott of the Antares said:

...Carney’s words have a strong influence in the electorate and probably some in the government....

I think you need to be mindful that Carney is a player in the game and, as such, will be acutely aware of the possible consequences of his words. It's not beyond the realms of a person like  him to say what he did, fully aware of the possible outcome but played it differently.  One may act or say in a way that  appears contrary to what wants in order to steer things in what one thinks is a safer direction. 

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, Scott of the Antares said:

And all of the Canadian Mark Carney’s apocalyptic warnings failed to materialise when he predicted they would.

Well he addressed that in an interview:

Quote

MC I suspect that’s probably right. We can compare time sheets afterwards. We did think, though, that the exchange rate would go down. We took a lot of heat for saying that in advance, but it was the easiest call one could make, probably the easiest call I’ve seen in macro in 25 years in terms of what was going to happen to the exchange rate if the vote went a certain way. It did. We thought inflation was going to rise, we thought the economy would slow. And all of those have transpired. Every prediction, every forecast, every comment in that environment has been amplified. But I think the institution was well-prepared, and because it was well-prepared, the financial system was well-­prepared. And because the financial system was well-prepared, the transition has been better. And we instantly turned to supporting the government as required during those negotiations.

It is fair to say that the worst part of the predictions were off the mark (specifically the recession bit). Yet, he is in pretty good company with many other economists. Why that happens is of course due to the unpredictability of the situation. There is not a lot of data one could model the predictions on (as it has not happened before) and as such assumptions were made that turned out to be inaccurate to various degrees. Yet some other aspects were rather robustly predicted. That being said, predicting economy is always challenging and I would not quite suspect malice at that point. 

Papers are starting to appear which discuss why certain predictions were inaccurate including the use of flawed analyses that overstimated certain costs. That being said, a lot of the actual cost will remain uncertain until the actual form of Brexit is revealed. Approaches that focus on tariff models under a hard Brexit still predict significant economic loss by 2030, for example.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Scott of the Antares said:

So in a similar vein, would foreign people trying to sway U.K. politicians and electorate during and after Brexit be held to the same account?

There have been plenty of European funded reports (super impartial I’m sure lol) that have been banded around the U.K. media warning of the dangers of Brexit. I remember Obama being wheeled out to warn the electorate against a leave vote; is that a similar meddling? And all of the Canadian Mark Carney’s apocalyptic warnings failed to materialise when he predicted they would.

I suppose at least these partisan ‘project fear’ prongs were out in the open, but then they would have to be if they wanted to effect the outcome.

The issue with the US is not simply Russian influence or interference, it's that a campaign/candidate was actively involved, which is in violation of the law.

I have no idea if a similar situation was present in Brexit.

[CharonY]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

The issue with the US is not simply Russian influence or interference, it's that a campaign/candidate was actively involved, which is in violation of the law.

I have no idea if a similar situation was present in Brexit.

I'd suspect the rules would be very different, especially as the referendum was not legally binding (well, and in a different country). However, the leave campaign has been fined for violating electoral laws

 

Quote

Brexit campaign group Vote Leave has been fined £61,000 and referred to the police after an Electoral Commission probe said it broke electoral law.

The watchdog said it exceeded its £7m spending limit by funnelling £675,315 through pro-Brexit youth group BeLeave.

The founder of BeLeave, Darren Grimes, has been fined £20,000 and referred to the police, along with Vote Leave official David Halsall.

Vote Leave said the "wholly inaccurate" report was politically motivated.

 

[detricky]

This is more about the DNC hack commented by former NSA whistleblower William Binney. Interesting to hear. He claims that there was no hacking. The thing was downloaded to a usb stick (ie directly from within the DNC servers. A person had to infiltrate the DNC) and there is no way that a potential hack was even possible when looking at the evidence. 

 

[Ten oz]

16 hours ago, Scott of the Antares said:

So in a similar vein, would foreign people trying to sway U.K. politicians and electorate during and after Brexit be held to the same account?

There have been plenty of European funded reports (super impartial I’m sure lol) that have been banded around the U.K. media warning of the dangers of Brexit. I remember Obama being wheeled out to warn the electorate against a leave vote; is that a similar meddling? And all of the Canadian Mark Carney’s apocalyptic warnings failed to materialise when he predicted they would.

I suppose at least these partisan ‘project fear’ prongs were out in the open, but then they would have to be if they wanted to effect the outcome.

Public figures making public statements is not the same as illegal clandestine activity executed by military officials. Obama did not instructed the CIA to infiltrate the computer networks of pro Brexit officials, program bots to spread erroneous information throughout social media, attempt to (and perhaps accomplished) hacking voting machines, and etc. Foreign political figures can publicly chime in with their opinion all they want. It is arguably their job to do so. That is not criminal. It is criminal to breach private secured networks to steal and manipulate data. 

19 hours ago, iNow said:

Correct, which is why obstruction of justice is the path with higher probability of success

It was a low probability that Republicans could successfully block Merrick Garland from SCOTUS for a year and a low probability Trump would be elected. The right dominates all branches of govt and hold more local elected offices nationally despite consistently receiving less support, what is the probability of that? 

I had the displeasure of being at an event a couple weeks back where Karl Rove was on a panel taking questions. When asked about the Mueller investigation and the possibility of impeachment he laughed that holding any politician accountable for anything is always a political process and not a legal one and that Trump cannot be held accountable because his supporters are simple stronger in their support than are his detractors in their opposition. I am no fan of Karl Rove but he was right. This is a political fight and not a legal one. Trump's campaign broke numerous laws. Numerous Trump officials have already plead guilty. The legal side here is already a slam dunk but that isn't going to stop Trump from seating another SCOTUS Justice.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

The right dominates all branches of govt and hold more local elected offices nationally despite consistently receiving less support, what is the probability of that? 

Pretty high when you're willing to put winning above country and protection of freedoms, when party is placed above country and ends justify means.

Good points throughout your post. Not a lot of sunshine and positive vibes, though hard to disagree. My guess is (to paraphrase the NRA): The only thing that stops a bad guy with intensity is a good guy with intensity.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, detricky said:

This is more about the DNC hack commented by former NSA whistleblower William Binney. Interesting to hear. He claims that there was no hacking. The thing was downloaded to a usb stick (ie directly from within the DNC servers. A person had to infiltrate the DNC) and there is no way that a potential hack was even possible when looking at the evidence. 

It's disputed by the FBI, CIA, NSA and others, and I doubt it matters how the information was obtained, if it was obtained illegally and was facilitated by the Russian government.

[Ten oz]

3 hours ago, detricky said:

This is more about the DNC hack commented by former NSA whistleblower William Binney. Interesting to hear. He claims that there was no hacking. The thing was downloaded to a usb stick (ie directly from within the DNC servers. A person had to infiltrate the DNC) and there is no way that a potential hack was even possible when looking at the evidence. 

Russian intelligence services also attack the the U.S. election infrastructure targeting election machines in several keys states and stealing voter data. The scope of the election meddling is not limited to the DNC. 

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Good points throughout your post. Not a lot of sunshine and positive vibes, though hard to disagree. My guess is (to paraphrase the NRA): The only thing that stops a bad guy with intensity is a good guy with intensity.

Indeed, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a mirror. 

Edited July 31, 2018 by dimreepr

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Pretty high when you're willing to put winning above country and protection of freedoms, when party is placed above country and ends justify means.

Good points throughout your post. Not a lot of sunshine and positive vibes, though hard to disagree. My guess is (to paraphrase the NRA): The only thing that stops a bad guy with intensity is a good guy with intensity.

We do not have to become them to defeat them. There are a million ways to stop a bad guy with intensity but none will work if none are tried. Many people want something done but assume someone else will do it. That the Mueller investigation will conclude with tangible legal action against Trump. It won't. Trump will pardon those important to him and Republican's in Congress won't move against him. This is a political fight. No legal team will be swooping in and fixing anything.